The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling on September 1, 2026, in the case of De La Cruz v. State, SCEC-26-0000599, affecting the outcome of a primary election for District 44 State Representative. The court ruled against Blessings De La Cruz, an unsuccessful nonpartisan candidate, who contested her exclusion from the general election ballot. This decision is significant as it reinforces the rules governing election candidacy in Hawaii, particularly for nonpartisan candidates.
Blessings De La Cruz filed her election contest complaint on August 24, 2026, shortly after the primary election held on August 8, 2026. In that election, De La Cruz received only 41 votes, which was substantially lower than her partisan opponents. The court's ruling stems from her argument that the state law, which governs the eligibility of nonpartisan candidates, is unconstitutional and unfairly prevents her from advancing to the general election.
The parties involved in this case are Blessings De La Cruz, the plaintiff, and the State of Hawaii, represented by the Office of Elections and Chief Election Officer Scott T. Nago. De La Cruz's complaint challenged the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 12-41(b), which outlines the requirements for nonpartisan candidates to qualify for the general election. De La Cruz argued that the law's different treatment of partisan and nonpartisan candidates violated her equal protection rights.
The case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court after the State filed a motion to dismiss De La Cruz's complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment on August 28, 2026. The court reviewed the complaint and the motion without oral argument, leading to the issuance of its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment.
The court ruled that De La Cruz did not meet the minimum requirements set forth in HRS § 12-41(b) to qualify for the general election. The law states that a nonpartisan candidate must receive at least ten percent of the total votes cast for the office or a number of votes equal to the lowest vote received by a partisan candidate who was nominated. In this case, De La Cruz received only 41 votes, which is less than ten percent of the total votes cast (2,929), and did not meet the threshold to advance.
The court stated, "Plaintiff did not receive the minimum number of votes required under HRS § 12–41(b) to advance to the November 3, 2026 general election."
The ruling was made by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens and Associate Justices Sabrina S. McKenna, Todd W. Eddins, Lisa M. Ginoza, and Keith K. Hiraoka. The court's decision also referenced previous cases, including Hustace v. Doi, which upheld the constitutionality of HRS § 12-41 and its requirements for nonpartisan candidates.
This ruling has implications for future elections in Hawaii, particularly for nonpartisan candidates. It clarifies the legal standards that must be met to advance to the general election and reinforces the existing laws that differentiate between partisan and nonpartisan candidates. The decision may discourage future challenges to the election process based on claims of unequal treatment under the law.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if De La Cruz will appeal the decision. The court's ruling appears to be final unless further legal action is taken. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court's opinion.