The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on October 30, 2026, that the Elections Commission must be allowed to meet even in the absence of a chairperson. This decision affects the functioning of the Commission, which oversees elections in Hawaii, and clarifies the process for convening meetings. The ruling highlights the importance of transparency and public access to the Commission's activities.
The case, Cushnie v. Nago, SCPW-26-0000498, arose when two members of the Elections Commission, Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay, petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Office of Elections to provide necessary support for the Commission to hold meetings, which had been stalled for months due to a lack of leadership and communication among members.
The Elections Commission was established in 2004 to oversee the Office of Elections, which manages elections in Hawaii. The Commission is composed of nine members, eight of whom are appointed, and it has the authority to appoint a chief election officer. However, since June 30, 2026, the Commission has lacked a chairperson, preventing it from meeting and conducting essential business.
The dispute arose when the Office of Elections refused to provide the necessary staff support for the Commission to meet. The Office maintained that support would only be offered if requested by a chairperson or a majority of the commissioners after a public meeting. This created a catch-22 situation, as there was no chairperson to make the request, and the Commission could not meet to vote on a chairperson.
The court found that the Elections Commission has the power to call meetings even without a chairperson. Judge Eddins stated, "When the Commission has no chairperson and no way to set a meeting, a single member may ask the Office for the staff support a meeting requires." This ruling allows any single commissioner to request the necessary support to convene a meeting, ensuring that the Commission can fulfill its duties.
The court emphasized the importance of the Commission's independence and the need for transparency in its operations. The ruling also clarified that the Office of Elections must provide support to the Commission as mandated by law. The court granted the writ, allowing the Commission to proceed with its meetings and responsibilities.
The ruling has significant implications for the Elections Commission and its ability to function effectively. It reinforces the principle that the Commission must be able to meet and conduct its business without undue interference from the Office of Elections. This decision is expected to pave the way for the Commission to elect a new chairperson and resume its essential functions, including overseeing elections and addressing any violations or complaints.
Moving forward, the ruling sets a precedent for how state agencies can operate when faced with leadership vacancies. It underscores the importance of maintaining public access to government processes and ensuring that elected officials can perform their duties without unnecessary obstacles.
The court's decision can be appealed, but it is unclear if the Office of Elections will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending at this time. The ruling marks a significant moment in Hawaii's electoral governance, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency in the electoral process.
