Who Controls Hawaiʻi’s Elections Commission? Supreme Court Asked to Decide Whether Office of Elections Can Block Its Oversight Commission From Meeting

Who Controls Hawaiʻi’s Elections Commission? Supreme Court Asked to Decide Whether Office of Elections Can Block Its Oversight Commission From Meeting

HONOLULU, Hawaiʻi — A case now before the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court raises a fundamental question about who ultimately controls the ability of the Hawaiʻi Elections Commission to meet and carry out its responsibilities: the Commission itself, or the Office of Elections that the Commission was created to oversee.

The dispute arose after the term of Elections Commission Chair Michael Curtis expired on June 30, 2026, leaving the Commission without a chair. Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay sought administrative support from the Office of Elections so the Commission could hold a public meeting, organize itself, and elect a new chair or temporary chair.

The Office of Elections refused to provide that support. In a July 8 email, the Office expressly stated that it would not provide administrative support for a proposed July 14 Commission meeting.

Cushnie and McKay filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court on July 8. The petition relies on HRS §11-1.5(b), which states that the Office of Elections “shall provide staff support to the elections commission, as requested by the elections commission.” The Commissioners argue that the Office’s refusal prevented the Commission from satisfying the public-notice requirements necessary to lawfully convene.

The problem became more significant when the Commissioners attempted to find another way to hold the meeting. The Office of Information Practices advised that the Commission could independently arrange its own remote-meeting technology, but it still had to distribute notice to people on the Commission’s mailing list. The Commissioners say the Office of Elections controlled that mailing list and neither distributed the notice nor provided the list so the Commissioners could do it themselves.

The case then took an unusual turn. On July 14, Chief Justice Vladimir Devens recused himself from the proceeding. The following day, Circuit Judges Peter Cahill and Dyan Medeiros were assigned to sit with the Supreme Court in place of the recused Chief Justice and because of a vacancy on the Court.

On July 17, the Supreme Court ordered the Office of Elections to answer two specific questions: whether it had failed or refused to provide staff support to the Elections Commission under HRS §11-1.5(b), and whether any such failure prevented the Commission from meeting to elect a chairperson.

The Office of Elections argues that no valid request for support was made because individual commissioners cannot act for the Commission. Its position is that a request must come through authorized Commission action or a sitting chair.

Cushnie and McKay argue that this creates an impossible circular requirement: the Commission must first meet and vote before the Office will provide support, but the Commission cannot lawfully meet and vote without the administrative support and mailing-list access the Office is withholding.

Their July 28 reply puts the issue directly before the Court. According to the Commissioners, the Office’s interpretation would require majority Commission action before support can be requested, while simultaneously preventing the meeting at which that majority action could occur.

The dispute also raises a broader oversight question. The Elections Commission was created by the Legislature to oversee the Office of Elections. The 2004 legislation establishing the Commission expressly states that its purpose was to create “a commission to oversee the office of elections.”

Meanwhile, efforts to convene the Commission continued. Requests were made for proposed meetings on July 21, July 28, and August 4. According to the supplemental filing, the Office of Elections did not distribute the notices, provide the mailing list, or otherwise provide the requested assistance.

The practical result is straightforward: since the former chair’s term expired June 30, the Hawaiʻi Elections Commission has been unable to meet, elect its own leadership, or conduct Commission business.

The case, Cushnie & McKay v. Nago, SCPW-26-0000498, is fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.

At its core, the case presents a question that reaches beyond the immediate dispute:

Can the government office being overseen withhold the administrative support necessary for its oversight commission to meet and govern itself?