Decker IV v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
26-AUG-2022
10:39 AM
Dkt. 10 FFCL
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
DANIEL B. DECKER IV, Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, Defendant.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff Daniel B. Decker IV
(Plaintiff) submitted a document entitled “Election Complaint;
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP” (complaint),
which was filed as an election contest complaint. On August 22,
2022, Defendant State of Hawai#i Office of Elections (Defendant)
filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Upon
consideration of the complaint and motion to dismiss, and having
heard this matter without oral argument, we enter the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 17, 2022, the court received a document
from Plaintiff that was filed as an election contest complaint.
2. In the document, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
“failed to properly apply the qualification process, as per
statute, upon the Hawaii Republican Party . . . for the year 2022
Primary Election.” Plaintiff asserts that the Hawai#i Republican
Party “should not have been placed on the 2022 Primary ballot,
and should have been disqualified as an active party that is not
in compliance and is not in good standing as a ‘Party.’”
3. Plaintiff requests the following relief:
(a) The Hawai#i Republican Party name be barred
from appearing on the 2022 general election ballot;
(b) Nullification of the 2022 primary election
and results; and
(c) That this court “accommodate all Legally
Qualified Candidates that have registered as ‘Republicans’” by
listing them as nonpartisan on the 2022 general election ballot.
4. Plaintiff cites Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS)
§§ 11-173.5 and 11-174.5 as conferring the court with
jurisdiction over this matter.
5. Plaintiff also cites to HRS §§ 11-63 through 11-65
and HRS §§ 12-2, 12-8, and 831-2, as well as the United States
Constitution and Hawai#i Administrative Rules.
6. Defendant asserts that the complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. When reviewing a request to dismiss a complaint,
the court’s review “is based on the contents of the complaint,
the allegations of which [the court] accept[s] as true and
2
construe[s] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94
Hawai#i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 (2000) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
2. When considering a request to dismiss a complaint,
the court need not accept conclusory or formulaic recitations on
the legal effects of the events alleged. Kealoha v. Machado, 131
Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225 (2013).
3. HRS § 11-172 (Supp. 2021) governs election
contests and provides in relevant part: “With respect to any
election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly
interested, or any thirty voters of any election district, may
file a complaint in the supreme court. The complaint shall set
forth any cause or causes, such as but not limited to, provable
fraud, overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in
the election results.”
4. HRS § 11-173.5 (2009 & Supp. 2021) provides for
contest for cause to be filed in the supreme court involving
primary elections, special primary elections, and county
elections held concurrent with a regularly scheduled primary or
special primary election.
5. HRS § 11-174.5 (2009 & Supp. 2021) provides for
contests for cause to be filed in the supreme court involving
general elections, special general elections, special elections,
3
or runoff elections.
6. HRS § 602-5 (2016) sets forth the jurisdiction and
powers of the supreme court.
7. HRS §§ 11-62 through 11-65 (2009) address
political parties, which include qualification requirements and
determinations of party disqualification.
8. HRS §§ 12-2 (Supp. 2010) and 12-8 (2009 & Supps.
2011, 2012) address when the primary election is to be held and
candidates, as well as objections to nomination papers.
9. Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and viewing
them in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the complaint
or the relief he seeks. See Tataii v. Cronin, 119 Hawai#i 337,
339, 198 P.3d 124, 126 (2008) (“A complaint challenging the
results of [a general] election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to
state a claim unless the plaintiffs demonstrate errors that would
change the outcome of the election.” (Quoting Akaka v. Yoshina,
84 Hawai#i 383, 387, 935 P.2d 98, 102 (1997))); Funakoshi v.
King, 65 Haw. 312, 316, 651 P.2d 912, 914 (1982) (“By the
omission of language providing for the invalidation of an
election and the allowance of a new election in HRS
§ 11–173.5(b), the legislature clearly intended that the only
remedy that could be given for primary election irregularities
was the statutory remedy of having this Court decide which
candidate was nominated or elected.”).
10. Barring the Hawai#i Republican Party name from
4
appearing on the 2022 general election ballot, nullifying the
2022 primary election and results, and requiring all qualified
candidates who have registered as Republicans to be listed as
nonpartisan on the 2022 general election ballot are not remedies
provided by HRS § 11-173.5(b) (“[t]he judgment shall decide what
candidate was nominated or elected”) or HRS § 11-174.5(b) (“The
judgment may invalidate the general . . . election on the grounds
that a correct result cannot be ascertained because of a mistake
or fraud on the part of the voter service center officials; or
decide that a certain candidate, or certain candidates, received
a majority or plurality of votes cast and were elected.”).
11. The complaint thus fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
JUDGMENT
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, judgment is entered dismissing the complaint.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 26, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
5