NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-14-0001317
24-NOV-2014
01:09 PM
An electronic filing was submitted in Case Number SCEC-14-0001317. You may review the filing through the Judiciary Electronic Filing System. Please monitor your email for
future notifications.
Case ID: SCEC-14-0001317
Title: THOMAS WATERS, a/k/a TOMMY WATERS, Petitioner, vs. SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections Officer; STATE OF
HAWAII OFFICE OF ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU, in her official capacity as the City Clerk of the City &
County of Honolulu, Respondents.
Filing Date / Time: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014 01:09:28 PM
Filing Parties: James Kawashima
Case Type: Election Contest
Lead Document(s): Complaint
Supporting Document(s):
If the filing noted above includes a document, this Notice of Electronic Filing is service of the document under the Hawai`i Electronic Filing and Service Rules.
This notification is being electronically mailed to:
James Kawashima (
[email protected] )
The following parties need to be conventionally served:
Bernice K.N. Mau
Scott Nago
Aaron Schulaner
This filing type incurs a fee of $165.00. You must pay by credit card or in person.
1 of 1
NO
Filed
HAWAII
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF Electronically
Supreme Court
SCEC-14-0001317
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
)
24-NOV-2014
WATERS
)
01:09 PM
)
Petitioner,
)
)
VS
)
)
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents
)
)
)
)
COMPLAINT
DECLARATION OF THO MAS WATERS
EXHIBITS 'fA"
-
"H"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ, #1145
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 275-0300
Telephone
(808) 275-0399
Facsimile
E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
No:
No:
Attorney for Petitioner Thomas Waters
COMPLAINT
The petitioner, THOMAS WATERS, a/k/a/ TOMMY WATERS, by
his attorney James Kawashima, Esq., hereby complains and avers as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1, This is an original action by the petitioner before the Hawaii
Supreme Court to contest, for cause, the respondents' conducting of the
following general election, including the reported results of the November 4,2014
general election to determine who shall be the councilmember for the elective
office of City and County of Honolulu Council District 4 ("District 4 election"),
wherein the respondents erroneously reported said election's results to be that
candidate Trevor Ozawa prevailed over candidate Waters by 41 valid ballots
cast, when in fact respondents miscounted or misapplied more than 41 valid
ballots cast therein thereby causing a situation that could have caused a
difference in the election results.
2.
ln summary, petitioner THOMAS WATERS ("Waters") avers that
said results should not be certified, and that either (1) a new general election be
conducted if there is an abnormality that is such that the correct result of election
cannot be ascertained, or (2) a particular candidate won the election if after
correcting the election abnormality that could have caused a difference in the
election results, a winner of the election can be ascertained.
3. Count I of the complaint
avers that the respondents miscounted
74 ballots cast as being totally blank in regards to voting in the District 4 election,
2
when those 74 ballots had actually been validly cast for either candidate Waters
or candidate Ozawa, with said miscounting being a cause, within the meaning of
HRS, 51 1-172, that could cause a difference in the outcome of the District 4
election. The petitioner prays that the supreme court should order that the 4,455
allegedly totally blank ballots be manually counted in an honest and fair manner
by human beings to determine which of those 4,455 supposedly totally blank
ballots were actually the74 ballots which were validly cast in the District 4
election, re-tally the vote in the District 4 election based on the result of counting
these 74 validly cast ballots were first erroneously determined to be totally blank,
with the supreme court declaring who actually prevailed in the District 4 election
after construing this re{ally of votes.
4.
Count ll of the complaint avers that the respondents mishandled
the 11 overages and 39 underages which existed in the District 4 election. This
mishandling of the overages and underages could have caused a difference in
the election outcome in the District 4 election. ln both manual and machine
elections, HRS,
S1
1-153 defines an overage as a situation where there are more
ballots cast than the poll book indicates were issued. An overage occurs, rnfer
alia, in the "ballot stuffing" situation, i.e., when someone pilfers ballots, marks the
pilfered ballots and intermingles these pilfered ballots with ballots which have
been validly cast, An underage occurs, inter alia, in the "ballot destruction"
situation, i.e., when someone obtains and sees which candidate is voted for on a
validly cast ballot, dislikes that vote and then destroys the validly cast ballot.
J
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
5.
Upon completion of the General Election on November4, 2014,
petitioner, through his counsel James Kawashima, caused to be sent by U.S.
Mail and by facsimile transmission to the Office of Elections a letter dated
November 10,2014 (See Declaration of Thomas Waters attached hereto),
requesting information including:
a. What the margin of error for the system utilized
by the Office of
Elections;
b. That the "overage" and "underage" figures for each precinct
in
our district be verified;
c. The 4,451 reported
"blank" votes/ballots be investigated for
accuracy and validity;
d. The 16 "over votes" be reviewed
in accord with operating
procedures by which you are governed; and
e.
As there may be other tests and investigative processes that are
available to you that may be applied/utilized to verify the results, we were
not limiting our requests in any way by making the foregoing specific
requests.
6.
As there was absolutely no response, even to acknowledge
receipt of our inquiry, on November 13, 2014, a second letter (see Declaration of
Thomas Waters) was transmitted to the same addressee by U.S. Mail and
facsimile transmission indicating
:
4
a.
Our concern that nothing had been heard from the office, even
the courtesy of an acknowledgement;
b.
Our concern that the deadline by which action needed to be
taken was rapidly approaching;
c. A plea to be informed
as to where the Office was in responding
to our requests;
d, A request that the Office agree to an extension of time, if
allowed by law, within which to file; and
e.
An offer to meet personally to discuss these matters;
7. As there was again, absolutely no response to our repeated requests
for information, petitioner, on November 14,2014 caused to be sent by e-mail
transmission a THIRD plea for information (see Declaration of Thomas Waters).
8. Then, and only then, on that same afternoon, on November 14,2014
did the Office of Elections reply, with a terse reply devoid of any meaningful
information and further devoid of answers to almost all of the questions
previously posed (See declaration of Thomas Waters).
9. Thereafter, other correspondence was received from the Office of
Elections
on:
(See declaration of Thomas Waters)
a.
An emailed letter dated November 19,2014, the Office of
Elections provided a copy of the Statewide Summary and a matrix of the
overages and underage for each precinct in Honolulu City Council District
lV. The state wide summary had not changed from what had been
5
reported the day following the General Election. The matrix indicated an
overage total of 13 and underage total of 39;
b.
Later the same day, the Office of Elections emailed another
letter dated November 19,2014. The letter was identical to the previous
letter dated the same day, however, the statewide summary was different.
The number of votes had changed, with no explanation whatsoever.
Candidate Ozawa gained four votes to 16,374, Candidate Waters gained
nine votes to 16,333, the blank votes increased to 4,455 and the over
votes remained the same at 16. The race was now separated by 41
votes;
c.
On November 20, 2014 the Office of Elections emailed a fourth
letter enclosing an updated version of the overages and underages for
the Honolulu City Council District lV race. The overage of two absentee
mail ballots in District/Precinct 22-02 has been reduced to zero ballots due
to two federal write-in absentee ballots that were counted but were not
initially recorded as received;
None of the foregoing letters responded to all of the information
requested and one even quoted INCORRECT figures between what was
contained in that letter and a cursory reference to the Final Survey of
Votes.
6
JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESSS
10. The above entitled court has jurisdiction over this matter under
HRS,
SS1
1-172 and 11-174.5. Said statutory provisions provide, in pertinent
part, that, inter alia, a contest to the results to the instant general election shall be
for cause and shall be filed with the above entitled court not later than the
twentieth day following the general election being contested.
11. ln the present case, the general election being contested was
conducted on Tuesday, Novemb er 4, 2014.1 Under HRAP, Rule 26(a), statutory
deadline for filing is November 24. The instant complaint has been timely filed,
since it was filed on Monday, November 24,the twentieth day following the
foregoing general election, The above entitled court has originaljurisdiction over
this matter under HRS, SS 11 -172 and 11-174.5 because the instant cause of
action concerns the contesting, for cause, of the results of the foregoing general
election.
PARTIES
12. Petitioner Waters was a candidate in the foregoing general
election for the elective office of councilmember for District 4 of the City & County
of Honolulu Council, and resides within District 4.
13. Respondents Scott Nago, in his capacity as the Chief Election
Officer of the State of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii Office of Elections are,
pursuant to HRS, Chapter 11, responsible for the conducting of all State of
t
Hereinafter, unless otherwise noted, all dates shall refer to ihe year 2014,
7
Hawaii elections for all elective governmental offices for all State of Hawaii
(State). ln addition, said respondents are responsible to and/or have in practice
or pursuant to an agreement materially aided the municipal and county
governments in the State of Hawaii conduct their elections for elective offices in
their respective governments, including but not limited to tallying the ballots cast
in said municipal and/or county elections and reporting the election results
thereof. Said respondents reside in and have their principal place of business
in
the State.
COUNT
I
14. On or about November 4, respondents chief elections officer
Nago, office of elections and city clerk Mau conducted a general election to
determine , inter alia, who shall be elected as the councilmember for District 4.
Petitioner Waters and Mr. Trevor Ozawa were candidates in said general election
contest for District 4.
15. Said respondents tabulated the ballots cast and reported in the
latest "final" tally of ballots cast given to petitioner on November 19, (as
demonstrated infra, this latest "final" tally conflicts with the respondents'first
"final" tally by 16 ballots) that the result of that District 4 election was allegedly
that:
(a)
16,374 valid ballots were cast for candidate Ozawa;
(b) 16,333 valid ballots were cast for candidate/petitioner Waters;
(c) 4,455 totally blank ballots were cast;
8
(d)
16 ballots were cast where the voter cast a vote for both
candidates Ozawa and Waters;
(e)
An HRS, 511-153 overage of 11 ballots/votes existed; and
(0
An HRS, S11-153 underage of 39 ballots/votes existed.
16. ln actuality ,74 of the ballots that were cast which the
respondents claimed were totally blank were actually cast for either candidates
Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and Waters;
17. The foregoing fact that 74 of the so-called totally blank ballots
were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and
Waters, is buttressed by the State of Hawaii Legislative Auditor's 1999 "Report of
the Election Oversight Committee" (see declaration of Thomas Waters) wherein
the Legislative Auditor's fact finding concluded that:
"Blank votes occ ur when a voter does not select a candidate in a
race or mismarks a ballot. ES&S explained that the blank vote count
was higher on the lF central counters because thev fthe electronic
oick uo lreadl maroinal marks
ballot countinq machinesl do
Report at p. 19
The report went on to give pictorial examples where such partially
marked ballots did not fully black out the oval on the ballot which is supposed to
be totally blacked out, Some of these examples showed that the box to be
blacked out had a check mark in it, an "X" mark in it (in prior Hawaii State
elections an "X" mark was required to be made in the box), or had a line through
the box next to the name of the candidate who was being voted for;
18, This Legislative Auditor's report made a factual finding that
0.2% of all voters "mismarked" their ballots in the manner stated above.
9
Respondents reported that 37,178 valid, "blank" and over vote (both candidates
were voted for) ballots were cast). Two tenths of a percent (0.2%) of said ballots
cast equals 74 ballots, Using the Legislative Auditor's foregoing finding of fact, it
is clear thal74 "blank" ballots were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa,
Waters or both Ozawa and Waters, but were counted as totally blank because
the electronic reading machines utilized in the foregoing election were not acute
enough to detect the ballots whose boxes were not totally blacked out but where
the voters' choices of candidates were clear;
19. The foregoing is also supported by the following circumstantial
evidence and legal inference. On or about November 10, petitioner's campaign
chairman and attorney, James Kawashima, inquired in writing to respondents
Nago and State Elections Office that they "investigate the 4,451 reported 'blank'
votes for accuracy and validity" and report the results of said investigation to Mr.
Kawashima. Said respondents have possession, dominion and control over the
"blank" ballots for the instant District 4 general election. As of the date of the
filing of this complaint, none of the respondents have, much less the foregoing
respondents who have possession, dominion and control over the "blank" ballots
for the instant District 4 general election, have responded to Mr. Kawashima's
foregoing request for information regarding a closer examination of the "blank"
ballots to discern whether said ballots were indeed cast for a candidate in the
District 4 election;
20. lt is a well established legal inference and conclusion from
circumstantial evidence that when a party who has possession, dominion or
10
control of crucial evidence fails to disclose that crucial evidence, it is legally
inferred and concluded in giyi! cases2 that the withheld evidence, if produced
would be adverse to the party in possession of the withheld evidence and would
materially support the case of the party requesting the evidence, e.9., lnterstate
Circuit v. U.5., 306 U.S. 208,226 (1939), ln applying this well established
inference, ín Anderson v. lJ.S., 185 F.2d 343
(Sth
Cir. 1950) in applying this
inference against Anderson opined as follows: "The intent necessary in the case
may be inferred as a matter of circumstantial evidence from the facts (citations
omitted). The pertinent and controlling evidence was within his knowledge and it
was within his power to explain the circumstances connected with the
transaction, yet he declined to testify. "His silence may well count against him,
as against any other civil litigant.' (citation omitted);"
21. Thus in the instant case, the foregoing inference and
circumstantial evidence clearly supports the Legislative Auditor's finding of fact
that74 "blank" votes were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or
both Ozawa and Waters;
22. Further evidence
of the respondents' misconduct or at the very
least negligence vis-â-vis the tallying of ballots cast is the switching or shifting
results of the election for District
4. lnitially, respondents'
"final" tally of District 4
ballots was: Ozawa = 16,371; Waters = 16,324; Blank = 4,451; Over Votes = 16.
However, on November 19, respondent Office of Elections issued a letter to Mr.
Kawashima which attached to it what respondent Office of Elections described in
2
Of course in criminal cases, the constitutional right against self incrimination prevents such an inference
from being reached.
11
its letter as "a copy of the final Statewide Summary (new final tally)." ln the
November 19 new final tally: candidate Ozawa had gained 3 ballots cast;
candidate/petitioner Waters gained 9 ballots cast; "Blank" votes gained 4 ballots
cast; and Over votes remained the same at 16 ballots cast. This resulted in
narrowing the gap between candidates Ozawa and Waters down to 41 ballots
cast from 47 ballots cast. This new final tally added 4 new supposedly blank
ballots. This new final tally added 16 new ballots cast to the total amount of
ballots cast. This latest discrepancy, when added to the multitude of errors
committed by the respondent clearly warrants the factual finding that the at least
74 "blank" ballots which were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters
or both Ozawa and Waters;
23. HRS, 511-172 provides that a petitioner successfully contests
the results of an election, such as the general election at bar, if the petitioner
demonstrates that the respondents engaged in improper conduct, the result of
which could cause a difference in the election results.
24.
ln Akizaki v. Fong,51 Haw. 354 (1969), this court interpreted
and applied a more stringent criteria for overturning an election which existed in
the predecessor of HRS, S11-172 in a general election context and held that
where votes that were invalid because said votes were submitted in a tardy
manner were inextricably intermingled with votes that were valid because they
were timely submitted, with said invalid votes being in an amount that exceeded
the difference in the difference in votes between the candidate who had enough
t2
votes to win the election and the candidate who had the next less votes, a new
election shall be ordered.
25. By reason of the premises, the petitioner contends that the
criteria in HRS, 51 1-172 HAVE BEEN MET. The fact that there are 74 ballots
that were cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and Waters
but were counted by the respondents as totally blank, definitely is cause that is
sufficient to find that said actions could have caused a difference in the election
results;
26. HRS, 51 1-174.5 provides that if the "mistake or fraud" of the
respondent which could have caused a difference in the election results is of
such a nature that "a correct result [of the election] cannot be ascertained," then
a new election shall be ordered. That statutory provision further provides that if
the mistake or fraud is of a nature that after it is corrected or remedied, "a certain
candidate or certain candidates received a majority or plurality of the votes cast
and were elected," than a judgment shall be served upon the chief election officer
or county clerk, who shall sign and deliver to the candidate or candidates
certificates of election,
27. ln the instant case, once the respondents
mistake or fraud of
tallying 74 ballots casted for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa
and Waters as totally blank ballots is corrected by counting by hand all of what
the respondents deemed to be "blank" ballots, with witnesses from both
candidates being present to observe the hand counting of said "blank" ballots,
then the Supreme Court can readily discern which candidate received a majority
13
of the valid ballots cast. Thus, after the foregoing correction is made, the
supreme court should discern whether candidate Ozawa or candidate Waters
received a majority of the valid ballots cast, and thus was elected as
councilmember for District
4. After making such a determination, the Supreme
Court should issue a judgment to that effect and deliver the same to respondent
City Clerk with the order that she shall issue a certificate of election to the
candidate who was elected.
COUNT
II
28. The averments set forth, supra, in paragraphs 1 through 27 are
re-alleged in this count ll of the complaint.
29.
The respondents admitted that there were 11 overages within
the meaning of HRS, S11-153. Thus, 1 1 more ballots were issued and voted
than the amount of ballots that were supposed to have been issued and voted
according to the District 4 poll books.
30. The respondents admitted that there were 39 underages within
the meaning of HRS, S11-153. Thus, 39 ballots which were validly issued and
voted according the District 4 poll books "disappeared" and were not counted.
31. The foregoing indicates that 50 ballots that issued and voted
were intermingled with valid ballots that had been voted, and counted when they
were not supposed to have been counted, or were issued and voted and yet not
counted when they were supposed to have been counted.
t4
32. Petitioner Waters contends that the criteria in HRS, 511-172
have been met, inasmuch as the foregoing fraud or mistakes of the respondents
in counting ballots 11 ballots that should not have been counted and not counting
39 ballots that should have been counted could have caused a difference in the
results of the District 4 election. This is especially so, since HRS,
S1
1-153 gives the specific examples of the counting of HRS,
S1
S1
1-172 and
1-153 overage
ballots and not counting HRS, S153 underage ballots as being causes for the
invalidation of election results. These frauds or mistakes are of such a nature
that the correct result of the election cannot be ascertained.
33. By reason of the premises, the Supreme Court should order
that a new election shall be conducted for the office of District 4 councilmember,
The Supreme Court should order that this new election shall be by mail-in ballot
only so as to economically remediate this already costly error of the respondents.
WHEREFORE, petitioner Waters prays that this court:
1.
Order that a count of the so-called "blank" ballots cast in the District 4
election be hand counted to determine who was actually voted for on
these so-called "blank" ballots, and based on the results thereof,
determine who was elected as the District 4 councilmember, and issue an
order to respondent City Clerk ordering her to issue a certificate of
election to that elected person.
2.
ln the alternative, petitioner Waters prays that a new general election be
conducted for District 4 via mail-in ballots only, with the respondents
15
being ordered to correctly tally said ballots and issue a certificate of
election to the winner thereof.
3.
Petitioner Waters further prays that this court order that the respondents
herein be ordered to pay the petitioner all costs incurred in prosecuting
this matter, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees; and
order such further relief that this court deems just and proper, including,
but not limited to:
a.
Ordering the Office of Elections to fully cooperate with petitioner in
answering the various questions posed in previous
correspondence;
b.
Allowing petitioner to view various results of the election, including
any documents and/or instruments utilized in tallying the final
results; and
c.
Allowing petitioner to complete a minimal amount of discovery over
a period of time not to exceed two calendar weeks, assuming the
Office of Elections cooperates with petitioner.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014.
/S/ JAMES KAWASHIMA
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ
Attorney for Petitioner
16
NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
WATERS
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
VS.
)
)
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents
)
)
)
)
DECLARATION OF THOMAS WATERS
THOMAS WATERS, hereby states and declares as follows:
1.
2.
3.
I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter.
t make the declarations herein on personal knowledge.
Attached as Exhibit
"4" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from James Kawashima to Scott Nago dated November 10,2014.
4.
Attached as Exhibit r'8" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from James Kawashima to Scott Nago dated November 13,2014.
5.
Attached as Exhibit r¡C" is a true and correct copy of an email
to Scott Nago dated November 14,2014.
6.
Attached as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 14,2014.
7.
Attached as Exhibit"E" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 19,2014.
8.
Attached as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 19,2014.
8.
Attached as Exhibit rrc" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Aaron Schulaner to James Kawashima dated November 20,2014.
9.
Attached as Exhibit '¡H" is a true and correct copy of the
Report of the Election Oversight Gommittee on the Audit of the 1998 General
Election dated March 31, 1999.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014.
/S/ THOMAS WATERS
THOMAS WATERS
J,tUrcS I(,IWa.SIIIMA
ALC
TRIAL CONSULTANT
November
VTA
10,
2OL4
& U.S.
FACSTMT
Sender's Information:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mail:
[email protected]
MATL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii
Attention
96182
Mr- Scott Nago
Chief El-ections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Election
and Count
a
f
or
Dear Mr. Nago
f
am writing to you as Campaign Chair and Counsel for the
Waters Committee for Cit.y Council. We would be remiss in
noL extendíng our appreciation for the fine work of you and your
office in carrying out a difficult. election very welt. As you
have said in Lhe past.r /o1r were "just doing your job, " and t.hat
was accomplished very well under very trying circumst,ances.
Tommy
fn the case of our race, the outcome was decided on a
report.ed 47 vole dif f erence between my opponent and myself . hlith
a total turnout of a reported 3'7,1-62 vot,ers casting bal1ots, we
woul-d think that difference t,o be well within the margin of error
of the system you utilize.
May I ask what the margin of error is
wlth the system utilized?
!üe are t.herefore requesLing that t.he I'overag:e" and
Itunderagert figures for each precinct. in our district be verified
and investÍgated for possible errors. We also request that you
invest.igate the 4,457- report.ed "bfank'r votes for accuracy and
valídity.
While perhaps not rel-evant Lo our inquiry, we also
request that the L6rrover vot.es'r be revj-ewed in accordance wít.h
t.he operating procedures by which you are governed.
UHIBff k
Topa Financial center, Fort street Tower
.745 Fort street, su¡te 5oo . Honolulu, Hawa¡¡ 96813 . rEt 808.275.0300 . FAX 9oa.275.o3gg
-
Office of Electi-ons
November 10, 201"4
Page
2
I¡fe realize that there may be other test.s and investigat.ive
processes Lo be applied to verify the results and we are not
limiting our request in any way by making the above specific
requests. Please apply every test or process available to you in
making sure the result was accurate and valid.. I provide contact
information below should you wísh to d.iscuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request that you keep us informed. of
your progress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our rights and time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your time, patience and service to the people
of Hawaiti.
Very truly
k"-.
,JAMES KAhTASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
James Kawashima, Esq.
James Kawashima, ALC
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolu1u, Hawai-i 968l-3
(808) 275-0304
(808) 27s-0399 (rax)
j koj kalc. com
Thomas lVaters
1130 Nimítz Highway
Suite B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii
(808)
968L7
354-1-1-78
tommywatersl@me. com
Committee, Chair
J¿.rvlrcS
l{aw,tsrrlrrtA
ALC
Sender's Information:
Dlrect: (808) 275-0304
E-mail : jlgej-l<e.k-gog
TR'IAL CONSULTANT
November 13, 201-4
VIA
FACSTMTLE S.
U.S.
MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl Cit.y, Hawaii
Attention
Re:
96'782
Mr. Scot.t Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Results of 2Ol4 General Election for
City and County of Honolulu Dist.rict
4
Dear Mr. Nago:
On Monday, November 1-0, 2074 , I transmitted the attached
lett.er t.o your office by fax and regular mail but I have yet to
Lrear from you, even to merely acknowledge receipt of the letter.
I realize this is a very busy and difficult time for your office
because of deadlines yolr have, but, in our case, the 20 day
deadline to take legal action is approaching even more rapidly
than yours.
Is it possible to inform us of where you are in respondj-ng
to our inquiry? Also, ilây T assume that you will not object to
our seeking a lengthening of t.he deadline (assuming that is even
possible) if, by your actions or inaction, additional time is
needed to take 1ega1 action?
I stand ready Lo meet and discuss any and all issues at your
convenj-ence and at your office.
Mahalo for your courtesies.
Very truly yours/
Att,achment
cc: Thomas
'JAMES KAIVASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign
R
Committee, Chair
Waters
EX}IIBIT þ
-
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower '745 Fotl Street, Suite 5OO ' Honolulu, Hawaii g6Aß - TEL 8OB.Z75.O3O0 . rAX eOA.275.O3gg
J¿,rurcs l(ew¿'sFrrM¡'
ALC
TRiAL CONSULTANT
Sender's Information:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mail : ik@-ikal-c. com
November 10, 20L4
VTA FACSTMTLE & Ü.S. MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii
Attention
96782
Mr. Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Election for
Citw and Countw of Honolul-u District
4
Dear Mr. Nago:
f
am writing to you as Campaign Chair and Counsel for the
hlaters committ,ee for city council. tüe would be remiss in
not extending'our appreciation for the fine work of you and your
office in carrying out, a difficult election very well. As you
have said in the pastr /o1r were rrjusL doing your job,,' and t.hat
was accomplished very well under very trying circumst.ances.
Tommy
fn tlre case of our race, Lhe outcome was decided orl a
reported 47 voLe dífference between my opponent and myself. With
a total turnout. of a report.ed 3i,!62 voLers casting ballot,s, w€
would think that difference to be wel-l within the margin of error
of the syst.em you uti-lize. May f ask what the margin of error j-s
with the system utilized?
We
are Lherefore requesting that. the "overager and
'runderag'e't figures for each preci-nct j-n our district be verified.
and investígat.ed for possible errors. we also reguest. t.hat. you
investigat.e t.he 4,457- reported "blank" voLes for accuracy and
validity.
While perhaps not relevant to our i-nquiry, we also
request that the L6 trover votes" be reviewed in accordance wíth
the operati-ngi procedures by which you are governed.
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower
'745 fort Street, Suite
5OO . Honolulu, Hawai¡
g6Aß
--rEL BOB.Z75.O3OO . FAX BOg.Z7S.O3gg
Office of Electi-ons
10, 20L4
November
Page 2
tüe realize that there may be other tests and j-nvestigative
processes to be applied to verify the results and we are not
limiting our request in any way by making the above speci-fic
requests. Please apply every test or process available to you in
making sure the result was accurate and valid. I provide con¡act
information below should you wish t.o d.i-scuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request that you keep us informed of
your progress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our ríghts and time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your tíme, paLience and service to the people
of Hawai'i.
Very truly
*äJAMES KAWASHTMA
Tommy !üaters Campai-gn
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
lTames Kawashima, Esg.
.Tames Kawashima, Al,C
745 Fort Street, Sui_te 500
Hono1ulu, Hawaii g6BL3
(808) 27s-0304
(808) 275-0399 (rax)
-j k@i kalc.
com
Thomas ?rlaters
1130 NimÍtz Highway
Suite B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii
968L7
(808) 3s4-1-L78
Lommvwatersl-@me. com
Committee, Chair
Chervl R. Kitazaki
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheryl R. Kitazaki
Friday, November 14,2014 10:54 AM
'elections@hawaii. gov'
James Kawashima
Results of 2014 General Election for City and County of Honolulu District 4
DOCOO9.PDF
Mr. Nago:
I assume you received the attached, but am sending the
two letters faxed and mailed to you this week.
Thank you,
Cheryl Kitazaki
Legal Assistant
James Kawashima, ALC
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 27s-03s0
The information contained in this message or attached hereto is between attorney and client and, therefore privileged and confidential. The use of
Copying,dissemination,or
thisinformationisintendedforthesoleuseoftheindividualand/orentitynamedastherecipientofthistransmittal,
ofthenamedrecipienthereunder. lfyouhave
distributionofthismessageoritsattachmentsisstrictlyprohibitedwithoutthepriorapproval
received this communicat¡on in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (808)275-0300 or by return e-mail, and delete the original
message. Your cooperation is appreciated.
U}lIB¡T c
1
J¡.rwNS I{ew,tSI{IM¿.
ALC
TRIAL CONSULTANT
November
VÏA
1-3
,
Sender's InformatÍon:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mai1:
[email protected]
20L4
FACSTMTLE 6.
U.S. MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii
Attention
Re
96792
Mr. Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Result.s of 20L4 General Elect.ion for
City and Countv of Honolu1u District
4
Dear Mr. Nago:
On Monday, November l-0 , 2074, T t.ransmj_Lted the attached
lett.er to your offj-ce by fax and regular mail but r have yet. to
lrear from you, even to merely acknowledge receipt. of the letter.
I realj-ze this is a very busy and difficult. time for your office
because of deadlines yoLr have, but, in our case, the 2A day
deadline to take 1egal action is approaching even more rapidly
than yours.
Is it possible to j-nform us of where you are in respond.ing
Lo our inquíry? Also, may f assume that you will not object to
our seeking a lengtkrening of t.he deadline (assuming that is even
possible) íf , by your actions or inaction, add.itional t,ime is
need.ed to take legal act.ion?
I stand ready to meet and discuss any and all issues at your
convenience and at your office. Mahalo for your courtesies.
Very truly yours,
Att,achment
cc: Thomas R
JAMES KAWASHTMA
Tommy lriaters Campaign CommitLee,
Chair
Waters
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street
Tower'745 Fort Street, Suite 50O.Honolulu. Hawaii 96813.TEL 8O8.275.03OO.FAX e}e.ZTS-O3gg
J.ttrrns l{,twesrrrM¿'
ALC
lRIAL
November
VÏA
10,
CONSULTANT
Sender's Tnformation
Dj-rect: (808) 275-030,
E-mai1:
[email protected]¡
20L4
6. U.S. MATL
FACSTM
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl CiLy, Hawaii 96782
Attention
Mr- Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Elect.ion for
Ci-tw and Countw of Honolulu District
4
Dear Mr. Nago:
r
am wrj-ting to you as campaign chair and counsel for the
Waters CommiLt.ee for City Council. I¡fe would be remiss in
not extendingf our appreciat.ion for the fine work of you and. your
office in carrying out. a difficult elect.ion very well. As you
have said i-n Lhe past, !o\t r¡/ere "jusL doing your job, " and tkrat
\¡/as accomplished verY well under very trying circumstances.
Tommy
fn the case of our race, Lhe ouLcome was d.ecided on a
reported 47 vote difference between my opponent and myself. With
a t,otal turnout. of a reported 37,L62 voters castingf ballots, w€
would lhink that. difference to be well within the margin of error
of the system you utiLize. May I ask what. the margin of error is
wiL}- the sysLem utilized?
We are tlrerefore requesting that the t'overage" and
trunderage, figures for eackr precinct in our district be verified.
and investigated for possibl-e errors. tVe also reguest. that you
investigate the 4,45L reported .blank' votes for accuracy and.
validity.
While perhaps not. relevanL to our inquiry, we also
request. that the L6trover voLes" be reviewed in accordance with
the operati-ng procedures by which you are governed.
Topa Financial center, Fort Street Tower
'745 Fart street, suite 5oo . Honolulu,
Hawaíi
g6aß .fEL 9o8.275.Q300
. FAX 808.275.o39g
Office of Elections
10, 2OA4
Novemþer
Page 2
We realize that there may be ot.her tests and investigative
processes t.o be applied to verify the result.s and we are not.
limiting our request in any way by making the above specifíc
requests. Please apply every test or process available Lo you in
maki-ng sure the result was accurate and. val1d. f provide cõntact,
information below should you wish Lo d,iscuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request thaL you keep us informed of
your prog:ress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our right.s
time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your time, patience and. service to the people
of Hawai ' i.
and.
Very trul !1 fourS,
<t^
JAMES KAI^IASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
James Kawashíma, Esg.
'-Tames Kawashima, Ä&C
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii
968L3
(808) 27s-0304
(808) 275-0399 (Fax)
i k@i
lc
-
com
Thomas lrlaters
1130 Nimitz Hi-ghway
Sui-te B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii 968L7
(808) 354-La7s
t
atersl- @me. com
Committee, Chair
James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
[email protected]
Friday, November 14,2014 4:27 PM
James Kawashima
City and County of Honolulu, District 4
Letter to James Kawashima - November 14 2014.pdf
Hard copy to follow
ENHIBIT D
1
-
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
802 LEHUA AVENUE
PEARL CITY, HAWAII 96782
M.hawâiÌ. gov/€lections
November 14,2A14
James Kawashima, Esq.
745 Foft. Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
This is in response to your November 10, 2014 and November 19, zo14
letters
There are a variety of things that must be done after an election before we
can finalize the results. We are currently involved in that process. Upon the
conclusion of that process, we will issue a final summary report of the election
results and forward you a copy, along with the overage and underage related to
the precincts associated with yciur contest.
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Officer
STN:AHS;cr
oE-14-262
James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Attachments:
[email protected]
Wednesday, November 19,2014 2:03 PM
Response to James Kawashima 11110 and
oE-14-265.PDF
ilHIBI
1
t
11113114 Correspondence
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
SCOTT T, NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
802 LEHUAAVENUE
96782
www.hswåll.Bov/€lectlons
PEART CITY, HAWAII
November 19,2014
Mr. James Kawashima
745 Forl Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Thank you for your letters dated November 10 and 13, 2014. Attached is a
copy of the final Statewide Summary.
Also attached is a matrix of the overages and underage for each precinct
in Honolulu City Council District lV. Please note that voters in district-precinct 2602 received an absentee ballot only, pursuant to Act 100, Session Laws of
Hawaii 2012.
lf you have any further questions, please contact'Auli'i Tenn, Counting
Center Operations, at 453-VOTE(8683).
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Otficer
STN:AT:cr
oE-14-265
Enclosures
c:
TommyWaters
Trevor Azawa
Bernice Mau, City Clerk
psge
GENERAL ELECT¡ON 2014 - Ståte of Hawall -Slatowldê
1
Novsmbor 4, 2014
Pr¡ntÊd
SUMMARY REPORT
on:
f 1/0120'14 at 0'1:26:20 âm
.FINAL SUMMARY RËPORT"
Statø Sênalol Dlst 17
U,S. Sanalot Vacancy
SloÍ6 R6presentaliye, Dist
I
247 o1247
246,770
97.983
(O) SCHATZ, Brlãn
(R) CAVASSO, Csm
{L) KOKOSKI. Mlcha€l
86.Ayo
(D) NlSHllìARA, Clar€nc6
26.5%
ll'ICtEMENIE Rôôâr
8,936
2.4yo
I
I
64.80lo
27.5ø/o
s73
2
Blank Votes:
Ovgr Volos:
43%
15,774
Blank Votêsr
Ovgr Votes:
8,312
3.531
of
7 oî7
(0) SOUKI, Joe
lRì KÀPOl Cr¡ñslôî Kâlâlslôhe
7.6v.
Elank Voles:
0.oo/o
Ov€rVoles:
6,369
2.716
60.870
73ø
5
8.3%
0.1%
3,522
r.6ô6
ø't,5%
0.0%
Sfatê Senator, Dlsl
l8
Slale Roprssenlat¡yo, Olst r0
U.S. Represanlal¡ve, D¡sl I
I
113 of'113
93,360
86,415
(D) TAKAI, Mark
lR) DJOU. Chãrlos
Blank Volss:
Ov€r Vol€s:
51.2%
47,40/o
2,365
1.3./6
58
0.0%
(DlKlOANl, M¡cholls
(R)KlM, Denn¡s C.H.
lL) BANôA Râvñônd lll
Elank Vole6:
Ov€r Vot€s:
5
of 0
10,253
54.6%
(D) MCKELVEY, Angur L.
7,345
39.1¡l.
lRì MARTEN. Châhê M
389
769
I
2.1ro
B¡ank Vot6s:
4.1ã/o
Ov6rVotÊs;
6
ll
Slslo Saralor, Oßl
134 of
141,998
33,624
(O) GABBARD, Tulsl
(R) CROWLEY, Kewlka
Elank Votes:
Ovôr Vol€6:
(D) SHIMABUKURO, Mallo S.L.
17.5%
lRì kLJ Tercíâ L
6,078
2.868
(O) lNG, Kani6la
64.870
ll I BROÔK P¡l
30.6%
433
6
Blank Voles:
Over Vol€s:
3,7./o
11
4
6 ol5
'134
2.5%
66t
7
6
Govanor and Llaulanant Govarnot
I
Blank Volosi
Ovêr Vologi
181.065 49.0%
135,742 3A.f%
42,525 11.1Vo
6.3S3 1.70/o
2,998 0.8vo
431
íl ì ARIANôFF Grêôôru lkôbâlrì
BlankVotes:
Ov6r Vol6s:
11,838
'1.860
8,50/0
16.2%
s08
1
l.aolo
8lånk Volos:
Over Vglesi
377
10
0.10l"
11
13,814 /0.ö%
J¡il N.
4,625
1,073
4
Blank Votô8:
Ov6rVolos:
20 .7o/o
852
7
6.90/.
O.1o/o
11
(D) KEIIH-AGA!ìAN, Gll S, Coloma
I,Itg
64.r%
lRl KAMAI(A. Joâ
4,149
27.íVo
BlankVot€s:
Ov€r Vol€s:
1,172
7.8%
0,1%
t0
g
of 0
(R) DUBOIS, Jar€d P. (P¡ka)
f ì KAAHIll
1.196
9.4'/.
1,349
't0.6yo
Êrôn.ôñ Kêkrhilñâ
BlEnk Vot€s:
OvêrVoles:
13
56.80/.
23.0ô/o
0,1%
6þ14
Mark M,
578
2
Blank Volgs:
OwVoto6:
of
I
f5.11o
17.4y.
1,452
WÊlNÊRl. Erlc Drâkê
6.9%
(D) GALUTERIA, Srlokwood M.
lRì I FTHFM Chíi
BlankVotos:
OvârVoles:
(L) . LIBÊRTARIAN
6,426 53¡%
4,544 37.8o/.
1,046
10
5.10Ã
5,367
67.3%
1,892
23.7%
(O) TOKIOKA, Jsmss Kunano
¿Rì
YôDÉR SIêvå
of 5
717
1
9.0%
0.07o
(O) MORIKAWA, Dayn6tto (Dee)
5,320
6€,8%
lR| FRANKS. Vlctorlâ {Vlcklel
1,A12
22.70/.
836
10.570
2
0,0%
Slank Votes:
Ova¡VolêE:
State Representative, D¡st 16
6
f
/l ì FôGF|
Bir¡
ol7
5,076
69.9olt
997
13.7%
all f
Fr.d F
371
3
Blank Volos:
OvêrVotss:
.2õÀ
BlEnk Votes:
OvsrVoleÊ:
o16
5.1o/o
0.070
Stats Reprøsontallva, D¡st 17
4 al4
State Re precø ntallva, D i sl 4
JOy
A,
lRì THOMAS. Câru
Blank Volôs:
Ov6r Volos:
4.337
68.0%
'1,719
26.9%
319
4
5,0%
0,10/c
7,5?3
2,665
(R) WARO. Gsn€
lDl STtIMP Chr¡s
412
6
6lank Voles;
Ov6rVotes:
71.6%
24,30
4.1%
0.10h
State Represenlailve, Disl 18
4 ol4
Sfalê Rgprosontsf¡ye, Disl 5
(R) BATEMAN, Dave
fl ì I A¡ ANNF .lôñ A
Blank Vologl
OvorVotô8:
5lâ16
3,712
2,3E9
253
282
3
ol8
55.9%
36.0%
Blank
Vol€i:
Ov€rVotes:
6,884
62.0%
lRl HALVORSËN. Sussn Kehsulánl
3.473
31.370
738
4
6.6%
Blsnk Voles:
Over Volss:
4.20/.
0.0%
Stale Rêpresanlatlva, D¡st 19
Ð ot3
(D) KOBAYASI'II,
Bertrand (86rt)
(R) MATHIEU, Vlotorla Ellzaboth
of 5
3,ø23 s0,t%
2,334 37.1vo
'f3s
3
ILì HIGA, AñIhonv
Bla¡k Volô8:
OvarVolgs:
5,404
91.6%
1,924
21,7%
783
6.6%
713
I
0.t%
2.20/.
0.0%
Õ.10h
(R) - REPUBLICAN
(G) . GREEN
0.09/"
3.Solo
Rapßs6nlallva, Olsl 6
IRIVAIENZUEU. Kêllv
(D) HASHEM, Maû Jun
6.lc/o
(r) - TNoEPENoENT
0.16/o
,5
Sfalo Repressnlal,vo, Dísf 3
(D) LOWEN, Nlcola
'10 of 10
21.4./.
738
I
0.ov.
5
Stãtê Senâlor, Ðlst 12
1,736
5
g
(D) CREAG/N, R¡cherd P
7,210
2,916
(O) BAKER, Ro¿
Ov€rVotog:
of 5
69.4%
0.0olo
'I
Slale Ser¿lo/', Oisf 6
0.0%
6,817
Slsle Æepresental¡vg, O¡sf I
(O) SANEUENAVENTURA,
11 ol
K-
Blank Voteç:
5.50/6
4 ol4
Stal€ Senalo¿ Disl 5 Vacanay
(D) KAWAKAMI, D6rok S.K.
¿Rl HôôMANAWANUI- Jon8thEn
Sfale Repressnlarve, Olsl
(R)olcKsoN.
72,3Yo
3
OvorVotos:
23.71ó
0.00/0
12 ol 12
{L} SCHILLER. Alain
1,174
5
(D) ONlSHl, Rlchard H.K.
8,842
2,536
Blånk Voles:
11 ol
lll
1.89t
12,OY.
lRì POHLE. Riêherd H.
Stata Sønator, DIst 24
(D) NAKASHIMA,
76.17c
20.0%
50.4%
0.0%
8,896
0ö.0%
46.0%
3.6Vo
016
õ,639
5.319
4,854
12.6%
1,247
0
(D) YAMASHITA, Kylo T
State Represênlal¡ve, D¡sl 14
ol9
State SenatoL Dlsl 4
(D) INOUYE, Larrain€ Rode¡o
Owr Volês:
78.S70
12 ol 12
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Votag:
B¡ank Volesi
lRl DANNER. Kllomana Mlchsâl
Slâle Sen¿fo/,.Dlsf 3
(D) GREEN, Josh
Gir
lR'l FALE. Rlchard L66
(o) foKUDA,
I
(O) KAIIELE, Gllbsrl
(o) RrvIERE,
ol9
'1,950
0.1tø
I
9.5%
0,1%
StÊle Râprêsonlalive, Disl 12
Sfatd Sen¿lor Dist 23
(D) rGE / TSUTSUT
(R) A|ONA / AHU
(I) HANNÊMANN / CHANG
tr } DAVIS / MARI IN
o:14
4,926 70.80/ò
1.362 19.6%
Blank Voles:
Ov€r Votss:
4.8T.
0.'1%
0,0%
247 o'¡247
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
2l
75.8%
4,592
7,018
82
fLì KENI- Joá
of 5
20.1%
534
Slate Represanlatve, D¡sl
U.S. Reprcsentatlve, Dist
Slafa Senator, O/sl
30.80/,
{N) - NONPARTISAN
(D} = DËMOCFIATIC
6.0"to
GENERAL ÊLECTION 2014 . Stat6 ol Hawall
Novomber 4, 2014
-
Pâgø 2
Stâtôw¡dê
Prlnlsd on: 11/05/2014 al 01:26:20 am
SUMMARY RÊPORT
.FINAL SUMI\¡ARY REPORT"
Slal6 Roprosorrál¡ve, Disl 20
Sfåfe Rep¡osorlalive, O6t 33
Slstê Raprasøntallvê, Dlsl 45
4 ol4
{D) SAY, Calvln K,Y
(G) 8ONK, Kolko
lRlAl I FN .ftdla F
4,621
2,047
52.6%
(O) KONG, Sam
2330À
lRl HELSHAM. Rob€rt C.. Sr
1.791
20.40,/!
322
3
Blank Vot€s:
Ov€f Votês:
6
6,526
2,346
1,032
Blaôk Volèar
(R) CHEAPE MAISUMOTO, Laur€n
3,06e
70,8%
23.7%
loì
1,175
27,1%
91
f
2,1c/o
0.0Ye
3
4
¿R)
MAñUTAI. Larle Kuu¡ôl Lanol
4,128
1,183
2A2
1
BlankVot6s:
Ovêr Vole6:
o14
74.1%
(D) TAKAYAMA, Grosg
IRIAGUSTIN Jacl
21.2r/o
Blank Volê8;
Over Volô6:
4.7Vr
5'471
3,569
58.370
(R) POUHA, Fskl
38.0%
lÕl FôNôIMôANA. Kent K.
342
4
3.6%
0.00/o
2,58ø
2,818
49.1%
28s
4.7./õ
6
0,1%
Blank Vol€6:
OvffVolð¡i
48,10/ó
0.0!¡
Stdlo Røpr'sentalivo, D¡d 4A
Stale Reprcsaûtat¡ve, D¡st 22
6 of6
3
2,623
1-929
(D) BROWER, Tom
lRì GRACF .lanaf M
265
Elank Volssi
2
Ov€rVole6r
of 3
54.4%
(o) TAKU[4], Roy M.
lRl POTI. LuAnn M.
40.0%
Blank Vot6s:
Over Volos:
5.5%
0.0%
3,578
2,023
ô0.9%
269
4
4,6%
0.1./.
34,40/c
slale Rapresantat¡va, Dist 24
3
4 ol4
(D) BELATTI, Oôlla Au
¿Rl AMSfERDAM. C. Keui Jochâñân
glank Volos;
Ovor Vol€sl
(R) FUKUMOTO CHANG, Bêlh
rDì I FE Mer¡lvñ B
4,465
64.1%
1,7A4
25.6%
Blank Volesì
716
2
103%
Ov€rVolês:
6 ofo
(D) KEOHOKALOLE, Jarotl K.
(R) KUKAHIKO, Eldo¿n L.
5.443
55.7Vo
3,670
37.6.h
(L) TAKAYAMA, Kaimanu
199
2,00/4
lN) NAIPO. Kanã
t03
1,1%
345
3.5%
Blônk Voles:
Over Voles:
Sfala R€presânlât v6, Dßl 36
64.57o
s.034
33.3%
'195
6
0
0.t%
öþ42
14,2%
1,719
20.1%
483
3
0.00/.
of 3
5,E7E
2.1%
0.10/o
0.o1/o
Srsle Rep¡esgntåt'ye, D¡st 50
4
{R) THIELEN, Cynlhia
lDl BROÀ4AN. HollvÀ.
ElankVot€s:
Ovsr Volos:
Stale Reprcsenlat¡ve, Dlsl 37
State Reprcsentativa, D¡sl 25
o'f
4
5.7%
4 ol4
5.209
2,324
(D) LUKE, Sylvia
fRl l-AM. Ronald Y.K.
423
Elank Volosi
Ovor Votos:
1
5 ofs
(D) YAMANE, Ryan L
7,26'1
72,47o
65.57o
iRì SVRCIñ4. Emll
2,254
22,5o/ô
25.2%
474
2
BlânkVolos:
Ovor Vol€8:
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
lRì HlKlDA. Wâvnê
3,858
1,788
sAlKl, Scott K,
ETic B.
353
3
Blank Voles:
OverVol€s:
64.5%
3.1ô1
't,915
(R) McDERMOTT, Bob
lDÌ MARTINEZ. Ros6
29.6%
6.90/"
0.1%
Slale Representaf¡yo, D/sl
4,745
(D) OHNO, Takashi
lR) FOWLER, Mãx R
",652
206
Blank Votss:
4
ÕvêrVobsl
of 5
62.4%
203
0
2,2%
3.5%
247 of247
0.1
wAlHEE, John O.
AKANA, Rowena M.N.
4 ol4
AHU lSA, L6l (Lslnahla)
TRASK, MllllãnlB.
138,452
't23.860
12.5%
r13.181
10.2%
102,819
9.301o
8.3%
2,441
47.4Yc
AKINA, Ksll'i
92,247
(R) J€REMIAH, Bryan E.
2,178
s56
34.86/o
McINERNY- Hâùêv
74,960
2.7%
Blânk Votes:
Ovor VolôB:
0.10/o
't68
5
0,070
Numb€rTo Volê For 3
(D) LOPRESTI, Matlhew
34,9%
33,5%
AI-Laea Truslâe
36.4%
4l
State Representallva, Dlsl 27
6
E4.2To
o14
80.0%
't84
7
Blânk Votss:
Ovêr Votos:
I
of 6
5,881
3,070
Over Votôs:
4
o17
I
(D) LEE, Chrls
Blanl Volos:
Slate Rêpresantatlva, Dlsl 26
7
State ReNasanlalive, Disl 51
4.70/o
Stdte Reprcsântat¡ve, D¡st 40
IR) MARSHALL.
4 ol4
af 3
Sfâfe Ropresont€l¡yg, Di.9f 35
(D)
Blank Vot68:
Ovaf Votes:
Slate Represanlâliy6, Disl 47
Sfãfê Reprês€ntaliye, Dßf 34
Nlsl-llMoTo, Scott Y.
iTAGAOAY. Mlchå61 Yâdåo
0.070
Sfato ßeprosontalivô, O/st 21
(D)
of 6
6s.87¡
10.4%
0.1%
I
OvôfVotos:
3.7"/o
5
of 6
18.20/"
2,7%
Blank Votes:
11.2%
6.8%
462,807
102
4't.7%
0.0yc
247
o¡U1
OvårVolês:
0.t%
Maui Røs¡dønl Trustaè
Slate Røpresental¡va, D¡sl 28
Slale Rapresentat¡va, O¡st 42
4
3,196
1,536
(D) MlZUNo, John M.
f
R) KA,APl.J.
Câþle Kauhlwai
'160
Blånk Votes:
Ovgr Votôsi
5
3
on4
65.3%
(D) HAR, Sharon E.
31.4%
lR) MOgES. Suk
3.3%
0.1%
Elank Vot6s:
Over Voles:
5,133
2,073
223
'l
of 3
LINDSEY, Carmen Hulu
69.1%
27.9%
3.0%
0.0%
87
23.6%
154,966 41,9%
Blank Votos:
10't
Ov6rVolos:
0.0%
Counc¡lmember, D¡st 5
Slale Represenlailve, Dlsl 31
State Reprcsentat¡ve, Dist 43
6
3,698
1.450
(R) JOHANSoN, Aarcn Llng
lDì SHARSH I êl
288
Blank Vot6B:
2
Ov€rVol€ô:
3 ol3
5 ol5
of 6
68.0%
(R) IUPOLA, Andr¡a P.
26.7%
lDì AWANÂ. Kãr€n Leiñãñì
53%
Blånk Volesl
Ovêr Volos:
0.0%
2,628
2,096
111
58.1"/o
41.4%
2.2%
0,1Y0
PALEKA. Dan¡el K., Jr.
EDWAROS HUNI.
Tifhnv
50.270
259
Blank Votosr
Ov6a VolE€l
I
Counc¡lmomban Dist
4,722
2,340
R
211
2
Blânk Votes:
OvêrVot6s:
of 2
64,9%
(D) JORoAN. Jo
2,7n3
56.070
32,20h
{c) GAIÊS, Codric Arueg.
1,025
22.0%
2.goh
o.ovo
fll
15.5%
FRÊNZEL. Allen IALì
Elank Votes:
Ovsr Vot€s:
3.6%
0.0%
3
2
3 of3
(D) ICHIYAMA, Llnda E.
44.2%
I
Stale Representatlvê, Dlst 44
Slate RepreÊentat¡ve, Disl 32
lRrlÂêAVil I À Mâr.laAnn
2,319
2,045
206
4
4.4%
0.1V6
W¡LLE, Margarol
GôN7Âl FS RôñÊld S
3,192
2.171
266
Blânk Votos:
Over Volcr:
r
of 3
56.flo
38.80/.
1.7%
0.0%
MayoL County of Mau¡
34 of34
ARÂK WA,AlanM.
PALTIN Tâñârâ
fÎâml
Blank Vol€B:
OvgrVotss:
(L). LIBERTARIAN
(I).
INDEPENOENT
(R). REPUBLICAÑ
(G). GREEN
(N). NONPARIISAN
25,435
18,162
55.3%
39.5%
2,372
6.2ô/,
14
0.0%
(o) = oEMoctlATlC
GENERAL ELECTION 2014 -
Strate
olHawaii
-
Pag6 3
Stelow¡do
Nov6mb6r 4, ?014
Prlntod
SUMI\4ARY REPORT
"FINAL SUMMARY RÊPORT"
Councllñømber
Counc¡lmenbar (Easl Mau¡)
MAUI: Councll: Atfordable Hous¡ng Fund
34 of34
CARROLL, 8ob
27,071
58.90/0
NlKHll ANANDA Nl.k
11.730
25.50/"
BlankVolos:
7,162
15,6%
0.0%
2D
Over Volóâ:
Co
uncll rnoñbet (Wa sl M a u ¡)
34 of34
COCHRAN, Ëlls
BUENCONSÉJO.
Ka'ala
Ovêr VotaBr
Cou nc¡lmêmber (Wa
¡lu
7.40h
Blank Votes:
KANESHIRO, Arry¡
1
1,97'l
7.10Á
Ov€rVoto6:
KUÀLll, KipuKal L.P.
9,985
5.9%
YUKIMURA, JoAnn A.
8,941
5.3%
S[
ô,730
5.2o/o
CHOCK, Mason K.,
FURFARO, Jay
8,165
4s%
11.00/o
SRUN,
t20
4.8%
Blank VoteGi
4,4%
Over Votes:
COW0ÊN, Fellcla
1,917
4.7v6
gYNUM, Tim
7,502
4.5%
D€COSTA,8¡lly
I ARANIO Tlâña
7,243
43%
5.885
3.4.4
8,
k
42,048
Blånk Vôtê8:
7
OverVolô€:
17.5%
25,00/o
0.00/6
8.5%
0.1%
34 ol 34
YES
NO
8,076
Mhu.
3,915
29
MAU I : Cou ncll : Pe n alti€ s
PERRY, Dâry¡ 0.
12,608 27.4%
28
25.0ó¿
12,357
40,5%
8,060
r1,507
KAGAWA, Ross K,
18,792
55.0%
60,4%
NO
7.4%
4,gflo
25,28s
30,532
13.147
ø,267
0.0%
34 of34
YES
RAPOZO, MêI
HOOSER, Gary L.
34 of34
Elank Votos:
Ov6r Vol6s:
Nqmbor To Volo For: 7
48.1%
ku-Wa¡ he s-Wal ka pu )
VICTORINO, M¡cha€l (M¡ke)
BLACKAURN. Joseoh G.. ll
16 of 16
22,124
5,04f
20
BlânkVol6s:
on: 11/06/20t4 åt 0l:26:20 an
17,689
21,355
46.4%
6,901
15,0%
38
MAUI: Vote r ln¡t¡at¡ve: Genetically
Eng¡neered Oryan¡sñs
0.11/þ
34 of 34
23,062 N,Zrh
22,005 47,9%
YES
NO
872
24
Blánk Vole6:
0.1%
38.5%
OvgrVotE6:
1.9%
0,,1.h
Couna¡lmembaL Dlsl lV
Co u nc il mêm bê
r (Kah u I u i)
17 of 17
34 of34
OZAWA, Tr€vor
GUZMAN, Don S.
23,8s6
51.9%
WATERS. Tommv
PONTANILLA.
15,719
34.20h
Blank Voles:
6,373
13.9%
OverVgtes:
Joè
Blsnk Votos;
Over Votsa:
29
KAUAI: Relatlng to the Dêpa¡lmont of
Persarngl Sg¡v,ces
16,371
16,324
44.1%
43,9%
YES
4,451
16
12.0%
0.0%
NO
16 of 16
glônk Vol€s;
Ov6r Votes:
o..loh
13,825
57.50/6
6,038
4,174
25.1%
|f.4Vo
I
0.0%
Counc¡lmember, D¡st Vl
Coun al lmê mbe r (So uth Mau¡)
21 ol21
34 ol34
COUCH.oon
FÍ7PÂïRlCk .lôhñ
M
Slank Votos:
Ovor Volos;
24,990
54.3%
13.042
30.3%
7,029
15.30/o
22
FUKIJNAGA, Carol
17,C79
54.7o/o
AIONA. Sam
11,541
38.3%
Blank Volos:
Ovq Vot6s:
8.9%
16
D,1YO
16 of 16
Councl lmembe t ( Ma kaw ao-Ha lku- Pala)
34 of34
WHlfE, Mlko
23,042 50.1t
MOLINA. MIKo J.
16.398
35.770
Elank Vote9:
Ov€a Vol6a:
6,504
14.1Yo
17,691 73.6'h
YES
NÕ
Elank Voles:
0.0%
2,f75
11.5%
3,569
14.8%
g
Ov6rVolês:
CON AMEND: Relat¡ng to D¡salosura of
Jud¡cial Noñlneês
39
2,U2
KAUAI: Ralal¡ng lo Chatler Amdndment
247 01247
302,953
41,308
YES
NÔ
25,177
Blank Vot6s:
6.8%
0.0%
116
OvêrVôlô6:
KAUAI: Relat¡ng to Recâll Ballots
16 ol16
öZ.U7o
1120/o
11,747
YES
NÔ
Blånk Vol€s:
73,0o/o
2,156
9.0%
4,138
't7.2.to
4
OvêrVotss:
0.1%
0.00¿
0.00/õ
CON AMEND: Rolallng to Agilcuftural
Coun cilma mb
èr
(U pco u ntry)
€rlorpnbos
34 of34
BAISA, Glodys Coolho
26,1
17
56.8%
BRUCH. Courtnðv A.
12,819
27.90/o
Blãnk Votos:
Ovor Volosr
7,025
22
BlankVot€3:
OvsrVoles¡
28.546
62,1%
17,437
37.9%
0.07o
0
Councilmember (Molokai)
34 ol34
ôÞl\/Fllô
qlt^uHa¡ñ
glânk Volês:
Ov€r Volés:
Nô
YES
38,8%
0.0%
NÔ
Blank Votos:
Over Votes;
Mayon County of Kaua¡
14.öðB
b1.17ô
CON AMEND: RalatÌng to Dams and
Res€ryo/¡s
8,1S5
34.1%
YES
16 of 16
CARVALHO, Bsrnârd P., Jr
6ARCA- Duslin
Elsnk VotE6:
Ovor Voles:
1.
ts8
2
4.4%
0.o%
TOTAL REGISTRATION
708,830
TOTAL TURNOUT
369,554
52.30/o
PR€CINCT TURNOUT
180,507
25,so/o
AESENTEE TURNOUT
189,047
28.7.h
61
0.0%
72.8ø/o
5.1./.
0.1%
OVERSEAS BALLOTS CAST
OVERSEAS TURNOUÍ
247 01247
160,238
192,247
52.OVo
6.802
4.5Yo
2Êf
0.1./.
'I
43.4./o
Ovêrsse8
I
39
Ovêrsoa8 2
247 ol24'l
106,377
Nô
Elank Vol€s;
177
NO
BIank Volesi
Ov6rVolô8:
(R) - RÊPUBLICAN
7,8./o
0.07o
43 of43
34,973
11,148
YES
28.80/o
28,984
HAWAI'I: Tam of Appo¡ntñênt for the
County Cle*
(l) - INOEPENDENT
GENÉRAL
234,0',t6 63.3%
OvorVolog:
{L). LIBERTARIAN
Z2.O%
306
CON AMEND: RÊlatlng to Eaily Childhæd
Education
41.40/"
0
247 of247
18,884
Blank Volos:
Over Votss:
17,733
8.5%
o.1%
81,408
288.858
YES
24.250
412Yo
258
OverVolês:
REGISTRAÍION ANO TURNOUT
50,2%
31,543
Blânk Vot€s:
CON AMENÐ: Rêlat¡ng lo Sl€ro Jusl¡cas
and Judges
34 of34
RiKI
NÔ
15,3%
0.0%
Qouncllmêmber (Lanal)
HOKAMA
247 01247
rü5,531
152,222
YES
ö9.7%
4,025
12
(G) . GREÉN
22.20tþ
8.0%
0.0ø/o
(N) " NONPARTISAN
(D).
DEMOCFIATIC
o
ct)
ñ
'õ
Ì)0)c
f
o o o o
r
o o
O
c\l
()
o o
O
o o
O
O
O
O
o o
o o o
O
O
O
o
O
o o o o o
O
o
O
C)
o
o o o
ro
C\I
o
CÐ
o
r
o
c)
o o
O
c)
0)
È
c
o)
U'
-o
(.)
o)
(õ
o O
L
o
c
o
o
L
+t
o)
(ü
¡5õ
of
oØ
ØØ-=
àE
-c
EDO
o¡
a
r
r
o
q)
: Ec)
õ f,c
=c)o
tt
o
o
+.
+>
oË
C\¡
O
o
o o
cq)
E()
o>
c)
c',
(U
L
(.)
o
o o o
r
O
Ëõ
Ð=
îr=
(trË
o
octì
L
C')
(ú
øO
0)
EC
(g
L
G)
o
C)
c
'õ
c)
c)
c{
C\
C\t
co
C)
\f,
C)
c
'õ
:)
o
L
fL
o
0-
c)
xoo
CU
fL
o
(')
L
o O O
c)
o
O
o o o
O
()
o
g)
o ()
sf
o C\I
o cf)
o
o
r
Õ
C\I
o
o
U)
.-oc
gË
ftr
bo
o9ì
(d!F
Øo
o
I
l'-
C\
OI
l'r
co
OI
N
r
t
OI
l*
O
I
00
r
C\
I
co
r
O
æ co
r
r
I
I
I
o)
r
I
O)
r
I
o)
r
\t r
O
¡
o)
r
O
()
I
RI
o ro
I
I
C\I
N c\
C\.1
C\¡
ot
(o
OI
C\I
OI
C\J
James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Attachments:
[email protected]
Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:52 PM
Fw: Response to James Kawashima 11110 and
oe-14-265001.pdf
11113114 Correspondence
Attached please find response with updated Statewide Summary
-----Forwarded by Elections/DAGS/StateHiUS on tL/
: Elections/DAGS/StateH
Date: ILl L9/2OL4 OZ:O2PM
From
19 /
2OL4 O2:47PM -----
iUS
Subject: Response to James Kawashima Lt/LO and 11/13/14 Correspondence
(See attached file: OE-14-265. PDF)
HffiIBIT
1
ç
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ETECTIONS
802 LEHUA AVENUE
SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
96782
www.håwa¡i, gov/elections
PEARL CITY, HAWAII
November 19,2014
Mr. James Kawashima
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Thank you for your letters dated November 10 and '13, 2014. Attached is a
copy of the final Statewide Summary.
Also attached is a matrix of the overages and underage for each precinct
in Honolulu City Council District lV. Please note that voters in district-precinct 2602 received an absentee ballot only, pursuant to Act 100, Session Laws of
Hawaii 2012.
lf yOu have any further queStiOns, please contact 'Auli'i Tenn, Counting
Center Operations, at 453-VOTE(8683).
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Officer
STN:AT:cr
oE-14-26s
Enclosures
c:
Tommy Waters
Trevor Ozawa
Bernice Mau, City Clerk
cENERAL ELECïlON 2014 - Slate ol Hawai¡
-
Page
Statew¡de
Nov€mbêr4.2O14
Pr¡nted
SUMMARY REPORT
1
on: 1 1/18/2014 âl 0511 1:19 pú
-FINAL SUI!4MARY REPORT''
Slafo Senâlo¿ Olsf I
U.S. Sonator Vacancy
State Ropresental¡ve, Dlst
Z
247 ol 247
246,827
98.006
(D) SCHATZ, Br¡ân
(R) CAVASSO, Cam
B6.B%
26.s%
8,941
rLì KÕKOSKl. M¡chael
8,316
3,531
(D) NISHIHARA, Cla.onco
ll\ Cl F[.,lENlË. Rôôêr
2.4%
(D) SOUKI, Joe
27.50ó
lR) KAPOI. Cranston Kaleialoha
Slafe Senâ/o4 D,sl
0.00/0
l8
736
5
8.3%
3,522
1,ô66
61.{t%
30.8%
0.1ôlo
113
ofIf3
s3.390
86.454
51.2%
(D) KlDANl, Michello
(R) KlM, Dênô¡e C.H.
47.4%
lLÌ BANDA. Ravmond. lll
2,366
1.3o/o
58
o.oo/o
10,257
7,348
54.60/6
39.1%
389
769
9
Blânk Voles:
Ovê. Voles:
5
ol8
(D) MCKELVEY, Angus L,
¿Rl MARTEN. Ch¿vnê M.
2.1ó/D
4.1o/o
0.00,6
29.1%
534
6
Elank Volog:
Over Votes:
of 5
9.3!o
0.1%
State Ropresentatlve, D¡st 11
U.S. Represanlalivq, Disl
ll
Sla¿e
SeDsfor Oisl 2t
4 ol4
5
134 ol 134
{D) GABBARD, Tulsi
(R) CRoWLEY, Kaw¡ka
ILI KENT Joe
142,010
75,8o/o
(D) SHIIVIABUKURO, Mailo S.L.
33,630
17.9%
lRì KU ferciâ L
4,693
2.5%
Blânk Voles:
BIank Voles:
Over Votes:
7,020
82
3.7o/o
Ovef Votes:
6,079
2,870
of 5
ô4,8oÁ
(O) lNG, Kaniela
lll
BROCK, Pal
30.60¿
433
6
Blank Votos:
Over Voles:
4.6o/ô
4,926
1,362
70.8%
861
7
9.5%
6,639
1,950
1,174
68,070
19.6%
0.f%
0.1%
Slalo RopraÊentat¡ve, D¡st 12
0.0%
Stare S6na¿o/: Dlsl 23
6
I
Governor and L¡eutenan( Govarnor
247 ot247
{o) tGE / TSUISUI
18't,106
49.00¿
(R) ATONA / AHU
135.775
36.70/o
42,934
11.60/o
(I) HANNE¡/lANN i CHANG
íI INAVIS/MARLIN
Blânk Votesi
Ovêr Voles:
6,395
1.70/o
3,001
0.8y"
431
Stalo Senalo4 Dßf
(D) RIVIERE, G¡I
TRIFALË RichsrdL€ê
(D) KAI-IELE. G¡lbs¡t
1
lLì ARIANOFF. Greoory (Kobala)
78.9oi6
12.60l¡
1,247
6
Blank Volêsl
Ovèr Volos:
8.50/o
8,896
1,891
70.80/"
1,073
8.882
2,536
O.1þ/o
5 Vacancy
tslank Votes:
Over Vot€s:
9,770
4,149
(D) KEITH-AGARAN, Gil S. Coloma
(R) KAMAKA, Joe
Blank Votes;
Over Votesl
11
ol9
6,314
15.1"/o
1,452
17.40h
578
6.9%
0.0%
ll ì FoGFL Frâd
10
o.'to,/¡
Sfalo Serator, D¡sf 6
I
7,21o
2,916
(O) BAKER, Roz
(R) DUBOIS, Jared P. (Pikâ)
/l ì KAAHIn Rronson KÊkâhúna
I
56.81o
23.0ô/o
1,196 9.40/o
f,349 10.6%
13 0.10/0
Blank Vol€6i
Ovor Votes:
Slale Sanalor, Dlst
ôf
2
10 of 10
(D) GALUTER,A, Br¡ckwood
IRI LETHEM, ChTIs
6,428
4,545
Nl.
Blãñk Vot€sl
Over Voles:
(t) - L¡BÊRIARIAN
(D
53.41o
37.8o/o
1,046
8.71o
10
0.1"/o
. INDEPENDËNT
/R\YônFR
StÊvê
Blank Vol€s:
Over Votesl
5,367
1,892
of 5
67.3%
23.7'/o
717
1
9.07o
O.0'/o
6
7 ol7
(D) MORIKAWA, Daynotle (Dee)
F
5,075
ts9.g'lo
lRl FRANKS Mclôr¡â lvickìel
997
All
13.70h
Blsnk Vol€s;
Over Votos:
11 2o/o
371
5.10¿
3
0.00/o
Slale.
of 6
5.320
1,812
66,8%
835
10.5%
2
22.1vo
0.0"h
Represenlal¡va, D¡sl 17
4 ol4
Slate Reprcsenlat¡ve, D¡st 4
¿Rl THOMAS. GaN
Blank Voles:
Ovêr Vol€B:
lDl STLJMP. Chris
7,535
2,555
Blank Votss:
Ovê¡ Votss:
432
6
(R) WARD, Gone
4,337
1,715
68.0%
319
4
26.9%
5.00¿
0.10/.
71.6Yo
24.3o/o
4.1o/o
0.1%
Statê Representat¡ve, Dist 18
4 ol4
Slate Represonlat¡ve, Dist 5
I of I
(D) CRËAGAN. Richard P.
(R) BATEMAN, Dave
lll
LALANNË. Jon A.
Blãnk Voles:
Õver Voles:
3,712
2.389
253
282
3
Blank Votes:
Over Voles:
(R)
. REPUBLICAN
lRl HALVORSEN. Susan Kehaulan¡
Blank VoleÊl
Over Votes:
36.0%
4.2.h
31.3%
739
6,'I%
4
0.0%
5
0.0vo
(R) MATHIEU, V¡clor¡s Elìzâb€lh
of 5
¡l
I HIGA Añlhôñv
60.1%
Blank Votesì
Ovêr Volss:
37 .1o/o
't39
2.20/o
3
0,0%
(G) - 6REEN
62.0%
Stata Represenlal¡vo, D¡s¡ 19
(O) KOBAYASHI, Berlrand (Bort)
3,423
2 ,334
6,888
3,474
3.8%
Slale Represônfaflve, Dlsl 6
(O) LOWEN, N¡cole
lRl VAI FNTtlFl ¡, Kellv
(D) HASHEM, Mark Jun
55.goh
5
1
4.1%
0 1ol"
Stato Represental¡ve, D¡st 16
Blenk Votes:
Over Voleg;
27.51o
7.8ø/o
(O) TOKIOKA, Jam6s Kunane
Stata Representat¡vo, Dist 3
44.7./o
1,172
21.40h
738
6
5
2
(o) SANBUENAVÊNTURA, Joy A,
11 of
of 5
69.4%
0.0%
4 ol4
D¡81
Blank Votes:
ôver Vôlês:
5,617
1,73â
1
I
20.76/o
6.90/6
0.0%
Stalo Representative, D¡st 15
72.3%
852
7
{RI HOOMANAWANUI, Joñathan K,
5.50ó
4
Slalo Represontat¡ve, Dist
(D) ONlSHl, Richard H.K.
(R) DICKSON, B¡II
12 oÍ 12
(D) KAWAKAT\,i1, Derêk S.K.
23.'toto
A.A"/o
State Sonalot, Disl 4
Blânk Votes:
Ovêr Voles;
13,817
4,626
11
18.20À
7.8ø/o
12.0o/o
3
5
Bl¿nk Vôlesl
Over Volesl
76.1%
908
1
20.0%
0.10/o
11 of
12 ol 12
(D) INOUYE. LorâinB Rodoro
ll ì SCHII IFR Alâin
Blank Vot€s:
Over Votes:
016
Slate Reprêsontalive, Disl 14
(D) NAKASHIMA, Mark lV,
ll ì WÊ|NÊRT Erìc Drák€
Elank Vol€s;
Over Volesi
lR) POHLE. Richard H.
4ô.0V0
0.0ôlo
Statê Sônalo¡, Ðisl 3
(D) GREEN. Josh
/l I I AST M¡châêl L
50.4%
Slalo Senator, Þ¡st 24
ol9
1,850
T
5,320
10
{R} oANNER. Kilomana Michael
1,638
(D) YAMASHITA. Kt/IE
3.6%
Blank Votes:
Over Voles:
(D) TOKUOA, Jill N.
I
ol9
4,8s7
0.1o/o
I
Sfafo Sona¿o.,
60.8%
sfâte Represen¡€l¿ve, Dist 10
I
Blank Vol€s:
Over Votss:
Blank Votesi
Ovsr Volos:
7.6o/.
5,359
2,715
0.00/"
U,S. Reprssental¡ve, Dist I
(o) TAKAI, [rârk
lRì D.lôtl Chârlês
7 ofl
64.00/o
973
2
Blank Votesl
Over Votesl
4.3%
15,77-t
'152
Blank Volesi
OvêrVotes:
I
E of 8
(N)
- NONPARTISAN
of 5
5,466
1,925
61.67o
763
8.6%
7t3
8.070
0.1%
8
(D) = DEMOCRATIC
21.70/.
cENERAL ELÊCflON 2014 - Stat€ of Hewaii
November 4, 2014
-
Page 2
slelêwidê
Prìntod
SUI\4MARY REPORT
on;
1
1/18/2014 al 05:1'l:'l9 pm
..FINAL SU¡/MARY REPORT'
Stafê Represenfaf¡ve, Dßl 45
Slale Reprêsênlalive, Disl 33
Slata Raprèsentalive, Dist 20
4
(D) SAY. Calv¡n K.Y
(c) BONK, Keiko
lRì ALLEN .hrliâ Ê
Elank Volas:
Ovêr Volss:
6
o¡4
4,624
2.047
1,795
52,60h
(D) KONG, Sam
23.3óh
(Rl HEISHAM. Robert C,. Sr
322
3
3.7"/.
20.4o/o
Blank Volesl
Ov€r Vol€B:
6,527
2,347
1,032
B
(R) CHEAPE MATSUI\¡¡IOTO, Lauren
3,070
70.8%
23,70Á
/Dl MAGAôAY Micheel Yâdso
1,1'16
27.1%
10.470
0.10,6
3
4
262
Bl€nk Vol€s:
Over Votes:
ôf 4
74.Ooh
(D) TAKAYAI,IA, Gress
lRl AGUSTIN .iâ¿i
21.2o/o
Blank Votes:
Over Votes;
4.7'/o
5,473
3.569
s1
2,10/o
1
0.00/o
4 o¡4
of 3
58.3%
(R) POUHA, Fek¡
38,0%
(Dì FONOIMOANA. Kont K.
342
3.60¿
4
0.0ólo
2.999
2,816
40.1%
46.1Vo
200
6
Blank Vot6s:
Over VoteÊl
4.70/o
0.1%
0,0%
Sla¿a
Slalo Reprøsentat¡ve, Dist 48
Roprosenlál¡vo, Сsl 35
State Represenlat¡va, Díst 22
2.626
1,929
(O) BROWER, Tom
(R) GRACÊ. Janot M.
Blank Vot€s:
Ovêr Volesl
of 3
54,5%
(D)
lRì POTI. LúAnn M
40.0%
265
5.5%
2
0.oo/.
TAKUi¡I, Roy M.
Blank Votesl
Over Votes:
3.57E
2,023
269
4
(D) KEOHOKALOLE,
34.40k
(R) KUKAHIKO, Eldean L.
4.6o/o
(L) TAKAYAMA, Kaim€nu
0,10h
lñ) NAIPO Kenã
S|ate Rapresental¡vo, D¡st 36
3
4 ol4
4,465
1,784
(D) BELATTI, oel¡a Au
Jochanan
716
2
Blânk VotêÊl
Over Votes:
64.'tvo
(R) FUKU¡¡OTO CHANG, Beth
lDì I FF Merilvn I
25.6Vo
Blank Votesl
Over Voles:
10.30/o
Jarell
00,9%
K.
Blank Votos:
Ovêr Vot€8:
Stale Represenlalive, Disl 24
KaU¡
6
6 of6
3
IR) AMSTERDAM. C,
Blsnk Voles:
Over Votês:
State Represenlallve, Dlst 47
Stale Represenlat¡ve, D¡sl 34
4,129
1.1a5
of 5
65.8%
0.00/0
State Representalivs, D¡sl 21
(D) NISHIMOTO, Scott Y.
lR) MANUTAI. Lârìo Kuulei Lånqi
5
of 6
5,880
3,034
195
5
of 6
55,7o/o
37.60/o
199
103
2.00/o
1.1ô
346
I
3.5%
0.lo¿
of 3
64.5%
Slale Rapresanlat¡ve, Dist 50
4 ol4
33.3%
2.1o/o
(R) THI€LEN, Cynlh¡a
O.1o/o
lDl BRôMAN Hôllv A
0,OYo
Blank Vole6:
Ovêr VoteÊ:
State Represenlat¡ve, Disl 37
Slale Reprosonlaliva, Dist 25
5,444
3,677
6,346
1.719
483
3
74.2o/o
20.1%
5.6010
0.0%
4 ol4
5
5,215
2,328
(o) LUKE, Sylv¡a
(R) LAM. Ronald Y.K.
Blank Votes;
Ov€r Votos:
of 5
65.57o
(D) YAMANE, Ryan l.
lRl SVRCINA. Emll
29.20/o
423
5.3%
I
O.Oo/¡
8lânk Volês:
Over Vot€s:
1,264
2,294
72.4%
474
2
4.7o/.
O.o,to
Slâle Raprsssnfålivo, O¡sl 40
4
7 oî7
3.858
1.768
Blank Voles:
Over Volesl
354
5.9õh
3
O.1o/o
64.5%
(R) MCDERMOTT, Bob
(D) MARÍINÊ2. Ross
29.6%
Elank Votô8:
ôvêr Volês:
3,'t6t
60.0%
1,915
38.4%
184
3.âo/o
7
0.1%
State Roprcsenlative, D¡st 27
4 ol4
5
(Þ) LoPRESTI, Mailhew
(D) OHNO, Takashi
4,746
62.4Yo
(R) JEREMIAH, Bryân E.
lRl FOmER. Max R
2,654
34.9%
ll ì BFRG Tôñ
208
2.70/o
Blsnk Volos:
Over Votes:
Blank Votes:
Over Voles:
0.10/o
203
0
64.2%
33.5%
2.2o/o
0.0%
At-Large Truslee
247 01247
Number To Vote For: 3
134,474
123,891
113,202
12.5%
AKANA, Rowena M.N.
AHU lSA, Lei (Le¡na'ala)
TRASK, Mililan¡ B.
102.ô33
C.30
WAIHEE, John D.
2,983
2,17a
4l,4Yo
AKINA, Kêll'l
34 .6o/o
McINERNY. HaNev
956
'15.2%
168
5,E84
3,071
ô14
Slalê RepreEenlatlve, Dßl 41
5 of
6 olô
(D) LEE, Chr¡s
{R} HlKlDA. WâvnÊ T.
Bl€nk Voles:
Over VoteEi
Stale Ropresontative, D¡st 26
(D) SAlKl, Scolt K.
IR} MARSHALL. ETic B.
State Reprssentat¡ve, Dist 51
22.9Yo
2.7Vo
Blank Vole6:
Ov€r Volês:
92,261
74,s71
462,938
182
11.20Ã
10.20/0
8.3Vo
6.8%
41.7%
0,0%
0.1%
Maui Resident Trusteo
Slale Representat¡ve, Dis( 42
Slala Ropresantat¡ve, Dist 28
247 oÍ247
3 of
4 otA
3,'197
1,54O
(D) MIZUNO, John M.
tRì KMFU CÐrol€ Keuhlwãi
160
5
Blank Vole6l
Ovor Vol€s:
65.21/o
(D) HAR, Shâron E.
31.4'/o
Slank Vot€s:
OverVofos:
3.30/o
O.1o/o
5,134
2,073
3
69.1%
2?.90h
3.00/o
,1
LINDSEY, Carmen Hulu
WFñDT M,harl¡ni
Blsnk Voles:
Over Voto6:
127,288 U.40k
87,248 23.6To
155,005 41.9%
101
0.00/o
0.0olo
Councilmembêr, Dist 5
Slate Representat¡ve, Dísl 43
Slata Rapresental¡va, Dist 31
5
3,698
1,452
(R) JOHANSON, Asron L¡ng
(D) SHARSH, Lo¡
Blank Vote6:
Ovor Voles:
3
5 of
of 5
5
68.00/o
(R) TUPoLA, Andriâ P
2,829
5ti.1qlo
26.7%
IDì AWANA. Kârêñ Lêinâni
2,096
41.60/ô
289
5.3o/o
2
0.00/o
Blank Votes:
OvBrVoles:
11'l
2.2o/o
3
0.1%
PALEKA, Oan¡Bl K., Jr.
EDWARDS HUNT. Tifanv
Blenk Vole6:
Over Volês:
of 3
2,319
2,045
50.20/.
259
1
5.6%
0.0%
44.2%
Counc¡lnêmbar, D¡sl9
State Rapresentat¡ve, D¡st 44
State Represenlal¡ve, Dlst 32
3 of
(D) ICHIYAMA, L¡nda Ê.
lR) TAGAVILLA, l\rârcia Ann R.
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Vot€sl
3
2 of 2
3
4,724
2,340
64.9%
(D) JORDAN, JO
32.2Vô
(c) GATES, C€dr¡c A6uÊgâ
211
2.Soh
2
0,0%
lll
FRENZEL. Allen IAL)
Blenk Vôlês:
Over Vot6s:
2,703
1,025
722
20ô
4
58.0%
22.00Â
15.5o/o
4.40/o
0.10Á
of 3
WILLE, Margar€t
3,'t92
56.7%
GôN7AI FS RnnÂld S
2,171
38.60/0
266
1
4.7%
Blêñk Votêe:
OverVotes:
0.0%
Mayor, Counly of Maui
34 of34
ARAKAWA, Alan M.
PALllN. lamârâ lTâm)
Blenk Vol6s:
Over Volosl
(L)
. LIBERÍARIAN
(I)
. INDÊPÊNDENT
(R)
- REPUBLICAN
(G) - GREEN
(N). NONPARTISAN
25,435
55.3%
18.1ô2 39.5%
2,372
'14
(D) = DE[,IOCRATIC
5.20/o
o.00/6
GENERAL ELECIION 2014 - Stalê ôf Hawai¡
November 4, 2014
-
Pagê 3
Statewide
Print€d onr
SUMMARY REPORI
..FINAL SUMMARY RÊPORT"
Counc¡lmamber (Easl Maui)
27 ,O7
CARROLL, Bob
NIKHILANANDA N¡ck
1
Blank Voles:
1
1,730
25.5ólo
7,162
1
BUÊNCONSEJO. Ka'ala
5,047
Blank Votes;
Qou n ci I me nb
t (Wê
ê
¡l u ku
'11,971
7.1o/o
KUALll. K¡puKai L.P.
9,985
5.9olo
YUKIMIIRA. JoAnn A.
8,041
5,3%
cHoCK, Mason K,, Sr.
8,730
5.2olo
48.IYo
HOOSÊR, Gary L.
6,257
4.9o/o
YES
40.9o/o
FURFARO, Jay
8.165
4.9!o
NO
11.Oo/ô
BRUN, Arthur
8,120
4.A%
Blank Vote6l
PERRY, Darryl D.
8,076
4.8%
ôverVot€s:
COWDEN, Fsllcla
1,917
4.7%
BYNUM. T¡m
7,602
4.5o/o
DoCOSTA, Billy
IARANIÔ Tiânâ
7,243
4.30h
5.665
3.41ø
34
0.00/6
34 of
Blank Votes:
Ovor VoteE;
34
25.289
12,606
55.0%
8.060
f7.5oi6
0.1ô/¡
28
25.Oo/a
KANESHIRO, Arryl
-Wa i ho e -Wâ ¡ka p u)
VICTORINO. Michael (M¡ke)
RIACKBIIRN .lôsêôhG ll
,507
7.4'/o
20
Ov€r Votss:
1 1
12,387
0.0%
22,124
18,792
69.4%
NO
KAGAWA, Ro66 K.
34 ol
Elre
30,532
7.8o/o
Counc¡lmembor (West Maui)
cocHRqN,
34 of34
YES
13,147
20
OvorVoles:
Numbêr To Votê For: 7
RAPOZO, ivlsl
5.60lo
05:11:10 pm
16 ol 16
34
58 ,90h
1,/18,/2014 ât
MAUI: Council: Affordable Housing Fund
Caunc¡lmember
34 of
1
27.40/o
K
42,046
glank Vot€s:
Ov€r Vol6si
7
25.0Yø
3.915
Blank Votês;
Ovêr Votesl
29
8.50/.
0.10/o
MAUI: counc¡l: Penall¡øs
34 ol 34
17,689 38.5%
21,355
6,901
46.4y0
15.0%
0.1./o
38
I : Vole r hit¡ative: Ge nol¡cally
Eng¡neered Organ¡sms
M AU
34 of34
YES
23,042
50.2%
NO
22,005
47,90/0
0.09/.
Blank Votes:
Over Votos:
872
1.9o/o
24
0.1.Â
CouncilmembeL Dist lV
Counc¡hnëmbor (Kaltulu¡)
17 0t 1-l
34 of
GUZMAN. Don S.
PôNTAN|| I A .lôê
Blank Votes:
23.898
15,719
51.9o/o
6,379
13.9%
29
over Votês:
34
OZAWA, Trevor
WAÌÉRS. fommv
34.2o/o
I<AUAI: Rèlathtg lo lhe Ðepa¡lment
P6rsonn6/ Sâruicos
16,374
16,s33
43.90¿
YES
4,455
12.00h
NO
Blânk Votês:
1B
Ov6r Vol6s:
44.O%
0.00,6
ol
57,50/o
6,0s8 25.t%
4,174
Blsnk Voles:
OverVotes:
o.1o/ò
16 of16
13,825
17¡%
6
0.00/0
Counc¡lmembeL D¡st Vl
Cou nc¡lmotnbar (Soul
h Maui)
21 ol21
34 of
COUCH. Don
FITZPATRICK. John
24,590
13.942
N4.
7.029
Blank Voles:
Cou
n c ihne m be
54.3%
f,549
36.30/0
5.3%
0.0%
OverVolos:
r ( M akaw ao- H a ¡ku- P ai a)
23,042
16,398
50.1'/o
6,504
14.10/o
3S
r ( U pco
un
2,844
BAISA, Gladys Coelho
26,111
12,A19 27.g%
7,O25
22
Ov6r Votesl
56.4%
41,315
Blank Votes:
Ov6r Voles;
34 ol34
28,546
17,437
Blank Votes:
Over Votes:
0
62.10/.
NO
28,250
17.733
0
Ovgr Votes;
6.80/ô
110
0.0%
8.50/6
258
YES
NO
CON AMEND: R1lating Io Early Childhood
Educalion
61.41"
YES
38,6%
000¿
NO
11.'Vo
247 01247
41,428
22.0.h
265,012
72.Ao/o
5.1%
0.10k
160,271
192,285
Blank Vot6si
Õve¡Vôlês:
43.40/0
16 of16
Elank Volos:
Over Vot€61
4,136
4
14,688
61.170
CON AMEND: Relal¡ng to Dams and
Resorvoirs
8.195
34.1%
Y€S
4.8%
0.0%
ñô
16 of 16
1,.158
Blank Vot€s:
Ovêr VotÊÊ:
2
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Voles:
TOTAL REGISTRATION
706,890
TOTAL TURNOUT
365,642
52.30/0
PRECINCT TURNOUT
180,535
25.5olo
ABSÊNTEE TI.JRNOUT
'189,107 26.8%
OVERSEAS BALLOTS CAST
overseas
61
1
Overseas 2
o.'tvo
247 o1247
NO
Blank Votesl
Over Vole6:
{L) - LIBERTARIAN
(I)
. INDEPENDENT
(R). REPUBLICAN
2E.E%
7.80/o
177
0.0%
HAWAI'L Term of Appo¡ntmanl for the
Counly Clork
Y€S
63.3ólo
28,999
43
of 43
34,973
69.70/o
11,148
22.2ê/ú
4,025
E.0o/o
12
0.oolo
(G). GREEN
O.OYo
GENERAL
4.5o/o
234.063
106,403
9.0%
17,20/o
REGISTRATION AND TURNOUT
Mayor, Counly oÍ Kaua¡
CARVALHO, Bernârd P., Jr
BARCA Dusllñ
73.80/o
2.156
NO
52.Oo/þ
16.814
268
00%
17,747
YES
OVERSEAS TURNOUT
247 01247
14.8%
I
KAUAI: Relal¡ns to Racall Ballols
O.1o/o
18,806
306
Blank Votesi
Ov€r Vol€s:
0.0%
34 of34
Blank VotBs:
25,189
31,561
Blank Volos:
Over Votes;
3't.9û/o
Councilmember (Moloka¡)
CRIVELLÔ Slâcv H€lm
.2%
247 01247
185,576 s0.2%
152.247 41.20/r
YES
QQN AMEND: R6/âlng lo Slale Jus¿¡ces
and Judges
RiK¡
11
0.0%
Aouncilmomber (Lanai)
Blenk Votêe:
73.670
2,775
3.569
Over Volesl
247 01247
NO
15.30/.
NO
17,691
303,022 82.0%
CON AMEND: R'lating lo Agricultural
Enterpr¡sos
8RL,CH. Courtnev A.
'16 ôf 16
YES
ol
O.10/õ
lry)
Blank VotoÊ:
8.9%
o.1%
16
YES
35.70lo
34 of34
HÔKAMA.
1
AMEND: Relal¡ng to D¡sclosuro
Jud¡c¡âl Nom¡nees
BIsnk Votesl
Ovgr Voles:
c ¡hnetnbe
54,tVo
AIONA. Sam
coN
WHITE. Mike
MÕl INA Mike J
n
1t,342
Blqnk Votes:
34 of34
Cou
FUKUNAGA, Carol
30.3%
1
22
Ovor Votos:
34
KAUA¡: Ralating to Chañer Amendmenl
(N) - NONPARTSAN
(o) = DE[4OCRAllC
0.0%
0)
(t)
(õ
L
0)
=(ú oc
o
0)
F
c
o
tt)
_o
r
r
o
O
r
c)
O ()
c\I
O
O
O
r
o
O
o
O
O
C)
C)
O
O
o
O
c!
o
C\
O
O
:l
o
(t)
(ú
o O O O O
o o
o
o
c
o
0)
c)
b
+>
.9õ
q,Ø
i5õ
o)
(U
L
l<
(ú
.i=
õ8
o=
cDo
cl
o
o
O
r
C)
O
o
r
O
() O O
o o
C)
r
r
O
r
O
O
o
O
O
O
o o o
C)
O
c)
O
co
c)
O
() ()
c!
C\J
|f,
c\l
O
O
cl,)
C)
sl-
:
P
c
q)
Ø
-o
o
(t)
(d
L
C)
o
Eõ
:)f
ocD
O
=c)o
E(J
o>
1J=
(EË
U,O
ooç
c)
o)
(ú
L
o
Eg
() :f
c
'õ
cf)
c\l
o
L
fL
c)
L
fL
O
'õ
o
()
o
ll
0)
o)
(g
L
o
o
O
r
c\
O
cl.)
o () o o
O
o
r
O
<.
r
C\I
cf)
O
O
O
c\l
$
r
I
r
o
O
nt
c\l
o
fL
(\I
c\I
o
Ø
c
.-o
(dfi
=õ
fr
bb
"e8
õF
Øo
O
lr
I
I
lr
$ r
O o o
l- t- æ
r
r
r
c)
I
I
I
c!
o
I
æ
r
CÐ
OI
co
r
O
co
r
I
O
I
o)
-
OI
o)
r
O
O
o)
O)
I
r
¡
r
()
O
I
I
cv
C\
O
I
OI
c\
C\¡
c{
(o
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
802 LEHUAAVENUE
SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
PÊAFL CITY, HAWAII 96782
ww, hâwaii. gov/€lgctions
November 20,2014
James Kawashima, Esq.
745 ForI Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Enclosed is an updated version of the overages and underages for the
districtiprecincts associated with your contest. The overage of two absentee mail
ballots in DistrictiPrecinct 22-02 has been reduced to zero ballots. This is the
result of two federal write-in absentee ballots that were counted but were not
initially recorded as received.
Very truly yours,
AARON H. SCHULANER
General Counsel
AHS:AHS:as
oE-14-266
Enclosure
cc
Tommy Waters
Trevor Azawa
Bernice Mau, Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu
E)(}lIBIT d
o)
(t)
(ú
c)
0)
=(d 1ãc
o
r
c)
o o
c\l
o o o
r
o
O O
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
C\J
o
o
o o
O
o
O
O O
o
O
O
r
O
o
C)
cr)
o
$
:f
0)
0)
P
e)
(t)
-o
o
CT)
(d
L
0)
O O
o o
O
o
þ.
o
c
C'
L
o
+>
(tx
{r,
at
u)
i5 i5
.cl !¿¡o5
cDo
go
o)>
Eõ
3=
o
o)
(û
0)
l< -tf
c
0)
Ø
.o
o
(f)
(ü
c)
o
o
O
o o
O
O
O
o
O
C)
c\
c\I
tr)
c!
O c)
c)
o
o
(f)
(d
a)Ï
(t)
o
o
0)
#a)
FE
rDo
o
()
õ c
3 l
!t=
GI
l-
O
c)
rõ
cr)
cÐ
o ()
O
CN
c
C)
c
'õ
)
fL
P
c)
L
tu
()
tr
'õ
o
L
o
o
o
l¿
o
(:t)
(ú
o O
C)
cf)
CN
a)
O
O
O
() O o
\t'
o
C\I
CÐ
@
co
O
o
O O
N O
I
o
O O
c{
c\l
fL
o
Ø
c
.-o
'õç
Bõ
fr
bb
o9ì
fq iE
(no
r
O
It*
r
I
OI
N
o
I
¡r
c)
fI
I
OI OI
æ
v
()
€
r
I
C)
I
O)
r
c!
o
cf)
o)
OJ
I
OI
rt
c)
I
o)
O
O
I
C\T
¡
c{
c{
I
C{
c!
o¡
o
I
(o
CN
Report of the
Election Oversight Committee
on the Audit of the
1998 General Election
March 31, 1999
Published by:
The Auditor
State of Hawaii
EX}IIBIT
I+
Election Ovetsight Committee Membors
M¡rlon Higa, Ghairperaon
State Auditor. State of Hawaii
Ms, Higa was appointed as State Auditor by the 1992 State Legielature for
an eight-yaar term. The Auditor is a constitutiona[ position with broad
pow€rs. Shs leads a staff of 30 whose mission ís to aasure the
accountability of governmenl agencies for thsir policies, prograrne. and
expenditurae of public funds. The offico conducts a large variety of audits
and studie¡ al ths requo$t of the Legislaturo and at its own initiativø. The
office contracts w'tth csrtified public accounting lirms for solectsd financial
audits and conducts all audite under generally accepted government auditing
standards. Tha oflice ropoils ite findings and recomm¿ndations to the
gov€rnor and the Legislature to gíve policy makers timely, accurate, and
objective information for docision making,
Panelope Bonsåll
Director. Olfico of Election Administration
U.S. Fedoral Êlection Commission.
Tha Office ol Election Administration is responsible for the lull realnr ol
olootion activities including acc€ss to the ballot, votðr registration and
educat¡on, ballot tabulation, computer security, canvassing. recounts, and
legislation. As direstor, Ms, Boneall promotes effective election practices
throughout the couhlry through rese¿rch, educational programc. and advice
to stato and local administrators. Sho managed the multi-year national
program to davelop standards to improve ths eccuracy, integrity, and
reliability of computer-based voting syst€rns. Sha guided national
implementation of the National Voter Ragistration Act ol 1993 and
promulgated regulations ånd stâtê reporting requirements. Before joining tho
Fedoral Efeetioo Commission, she waa tho Supervisor of Elactions for
Alaske's South-csntral Region and Director of Planning and Rosaarch for the
Alaeka court system, She has also worked as an election adminietration
consultant in 1 5 states and as tha Eaet Coast managef of an election
sy6tom6 vondor. Ms. Bonsall holds undergraduate and graduate degrees
f rom Gøorge Washingtoo Univorsity.
Mr. R. Doug Lewir
Director, The Election Centsr
Since 1994, Mr. Lewis has directedthe Election Csntsr, a national nonprofit
organìzation thât supports ths elections and voter ragistration professions.
Ths Centar ie tho principal organization ln America lor training and
continuing education of voter registration and slection officials, Under his
direction. lhe Center has est¿blished the Profeesìonal Education Program and
the first Code of Eìhics for administrators. He manages th€ C6ntor'e
resealch and consulting services on voter registration, regulations,
legislatiorr, and slsctions administration aa wsll as conferancas and
workshops to improva methods of oparation and officiancy of elections. Ho
dirocts the Center's Voting Systems Program for the National Associatlon of
State Election Dirsctors that qualifies voting systems hardware and software,
through thair volunta¡y testing by nationally recognized indspendant testing
laboratorios. as meøting or axceeding the faderal Voting Systems Standards,
Mr. Lewis hae also had ¿xteneive oxperietrce in the political arena. He has
managed etate campaigns for Congross, U.S. Senato, govarnor, and U.S.
prasidency; ssrved as oxecutive directo¡ of a political party in two different
states; and was responsible ao an elaction official for two etatewida
primaríes, ln addition, he has had moré t hân 1 5 years of oxporience ae a
manãgêmgnt consultant.
State ol H¡waíi
Th¡ Audltor
Executive Summary
Report of the Electíon Oversíght Commíttee
March 1999
Aûer both the 1998 primary and genøal elections, candidaüEs raised questions
about irregularities in voting and discrepancies in the resuks. A court-ordered
rnanualvotecountrwealedthatsevenprecinctscanningmachineshadmalfi¡nctioned.
The resulting controversy, combined with the change to a new electronic voting
syster4 led to srupiciurs of fraud or incompetence, In order to restore vot€r
conñdence, thelegislatr:rein SenateConrurentResolutionNo.3l, S,D. I ordEred
the chiefeleçtion ofücer to conduct a complete audit oftlre 1998 genetal election
results. Tlrevendo¡ ofthe electrorrie voting sysûem, Electronic Systøns & Softwa¡e
@SeS) agreed to underwrite the oost of the audit. To cnhancs lhe credibility of
the audit, the Legislatu¡e established an Election Oversþht Committe¿ composed
of a rcpresenfative of the Federal Election Commissio4 a representative of the
Houston-based Election Center, and the State Auditor. This report from the
Election Oversight Cfinüúttee preseirts its findings and recommendations on the
objectivity and accuracy ofthe audit andthe electronic vote counfing process.
Findings
The Committeefoundthattheauclitdemonstratedthattheresults ofthe 1998 general
elections were accuiate and trusq¡,orthy. The audit was conducted professionally
and with integrity in accordance with ostablished procedures. These procedutes
conform with frrndamentat princþles of vote counting in a dcmocracy. Thc
Committee also found thæ improvements can be rnade in state €lection law and to
strengthenthe Office of Blections.
The audit indicatesthat disorepancies inthe 1998 goneral election were confinedto
swen malfunctioning precinct sçanners. The overall re.rults wçre accurate and the
audit reveals no change in the ouücome of any race. The I 998 general electim has
now been counted at least three times: in Novsmber 1998, in the 1999 audit using
high speed inftared central counters and fhen using high speed visible ligtrt central
counters. Finalty, manual audits were done in selected races and precincts. The
results from all the counts were very similar, varying from each ofher, forthe most
'rlYe
pârt, by less than I percent.
believe the ES&S has satisfied its obligation to the
State to resolve probloms raised by its equipment during the 1998 elecúons.
The audit was conducted with integrity. Priorûotle audif tlre Office of Elections
issued a manual of procedures that would be iruplemorted for the audit. Thesc
procedures were adaptations ofones used duringthe 1998 general eleotion, The
manual identifiedteamsthat would be responsible for various aspects of.the audit,
theirrole andresponsibilities, andtheptocsdures theyhadtofollow. Wefoundthat
the tearns operated as instructed by the manual. Open participation, witnessing of
the process, and moniûoring rvere maintained th'roughout by a tearrr of oñcial
)
Stata of Hawail
Th! Audltor
obsewers. The offioial obssrvers arç reprcsentatives of politioal parties and
organizations liketho League ofWomenVoters and the rnedia. Many oftho official
observors a¡e enpericnced in elections and in computer operations . TheAssociation
of Clerks and Ele¿tion Office¡s of tlawaii made up of county clorks and registars
from each ofthe counties also monitored closely all operations. Watchers and other
interested individuals were allowed to view the operations from behind a rail.
To improve the State's electoral process, we believe that the Legislature should
establishataskforce toconductacomprehensive studyofthe State's electionlaws.
Manyarepredicatedonapunchcardsystemthatisnolongerviable. Newprovisions
a¡e also needed in a¡eas relating to recounts and votirrg systems. ln addition, nerv
rules are neetled to implerxrem the lan, properly. A reviwv of state election laws
should include the question of tlre placement of the chief election officer and tlre
Office ofElections. Currørtly, no one maintains oversightof or is accourt¿ble for
thechiefelectionofficer, AnElectionAppointnentPanelhasonlythopowertohire
and fire the chief election officcr. We believe that an elected official should appoint
theohiefeleotionofficor. lnmostotlrerstatçs,thisisthesecreüaryofstatewhohas
functions simila¡ to those of Ha$raii's lieutenant govemor. To maintain the
continuity ofthe Office of Elections, certain technical positions in the office should
be made civil service positions.
To further strengt}eir the Office of Elections, we believe that the State's ele,ction
officers should be given opportunities for continuing professÍonal education.
Worlahops, seminars, and cont¿ct with fsllow election administraúors on the
mainland would do much to holp tlrem become more familiar with technological
adrrances, fcderal rcquirements, system requirements, and potential problems posed
byvarious types of voting eqnipnrent.
Recommendations
'We
l.
recommend that the Legislature:
Est¿blish aaskforceto conduct a comprehensive studyoftho St¿te's election
laws. Tlre t¿sk force should be composed of the chairs of Senate and House
Corn¡nittees onlhe Judiciary, the chiefeiection officer, rtpresentatives fromthe
Association of Clorks and Election Ofñcers of Havvaü, the Blection Advisory
Committee, the political parties, aûd other organizations active in tlre electoral
process
2.
liketle
L,eagrre
of WomenVoters.
Thelegislature should ¿lsoconsiderwaystopromoteproÈssional deveþment
oflhe State's election staff.
Marion M. Hlga
State Aud¡tor
Stats of Hawail
Office of the Auditor
465 South King Street, Room 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(8081 587-0800
FAX {808} 587-0830
Report of the
Election Oversight Cornmittee
Published by
THE AUDITOR
STATE OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
465 S. King Street, Room 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2917
MARION M. HIGA
Slate Audltor
(808) 587-0800
FAX: (808)587.0830
Ma¡oh 31, 1999
The Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
President ofthe Senate
State Capitol, Room 003
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
The Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol, Room 431
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:
We are pleased to transmit to you our report on the audit of the November 1998 general election
as requested in Senate Concwrent Resolution No, 31, S.D. l.
We appreciate having been given the opportunity to serve the State in resolving the important
question ofthe integrity of the State's electoral process.
Sincerely,
ù.,2,*.h,
hrl/r*\
Marion M. Higa, State Alditor
Eleotion Oversight Committee
Offrce of Eloction
Election Commission
R.
Lewis,
The Election Center
Foreword
This extraordinary assignment afforded us the opporhrnity not only to
particþate in what we hope will
be a rare and one-time e¡penence, but
also an opporhmþ to interact r+'ith a number of dedicated citizens and
ofiñcials. We wishto elpress our appreciation forthe cooperation
extcnded to us by the chief elestron otficer andhis staffatthe Offrce of
Elections, the Official Observers, theva¡ious county election offrcials,
Eleotion Systems and Soffnr¿re rqrresentatives, and the many otlrer
individuals who gave us their pøspectives on the State's electoral process.
'We
would also like to acknow'ledge the contribution of Ms. Diana M.
Chang, retired Deputy Statc Audiør, who assisted us in research,
analysis, andreport writing. We couldnothave carried outtlús
assignment withouther skills and, and more importantlg her total
commiûnsrt to our responsibilities under Senate Concu¡rent
ResolutionNo. 31, Sen¿te
Þaft l.
The Election Oversight Committec
Table of Gontents
Report of the Election Oversight Cornmittee
Bacþorurd
I
Frndings and Recommendation¡¡ ..............
8
Summary
22
Recommelrdations.......
23
Exhibits
I
Manual,{udit of the 1998 General Election Results ......6
Exûibit2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Steps Taken By tlo Electiør Oversight Cornmiüee ........9
GerreraUotlA Election, Statewide Summary Report....
Comparison of General Election RÊ,sults with Manual
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Audit Results
Examples of Ballot Markings
List of Officiat Observers
Exhibit
ll
l3
t5
t7
vil
Report of the Election Oversight Committee
March 1999
a new electronic voting
system for the prfunary and general elections. Afte¡ both the primary and
In 1998, the State's Election Office implurrented
general elections, candidates raised concerns about voting irregularities
and discrepancios, These charges, combined with the change to a new
voting systan and high public interest in closely contested racÊs, øeated
considerable colrtto\ærsy and suspicions of fraud or incompetênce. Â
manual vote count ordered by the State Supreme Court fheir revealed that
seven scanning machines used in the precincts had malfi¡nctioned,
Newspaper polls showed that many voters had lost confidence in the
electoral process.
In orderto restore voter confidence, the Legislatnre, in Surate Concurrent
Resolution No. 31, Senate Draft l, otdered the chief elsction officerto
conduct a complete ard duly supeivised audit of tire 1998 gsneral election
results. Since the deadline for cor$esting the general eleotion had passed"
the attorncy general opined thatthe results of the audit would have no
bearing on fhe previously certified election results. Nwertheless, the
Iægislature hoped that an audit would est¿blish whetler the 1998 general
electionhâd int¿gnty and tnrstworthy results. Election Systems ancl
Sofuxare (ES&S), the vendor ofthe new elect¡onic voting systerr¡ agreed
to undernrite the cost of the audit.
To ensure the objeotivþ ofthe audit and to cnhance ie crcdibility, tfu
Legislature established an Election Oversight Committee comprised of a
reptesentative ofthe Fcderal Election Connnission (FEC), a represeirtative
of the Houstonôased Election Center, a¡d the State Auditor. This report
preselrts the Election Oversiglrt Comnri$ee's assessflrcnt of the audit
conducted by the chief election officer.
The objectives of the Eleotiou Ovorsight Committee were to:
Background
l.
Observe, review, assess, and report onthe objectivity and accuracy
the audit process, and
2.
Report findings and recomme¡rdations onthe objectivity and accuracy
ofthe audit process and the elechonic votc counting process.
of
To give some perspective to our ñndings and recommendations, the
Ëlection Oversiglrt Comrnittce offers some bacþround on relevant Hawaii
election law, voting systems and their operation in lhc 1998 general
election, the conduct of the audit by the chief election officer, and the
basis for the assessrne¡rt by the Committee.
1
of thc El.otlon ov¡r¡lght commlttee
State
law
Article IV, Section 3, ofthe State Constitutionprovides for a chief
election officer who slull supervise statc elcctions, mærimizevoter
registration, and maintain data m voters, elections, apportionment and
districting. Cbapær 11, Flawaii Revised Sî¿tutes (FIRS), sets forth the
State's election process in grealer detâit. ft allows the chief election
officer 1o delegate responsibilþ for sate elections on tåe Neighbor
Islands to the county clerks of the respeøive counties. Other relevant
provisions are contained in Chapter 12, HRS, on Primary Elections,
Chapter 15, [IRS, orrAbsentee Voting, and Chapter 16, HRS, on Voting
Systems.
ïhe Office of Elections
For many years, tlre chief election officer was the lieutenant govemor. [n
1995, the Legislature amended the lawto est¿blish a five-member
Blec,tions Appointment Panel with tfie powerûo appoint a chiof election
of;Ecer for a tsrm of four years. The governor appoints one menrber and
one each from liss submittcd by lhe president oftlre Senate, the speaker
of the Housg me,mbers of the Senate belonging to a party differeut from
that ofthe presidelt urd members of a party different from that of the
speaker. Panel mffù€rs serve aterm offour years and amaximum of
two terms. Tlre panel only has power to select ând remove the chisf
election officer. The Legislature also established an Office of Elections to
provide supportto the chief election offtcer. Borhthe panel and the chief
election of,Ecer axe attached to the Office of tlte Lieuts¡mt Governot for
aùninistrative pulposes.
Precinct oflicials and w¡tchers
The law reçires each preoinct to have aÎ least three precinct officials of
which one is thc chairperson. The chairperson shall be ofthe same
political party as the govemor. The officials are sslect€d from names
submittcd by all qualified political parties no later thzur 60 days prior to
the close of filing for any election. Should the n¿mes submittsd be
insufficient, the chief election offtcer rnay desipate additional precinct
officials. Precinct officials mustundergo a coursç of instruction
conduoted by tho ohiofekrction officer and be certified by an instructor.
Eaoh political party is also ontitled to appoint watchcrs in each precinct
and polling place.
Ballots
PaTtVIII of Chapter I l, HRS, specifies the
ccmtents, arrangement
of
rla¡nes, ballot formats, ærd the priuting of tle ballots. It details how the
nnmes are to be arranged and the side ofthe ballot on rvhich votcrs are to
desþate their choice of candidates.
2
Rrport of lho Electlon ovcrclght Commlltoe
Vote disposition
Statc law provides for how votes are to be counted, and what to do wherr
the¡e are mo¡e or fewer ballots than indicated by the poll books. Precùrct
officials and the chief election officer are responsible for the proper
handling, disposition, and securityofrecords. The results ofthe election
aro csrtified by the chief election officer.
Recount provisions
Sestion 11-172, FIRS, providas that any candidate or qualified political
party or any 30 voters may contpst an election by filing a cornplaint in the
state Supreme Court. The coutest must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on
the sixth day after a prima¡y or no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 20th day
following the general election. Thc ohallenger must firmish evidence of
fraud or vote overages or undorages that could cause a difference in
eleotion results.
VotÍng systems
Chapær 16 FIRS, definestwotypes of voting systems-a paperballot
system aud an electronic voting system. It mandaæs such speciûcs as
requiring officials to record the number ofblank or questionable ballots in
a paper ballot system and to reject votes cast by a voter when the number
of votes exceeds the numbçr of candidates to be elected in an elecbonic
voting system.
Voting systems and
opefat¡ons
To assist election officials with assessingthe performance of iacreasingly
comple4 votingtechnology systffrs, Congress arthorized the FEC to
issuo national standards for computer-based s1'stems. In lanuary 1990,
the FEC approved performance and æsting proceduros forpunchcard,
markseirse (OMR), and direct electronic (DRE) r,oting systems, a plan for
their implementation, and a process for evaluating independent test
autl¡orities to tcst the systems. The standârds set parâmsters for I'oting
systems desþ aud a rang€ for performance. Currmtly, 27 staæs have
udopfnd these FEC Vottng System Standards.t Pdor to purchasing or
leasing systøn hardware or software, thsse states require thc vcting
equipment to have been subject to qualification tests by an independent
testing authorþ. The qualification tests selectively e><amine fhe software
in depth; inspect and evaluatç system documentation; testtlr€ hardrvare by
simulating sûorage, operatioq transportations and maintørance; and
operate the system to test performanc,e undçr normal and abnormal
circumstarices.
The Election Center, locaterl in Houston, Texa^s, is the secret¿riat for the
National Association of State Election Diresüors (NASED) for çaliSing
voting those systems that meet the FEC Voting Sjstem Standards. Íl
3
Feport ol thc Eleotion Ovarcight Qornmitlee
managos the qualifications testing and approval of voting equipmert
through nationally recognized independent testing laboratorics. Those
voting systenrs that meet the FEC Voting S)tstem Standards are designated
asNASED qualified.
The voting sysûeÌr¡s lurdwa¡e and soûs,arc used inthe Hawaii 1998
primary and generai olections are NÂSED qualified. TIre State lEased a
systøn from ES&S that counted pre ctnct bal[ots using a Model 100
visible light (VL) scarurer and absentee bøIlots using a Model 550
infrared (IF) central counter. The Model l00s were used in all precincts
statewide; the Model 550s were used at each counting center on the
Neighbor Islands and at the St¿te Capiticl inthe case of tho City and
County ofHonolulu. The results fromthe precinct and absentee ballots
were accumulated by ES&S's eleotionreporting system (ERS) to a¡rive at
summary vote results. Tho Modcl I 00 precinct scarmÊr, the Model 550 IF
cental counter, andthe ERS are alt NASED qualified.
Conduct of the audit
For the audit, ES&S firnished tvvo types of high speed central counting
machines: (I) Model550 central countêrs using infraretl 0F) Iight source
for scaruring and (2) Model 550 central counters using visible light (VL)
liglrt source for scaming. The Model 100 precinø scruüxers rvere not
used.
The Model 550 IF cenftal counters use tlp satne type of light source as
was used to co:uunrt absentee ballots at fhe counting ceuters during the
1998 ge,neral elections. They read ballots marked with carbon based
instruments, such as pencils. They areNASEÐ qualiñed.
The Model 550 VL central counters ars new machires t¡at use the same
light source for scaruring ballots as was used bythe Model 100 preoinct
machines during tho general election. They read ballots marked by a
wider range of marking instruments including pencils, pens, and otlter
markers. ES&S recommendedusingttre Model550 VL csntral counters
for the audit since they would read the prccinct ballots in a manner similar
to thE Model I00s. However, the newer VL central counteis îÍe nat
NASED qualified and were not used during the i998 gencral election.
Prior to the stari ofthe audi! the ohiefelection offrcer decided that the
official audit court would be based on results ftom the Model 550 IF
central counters for tluee leasorui: (l) they wete used during the
November 1998 general elecúo¡rs for counting absentee ballots, (2)
SCR 31, S,D. 1 speciñcally requested ttrat the audit begin $,ilh central
count€rs using infrared ligbt, and (3) the Model 550 IF is NÀSED
qualified. Ho$'e\rer, the chief election offtcer gave ES &S the option of
also running all ballots on the Model 550 VL central counlers.
4
Raport ol thô Elâollon Ovsrelghl Commiltc.
Mnnual nudits
As a fu¡thff clreck on the accuracy of the general election results, rnanual
audits were o¡dered. The chief election officer decide4 and the Blection
Oversiglt Committee cørcurred, that manual audits qtould be performed
on:
a
Six precincts that had previously been identified as having had
very close races-the vote spread betvtreenthe winning candidate
and losing candiclate had been I percant or less.
Any contests where tlÉ vari¿mce was I percent or greâter betweur
votes ca,st for candidates in the November 1998 general election
and votes tallied by the IF central counters.
a
Requests for audits from county clerks or official observers.
Requests for
audi* fromthç Election Oversight Committee.
Exhibit I shows the complete list of rnanual audits that was selected by
the Election Oversþht Committee, the Office of Electiorx, and the
chairman of the ofiÉcial observ'ers.
a total of 16 contests and 72 precincts were manually audited.
Three rsndoñi batches ofabsontee ballots from the City and County of
Honolulu were also manually audited. ln addition, because coucerns had
been expressed fhat the numbor ofblank votes forúre governor's race was
abnormally low, tåe Eleotion Oversight Committee requested that a
sample of four Maui precincts be audited for btank votes in the governor's
race. This rvas done by running the blank votes through the VL central
counter and veriSing the results.
Alagether
The Electîon Avercight
Committeø
To monitor the audit, the Legislahue sought to fashion a committee with
recognized credibility. National expertrse was provided by representatives
fromtlre FEC and Tlre Election Center. Both Parelope Bonsall oftüc
FEC's Office of Election Adrninisl¡ation and R. Doug Lewis of fte
Elçction CEnter are knowledgeable about prevailing clection practices and
procedures nationwide. Local expertiss r1'¿ls furnished by MarionHiga,
ttre State Auditor. To lead its oversight effort, the members ofthe
commitüee sele¿ted Ms. Higa as its chairperson.
Penelope Bonsall has been the Director of the federal Office of Election
Â.&ninistration for alnrost 20 years. \[orking with election ofñcials,
private vendors, and public interest groups, she managed the national
progr4mto develop standards to improve the accuracy, integrity, and
reliability of computor-based voting s)'stems. Her office servcs as a
5
ol th. Êl€cr¡on Ovrrelght Commlttes
Exhlblt
1
Manual Audit
of 1998 General Elections Results
Conteet/Candidstes
Ahu lsa / Chino
Kauai Councllmombor
Raoozo / Swain
State Senate Dlstrlct 23
Nakata / Pickard
State Rep. District 44
Auwae / Jones
State Rep. Dlstrlot 6
Rath / Tarnas
lrfad¡fi¡on lnlt¡at¡ve.
47t
Selected by Election Oversight Committee
1-7
1?0û to 14-10
45-06;
46:
1-4;
Office of Hawall¿n Affalrs
Maui Trustees and Oahu
Trustees
State Bep. Dlstrict 47
Catalani / Díou
Maul Councilmember
Britton / Nishiki
Govelnor/Lt. Governor**
Cayetano / Hirono
Lingle / Koki
Peabodv / Bartlev
stato sonato D¡slfict 4* +
Buen / Corboy
State Rep. Dlstrlct 1O++
Evert / Morihara
State Rep, Dlstdct 26+r
06:
1-7
1-4
09-07 and 12-01
Selected by Election Oversight Comm¡ttee.
07-03; 10-01; 16-02; 28O4t a2-08; & 60-03
Selected by Office of Elections as orre of eight
additional prec¡nctsto be manually audited.
o7-03
Selectêd by Office ol Élections as one of eight
additional orecinctsto be rnanually audited.
Selected by Office of Elections as one of eight
additional Drôcinctsto be manually audited.
Selected by Office of Elections as ono of sight
additional orecincts to be manuallv audited.
Selected by Olfice of Elections as one of eight
additional orecincts to be manuallv audited.
Selected by office of Electìons to be manually audited
because of reports that Council District 2 candidates
were incorrectly printed next to David Murakami's name
{când¡datê for State Rep}. No ballots found to
substant¡at€ reoorts.
Selected by Oflice of Elections as one of eight
additional precincts to be manually audited.
10-01
26-04
42"
42-OB
2*'
5GO3
5i*
21-01 and 25-O2
City Council D¡strict
47: 1-3t
48-01
44: 1-3
01-02; 01-05; 02-03; 0305; 03-08; 04-07; 04-09;
0$O3; 05-08; & 0ô-05
County of Hawaii
Yes Votes / No Votes
Dawson / Luke
State Rep. Distdct
Moses / Timson
27"Q2 and 44-Q1
Reason/Salected Bv
Selected by Election Oversight Committee and OÍfice of
Elections - contost decided bv lo/¡ or less dílference.
Selected by Election Oversight Committso and Office of
Elections - conte.st decided bv 1% or less difference,
Selected by El€ction Oversíght Committee and Oflice of
Elections - contest decided by I % or less difference.
Selected by Election Oversight Committes and Office of
Elections - contest decided bv 1o/o or less difference.
Selected by Election Oversight Committee and Office ot
Elections - contest decided bv 1oá or less difference.
Selected by Election Overslght Committee and Office of
Ëfections - contest decided by 1% or less difference.
The Oversight Committee decided to audit 10 prec¡ncts
selected bv the Official Observers.
Selected Þy Officíal Observers.
DIstr¡ctrPrsc¡ncte+
27:
state Rep, Dlstr¡ct 27
Aduia lHolmes
City Council Distrlct
{Francis / Mirikitanil
Blank Votes
Ståtswids Contesls
Gove¡nor/Lt. Govomot*
Blank votes
3 random batches of
Absentee Ballots from the
City & County of Honolulu
(1 absentee walk and 2
*'
Selected by Bussell Mokulehua, Official Observers
chairperson.
absentee mâil),
07-06; 09'05; 08-03; &
1
1-04
Selected by the Election Oversight Committee to verify
the blank vote counts.
Source: Office of ElectÍone, March 14. 1999.
'Total of 72 precincts manually audíted.
I rThasc contastc do not includs absentce re¡ults lo¡ the disrriot/precincts lístsd'
'*.The ballotg from these precinct¡ wero procesaad through the visible light cenrral counlor to verify lho blank votas ln thc
Govef nor/Lt. Govsrnor Gonlest.
6
Rspon of the Elcotion Ovcrsight Committo€
cenfral cxchar¡ge for rosearch and infonnation on all mattors r€lating to
election administration. Prior to joinirg the FEC, she was a state slection
ofitcer in Alaska.
R. Doug Lewis is the Directo¡ of the Election Center based in Houston.
The Election Center is the secretari¿t for NASED ín çaliSing voting
systems tlr¿tmeet federal Vottng Slstem SYandards. The Election Cerüer
is the only nonprofit organization with a ftll-time staffthat specializes in
voter registration and elections administration^ It providos consulting
servicos, continuing professional education, researcþ and workshops to
member governrnents and elestior ofrcials. Mr. Iæwis also has extensive
erçerience in manqglrrg state and national campaips for Congress,
govemor, and the U.S. preside,ncy.
Marion Higa, the Staæ Auditor, provides her recogpized experience in
auditing and oversight, her knowledge of auditiog principles, and proper
nranagement of govemment programs^
Criteria used
In carrying out its oversight ârnctioq the Comnúttee based its findings
a¡rd recommendations on prerrailing electisn st¿ndards nationwide and
those criteria that would satisfy roasonable people that the audit was
conducted with integrþ and would producc rosults that are reliable, Both
Mr. Lewis and Ms. Bonsall have expert knowledge of the limitations of
voting s''stens and acceptable standards of election administration. Their
knowledge of prevailing and acceptable practices guided the comnúttee's
findings and recommendations. They emphasize lhat no perfect election
has eve¡ been conduøed and that no perfcct voting system eústs. By their
natlre, elections are participatory oarrying withthem all thc hazards and
ine,fficiencios that exist in a democracy. Thousands of paid volunteers are
marshaled to ürork ortremeþ long hours under intense pressufe, const¿rt
scrutiny, media attention, and timeconsttaints. Mistakes will occur.
The Conrmittee was also guided by rvhat election experts endorse as
funda¡nental principles of vote counting in a democracy. Amorlg the most
important principles are the following:2
Accuracy - esablishing clear procedures and manuals, adequate
søfftraining, clear audit tails of ballots and checking and
rechecking methods.
Transparency - encouraging openparticþation and witress of the
procoss andthe results ofthe counting process.
Prafesstonalism - having thoroughly trained, nonpartisan, and
committed eleclion ofticials,
7
of thc Elcqllon
Committre
I
Securtty - ensuring the secudty ofballots through numbering
systerns, tamper proof seals, and other methods.
Åccountabiliry - establishing clear responsibilities for each stage
ofthe process and procedures for complaints.
.
&luity - ensuring llrat the counting is fair and proper.
Steps taken
To cnsurethatthe audit undertaken bythe Office of Elections mst
prevailing standards, the Election Ovøsight Committee reviewed
i¡rformation on the background ofthe audit and monitored the audit from
the initial brieñng by tüo chief election officer to the conclusion of tlre
manual audits. The Committee tookthe stqrs listed in Bxhibit 2.
Findings and
Recomrnendations
The general election
Íesults wete accurate
The Election Oversight Commitee found that:
L
The audit dononsEated that the results of the 1998 general elections
were accurato and trustworthy.
2.
The audit was conducted professionally and with inûegnty in
accordance with established procedures.
3.
Some irnprovements can be made in state election law and to
strengthenthe operations of the Elections Office.
We concluded that tlre audit conducted by tlre chief election offrcer
dsmonstrated that the general election results were accurate and reliable
The audit was tlre first of its kind in llawaü and, as far as we know, the
most extensive inthe history ofthe United States. The 1998 general
election has now been counted at least three times:
.
Firsq in Nol'ember 1998.
.
Second, in March 1999 on high speed IF central counters.
.
Thir{ in March
.
1999 on high spced VL cental counters.
Fourth, a numbcr of races and precincts lsve had oüe or morþ
ma¡rual lecounts.
Each ofthe above counts produced results that either exactly or vsry
closely matohed the other counts.
I
of thô
Comm¡ttoe
Exhibit 2
Steps Takcn By the Electlon Oversight Comm¡ttss
1.
Reviewed all complaint letters relating to the 1998 etections
2.
Reviewed testimony and other relevant documents and llterature
a
lnvestigated areas of potential vulnorabilities in audit mothods or practices.
4.
Listened to concerned citizens, legislators, observer groups, official watchers, elections
officials, representatives o{ ES&S and the news media.
5
Utilized knowledge of recount procedures, and questions that. occuned in recount situations
in other jurisdìctions to assess procedures established for the ¡udit.
f¡
Ouestioned elections officials and observers about procedures followed in the 1998
elections and administrative safeguards implemented for the audit.
7.
Observed operations and special tests performed on equipment,
8.
Performed testlng and situation anatysis of precinct level, district level, county and
statsw¡do lsvels.
I
Ordered manual counts to examine a variety of conditions including geographical
representat¡on and level of races in both general and OHA €lect¡ons.
10.
Examined ballots first hand to determine how voters marked ballots and to assure ourselves
that ballots wðre counted conectly.
11.
Selected samples of precincts as surprise audits as recommended by the official observers,
12.
Met w¡th county clerks, election officials and official observers to ass€ss election
procedures and practices.
13.
Used comparison team data compiled by the independent account¡ng firm of Arthur
Anderson to compare and assess the accuracy and reliability of the 1998 general election,
14.
Directed election staff and vendors to resolve and verify any questionable data.
9
Report of tha Elocrlon
Commltt¡a
Stntewide summñrT reporh
ES&S aclnowledged that seven of its prcinct count€rs rnalfirnctioned on
election day. The audit indicates that disorepucies in tlre 1998 general
election were confined to sevflt malfrrnctioning Model 100 precinct
scanners. The results ofthe November general election were accurate anil
the audit reveats no change in the outpome of any contest.
To determine the accuracy oftlre gareral election tenfts, ES&S retained
tho independentpublic accounting firm ofArthur Anderson to develop
tables comparing the 1998 general election resnlts with rcsults from the IF
anct VL central coufrers. In developing tle comparison tables, Arthur
Anderson performed agreed-upon proceduros in accorda¡rce with
standards established by the American Instituæ of Certified Public
Accou¡rtants. The comparison reported statewide and countywide results
for each contesl bythe total votps cast, including absentee ballots and
handcounted damaged ballots that could not be proçessed on the central
countsrs. These t¿bles and other more de{ailed data can be found at the
Ofücc of Elections.
In this report, we illustate the accuracy of the results in Exhibit 3, which
is a copy of the first page of the Statewide Summary Report we received
frorn Arthur Á,nderson.
Exhibit 3 compares the originatly reported results from the November 3'
1998 general electiou (Seøtion A) with the results from the IF cenüal
countets (Section B) and the results from the VL csntral cÆunters
(Section C). The data show tlrc nunrber of votes by rvhichthe three
counts varied and the percentages by which they varied. Column I of
Section B shows the Maroh tally from the IF central counters' Column 2
is the tally for manually counted ballots that could not be processed
through the cefitral counters because they wore damaged or impropedy
ma¡ked. Column 3 shows thc totals from columns I a¡rd 2' Column 4 is
ths difference bstween the Novenrber 3, 1998 count and the March audit
count. Column 5 is tho differencc between the two above counts
expressed as ¿ pffcentage (colunrn 4 divided by tlte November voto).
Section C presents similar information for counts resulting from the VL
central counters. (Manual counts vi,€re not included in tlæ VL tallies;
instead, damaged or unprocessible ballots were added to the IF manual
counts.) Giveir the nature of marking devices used m election day, ES&S
believes that the
VL results
E:ùibit 3 shows th¿t thc
are more accurats-
percsntag€ va¡iance between tlre three counts is
very small except for the blank votes and overvotes. In the race for U.S'
Senator, for example, the Novembor general election rcsults for Senator
Lrouye were 937 more votss than the IF tally or a variance of 3/l0ths of
I percørÇ they were only 14 votes less thanthe VL count or a variance of
'lVe
found only tluee instances inthe Statervide Summary
0 percent.
10
Report of tho Ehctlon Ov.rslúht Coñm¡n.c
Exhlb¡t 3
Ocnc¡al/OHA Eloction
Sütôwld. gummary ßepori
g.oüon
g..don A
f
llov.3.
gilì.to r
lO! lNOtryE. D¡nlôl K,
lll MAttAN, Lloyd
316292
Elmk Volc
Ovlr Vota
8.P. . Dlet. ¿
lll cl{Ull,
l{or.on Lôllôh¡r
{ßl DOUOLASS. Cgol J.
lÞ¡ MINR. Prby Tâlmotô
Blant Vot.
ovrt votc
t88e62
Slnl
Votc
oYôr Vota
Son.ro¡ - Dht. 2
lDl MAT8UUSÀ, Orvid
[ßl WALK€R' Denis
VÖtc
.r?lE
2g
1E1q'
288
tol4r
z?e
I l63Be
39õ7
t8?8A
321
18
6TrS
.491
3l
39{7
6A86t
t
lDl CHUMBI,ÉY, Avcry
IU ÞYEñ, MÌGfiIôI M
lÂl LAPONO, Rioùüd
I
6
8lilt Vot¡
3èna¡ôr . Dbt. 7
lÞl CHUal. Joñðlh.n J.
fñl MEASÊL. Robon, Jr.
42
I
f30e3
6026'
367
.7o2
l0s
1â2
2Gtt83
46.2
2ô:1615
501
1lÐ.247
s62
ts803Ð
313
13
80
r{,JÛ
-2
t4
4668
1201
-1t24
I t87
7227
s237
oaz
4
31
72AA
25
45
s282
ôgt
4
55
"93
tEs86
t4
4
16880
t 8e2
27
1888
792
4
0
?6ô
3
-36
(Dl
nASMUSSEN. Clndy
T M, Rod
8l¡r*, Vot
Ovc¡
Vcl.
1
0700
46e2
32
724
.46
l6
3
o
0889
72
980t
lj¡98
1E
.t
I
6f62
a
4
0
6r€1
¡
2g
2
0
-44
ô
08
e
0
o
t476t
74
s
'tt34
o.01*
7oss4
I 3s69
33ô
l¡6¡t
g
1a2A
-8¡t
3
3
2808
9220
2t
.o.o¡¡*
33ô
37.1?*
0.039ú
.0,?79{
t8882
3t
ast2
I
õt900
6åeoo
5
o,ot*
6323
Þ323
-35
-0.eôx
ro0
t09
21
f6.r5tó
.7
-21
-o.oûtå
.o,06tú
13201
r
1
320r
7o147
r 4432û
g33e
6A44?
1 ¡t4326
9338
.3¡l
r96
ls0
1€5
204163
2O¡1163
43
t0t9E0
-0
53.
o,r3*
-30
107
241
13089
3ø72
r8ô62
-72
0.o3t6
'0.009{
.o.379¿
a5.?1 t6
0.o296
o.o0t6
-o,06
4,104
-3t
15.7tS
3474
1S8tô8
4404
3871
1?70
r2?o
72aO
933',l
8331
t10
018
.8
0.06s
,1.32tí
I
1
r4.e99É
6t00
I 690e
-2
18S4
î894
.l
122
2
722
2
.2
0
-o.o1{
"o.oó*
-o.29'l
.22
-13,0
?280
e
o.17s
o.o5*
I
.6,7A
6ö6
976â
acoT
661
'7.14
l1
r4
o.30s
9830
0930
oo.1
t4ga
5t73
61
t76,1
t1
l4s4
tdro
0.o0s
1
.1
17
to
-14
I 1007
70984
3
721
¡fôO7
I
0.25
-3,04ri
68
10.0¡19ú
3
0
o.o4*
1
o,oo96
-,1
-o-2t?ß
-o.o0'6
23
0
3.3Ð*
o,oos
o.00s
.o.rela
I 588
't68t
o
-2
-3
?
0
ô
E
4É,a5t6
4810
14016
1981
g
0.06ró
! 061
135',|
a
l¡lto
79
t36l
I
?814
9233
2
't
'o.oô96
o.tt96
0.10*
.o,62X
-2
-33.3396
't
-0.o,rÍ
0,oe*
1É17
!68t
.31
2¿14
9233
I 682
a
o
6
3
7
I
2
6880
fl
2l
I
6900
8548
17
22
.41
6û17
ô5ft0
ôtt8
o
-'l
74?
69f 7
0609
ds8
4
0.5?$
t3
4
fô
t0
t
8.88*
4623
795
l3
0
5
0,
-0.14f
.0
-l 3ô
11
11
2800
9¿09
6S17
0
225
e6¡3
¡l69l
9t.tà sËnltôr - Dl¡t, 13
lnl
0.1
1000¡l
3
Blãl Vct!
o.609.
e
96
3t528ô
1
l4
a
0ttf.
t 1007
0.t
o.1
lll.il.l
315284
-0.Ër
66
f¡1.:18O7
ftlro Srn.tor - ohr,
Ov¡r Votc
1i7
ô3
3
I
M.roh
O
Urbt
,
24e
31r
1422
10
lll GAffON€lqt. D¡rrol Þ,
l0l lllAñ4, Lcr, Jr.
r912Q
totô8
s5
0t41
lgilô
Votô
Ovar Vola
34
rol
te
s37
40
l.l¡lEEn
l408ft
8lüt
lzo
sa
6
Ov.r Vot
t0
a737
3
Ov.r Vôtc
S.n¿tor . OÈt. 4
lDl BUEN, J0 tY.gi¡
lRl coÈBoY. Jóhn M.
Blül Vo1.
Stât' Srñ¡tor. Dbt.
70€70
80
4
707ø.
4¡t0
Sonalor - Dþt. f
lßl C,{BRO¡.L, John L IXæ¡{l
lDt INOUYE' Lorr¡lm Rod¡¡o
Ovâr votà
1'1960
4387
IU PEABOÞY/SARTLEY
Bbìk Vgts
Ovu Votc
Blek
3t4316
108
Oov.
(01 CAYEf^No¡HtRoNo
(F} LINGLÊ'KOKI
16
40
r45
t
lsl
0[t
0¡10
t60t¡t
1
6
11420
?09A4
6Sû06
4
3t3076
lJofll
(Rl YouN€. cryrt.l
BlañI Vot
Ovâr Votr
U.S. Rrt. . OI¿r. 1
fOI ABERCROMBIE. Ndt
lÌ'$l BÊOWORTH, Nlêholæ
lRl WARO, G.n.
s.cdon
¡
'1662
s
.6
-0.329i
22.22fi
o.ooÉ
-o.ot
*
gourc!: Orfa6 ot gl.ctldr, M¡rch 19, 1t99,
11
orl of thô Elöotlon
Commiltec
Rçort
wlrere a candidate's vote count under the IF central coruü€'rs
ditrersd by more than I percent from that in tho general election. Our use
of the I percent or grÊater yariance lv¿rs for audit targeting purposes, so
we could verify the aocuracy of the November 1998 gørreral election and
the March 1999 audit. In "official" re¿ount elections, variances of
anyttring more than 3 or 4 votes per precinct would need to be reconciled
to the lorvcst possible number. We opted for tlre I percent variance in
order to speed tho process along and to assure the public that any outcome
which could have charrged the winners of any contest would be thoroughly
examined. In ¡no of tlre instances, the variance tlropp"d below I pet'oent
lvhenthe results were compared withlhose from the VL centrãl counters.
In the third instance, the variance v¡as due to the eadier November 1998
miscount by a malñ¡nøioning precinct scanner.
Porcentago r¡ariances for blank votes rrcre higlrer. Blark votes occur
whon a voter does not solect ¿ candidate in a race or misma¡ks a ballot,
ES&S explained thatthe blankvote count was higher on the IF cenbal
counters because they do not pick up marginal marks as well as the
precinct VL scanners used during the 1998 elections. Bla¡lk vote and
otlrcr results frorn the VL cer¡tral counters were much closer to the
November 3, 1998 results because they use ürc same liglt soutce to scan
ballots.
The percentage varizurce for tlre orrcrvotes, or votçs disqualifred because
the voter voted for more candidates tt¡an are to be slectpd, was also ltigh.
This was mainly because the total number of overvotes in each race was
small. Since tbe base is small, a small varjanco in numbers rcsults in a
large percentage variance. For example, in the racc for U.S. Senator, a
difference of 249 fewer oven'otes in the audit from the number of
overvotes in the Novernber 1998 general election resulted in a variance of
46.37 percent (the higher number of overvotes in the November general
election was most likeþ due to the ssvcn malfunctioning machines that
counted lons occlusions as overvotes.) In all cases, the variance in the
numùer of blank votes and overvotcs h¿d no impact on the outcome of any
taß,e.
Manaal audit¡. Exhibit 4 compares lhe results ofthe tnanual audits witlt
tlre general election results. The dat¿ tpínforrce our conclusìon about tlre
accufaoy ofthe general olecticnr results. lVhere varia¡rces occurred, they
wero very small, In four of the manual audits, tho results matched the
general olection rssults o:iaotly. Six ofthe manual audits differed from
the general election results by ole vote. The remaining six msnual audits
varied from the general elections by tftree to tm votes.
12
Roport ol
th. Efrctlon overcight commltt.c
Exhiblt 4
Comparlson of Ganelal Election Results with Manud At¡dit Results
Results
Manud Audit
Dlstrict/Precincts
11/3/98
3/99
State Representativo
District 27
3703
3684
3683
Contests
AHU ISAT
CHING
Dlfference
3702
10
-3
RAPOZOT
Kauai Council
8832
88+2
SWAIN
I
2;06-14:10
9083
90s0
NAKATA*
PICKARD
Stato Senate
7309
7263
7304
7262
-5
Da$tr¡cÎ23
AUWAET
JONES
State Representative
Distrlct 44
2680* r
2640) |
2670
2634
-10
-6
RATH*
State Representative
District 6
4337
TARNAS
4265
4336
4254
-1
-1
YEST
NO
lrradiation
Sampled 10 Precincts
6629
6533
4
701 3
701 B
5
208
293
241
209
1
293
240
0
.1
450
355
450
354
-1
State Representative
District 47
4399
4209
4393
4202
-6
-7
Maui Councìl
3'r1
311
0
Abssntes + 2 Precincts
314
315
1
Gove¡nor
2249
ô Precincts
3688
2249
3686
State Senate
District 4-1 Preoinct
476
476
471
471
EVERT
Stats Rêpresont6tive
0
Dist¡ict
Precinct
239
537
235
MOBIHARA
537
o
DAWSON
Stote Representativê
D¡str¡ct 26-1 Precinct
641
641
0
LUKE
ô09
610
1
MOSES
TIMSON
State Representative
Distr¡ct 42-1 Precinct
514
248
514
ADUJA
City Council
50-03
248
248
371
371
CAMPOS
HAO
Absentess
OHA-Maui
Sampled 2 Precincts
+
KAHO'OHANAHANA
OHA-Oahu
+ 2 Precincts
HEE
KAMALII
CATAI.AN¡
DJOU
Absentees
BRITTON
NISHIKI
CAYÊTANO
LINGLE
BUEN
CORBOY
HOLMES
1Sl
248
-1
0
0
-2
0
0
o
o
0
0
Sourc6: Office of Elections, March '1999
'Contosts docldcd by 19å or less.
r rTotal adlustad for overvoto¡ dua to machine malfunction in Preolnct 44-01
'
13
Ropo¡t of rhe Elgctlon Ovcrdght Commlttee
The first six contests in Exhibit 4 are those that had been decided by I
percent or less, These had been selected for manual audits by both the
Eleotion Orærsight Committeo and the chief election officer. The results
showed that tlro maaual counts va¡ied from the general election results by
fewer tlra¡r l0 voûes. In all iusknces, the outcomes remainedthe same.
Ths Election Oversigk Committee also requested a manual audit of blânk
votes inthe governor's race because of concems that the number of blank
votes ïvas unusually low. We selected a sample of fourprecincts on
Maui. In three of the procincts, we found no difference in the number of
blankvotes between tho general ele¿fion results and manual audit rezults.
The remaining precinct had a one vote diffe¡ence.
We then physically examined all tlre blank ballots for the four precincts.
veriñed that all the blank vdes were legitinrateþ blank. Votors had
failedto vote for any candidate, misrua¡ked their ballots, or made
rnarginal marks. Exhibit 5 is a test ballottl¡at illustrates some ofthe
markings we saeu. Only item 1 is coreotly marked. It would have been
counted as a vote. Items 6, 7, and I are marginal ma¡ks that may have
been counted as votes. The remaining nra¡la would not have b€en
counted as votps. For example, onc vcÍer circled tho oval instead of filling
it iry another missed the oval; others put check marks or lines in tlre oval,
Still others just left parts ofthe b¿llot blank.
'We
Despite charges thatthe new voting systÊm was difficult fof somo voters,
the audit showe.d that 99.8 percent ofthe voters had voted correctly. Only
0.2 percent of the total ballots cotmted were dâmâged or mismarkcd.
As a final noto, the accuracy and security ofthe 1998 general election is
further verified by comparing the ûotal number of ballots cast in the
general election with tlnse processed during the audit. The nunber of
ballots cast on electiorr night was 412,52t. The number lallied in March
was 412,521, a diftrence of only one ballot.
The audit was
conducted wíth
professÍonalism and
Íntegrìty
The audit was conducted at the Hospitality Room at Aloha Stadium,
Prior to the audi! tho Office of Elections had issued amanual of
procedures tur-Rør,lew of the 1998 General Election Results. The
procedures were adaptations of ones the Offrce of Elections inrplenrented
during the 1998 elestions. Viie found they embodied the necessary
principles oftansparency, professionalisrn, securit¿ accountabilþ, and
equify.
Inttn Reviøw, the Office of Elections presented an ovewiew ofthe audiq
tlre schedule of events; grridelines for tlre geireral public, the media, the
Election Oversight Commitee, and oftcial observers; and instrustions for
the operations of various teams. Te¿rns for the audit included the official
observers t¡am, ballot storage team, ballot preparation team, cornputer
14
R.poí ôf thc Eleclion Ovcrs¡ght Com]rütÎôr
Exhibit 5
Examples of Ballot Marklngs
OFFICIAL EALLOI
ûENEâAL ELECfÌON
TUESDÀY, NOYEilAER 3,
r
1
994
ELËenoNlslvoltNc |NETR cïloNs
xOlG ÙÉuûa{d.û¡ErynaróÉøhtuOlloütianú¡ñÁ!6
t¡h¡ qþêl Ê¡ær aÉÉûrei'n3i¡
v0x
Ì t:, GENEBAL
ltlhr
ELECTIOH Äl{D SPECIAL
pd. 9¿¡tö rs'd tÈ tæE Êce¡' F rsú. Fú s c|r¡ ffi
g ø Fg.a N !* @. C at*¡útffi
ûarôsra{
rd
¡M ¡H.
¡ diL.YÛ4 ff¡t, þt Þt æ
ÈørÊr f F¡ Ea fu æa ðti, øsñ*lt
r¡ d l-D þÈ dlñd yanô¡at.
1W È r.@r.**ñå0
a. D¿ø rnT r¡#{r¡
ts Èrt hn c | ,ffi| drd.
2 votr
BALLOT
1998 OFFICIAL GENEñAL ELECTION
alrEilDllfff3mñÊ
sr rE coilsÍfi¡no[
AllʡrDtlafiSm
IHE CIIAFÍER OFITÊ
Gffl AilD COUI{TT Of
H{[{otulu PnotosED EY
BVIIIC
PBOPOSÊD
UNElEðlnII¡GIS!^TU¡E
ilr
bs ¡û.ËqarÊËÞt
I Sun r tu 'wtr ør¡frO
ã bt ltrdul Lrt læ y..[
ìf, ioÍô¡d ot aKry tú t¡rB.
1* r.r¡n¡ ¡D h |s,2@?
cBÀRlER Co$tilEt¡toll
d ól F 4d
l.ñ
6 Pû¡¡ bf ¡ Îü.|¡ù
*¡È ¡jlsl
Pofrs chnt
*t år
MhÍioor t,
4 Cdña¡læ,
üra
of
úd Dâp€ffil cf
B Ptâ0nh[
P¡¿nniI lnd Plmühe lnlo
7: Etrnd 6lr
m!t
Cûíd
¡o
YE3
n0
þæ
É
rhþh
9t$
lHít¡iÉ Düi8.1
ilncr l@ l¡¡y 31
ùD li
@drpâm.
Hl
d
md
þa rrlsu.rlll
lffi
Pc¡ø
þ <:)
DÞüûm
fl
il------:.-e--.:$0
rls a
iY
,r:È=:=--::l'
Shdl rlr. Coishilon ol lha
th!
It¡
tú5cFarffi#ùfh
*rúlærFú'!ÉÐ
f,kù¡¡tlÈlt-a
Co.iuil
O
I
Sl.9!r ldN d dly d$ttl
nFìôa.!,
Õ
IB
r¡
t¡üß-
PROPoSEo
001{SilUn0il
arìd
L
c0r{ìrÊtrl¡l0lt
Dffi
glx ùtt
ba
0cÞ¡*
ol
Cu¡tqftr
o
¡ Êût.dbr þ
prqt€a r ç¡irisgl
grr4ú
Ddrto th. Cd.lutun?
--=6 ö
d rtxr
rrcøptiø
ot
aM ¡atulol Ptei¡¡ont
roO
Ytå
.::
è
:..1
5 .t-*
ö
Cor!û.¡t@ Carñsl
ta
'i
iü
tla CDríd l0{ 9st- :i1
.t
tora3 ot rcarÊt¡l¡ôtæ
'{
.::
t
Yt8
Ì
I
''.!
..J
'rl
,JorE
8tîfi sþEs
(ovER)
15
ôf thô Hôêtlôn
Gommltt¡c
operations team, and manual auditteam. \\e Review inskucted each
team on its purpose and specific procedures to be followed. For examplg
it outlined the purpose of the offfici¿l observers team, its composition and
roþ supewision ovor tho team, and tlre varìous tÉsts that it would conduct
ùo verifr the inægrity, logig and acouracy of the ballot oounting program.
During the audit, we obsen¡ed as the various tpams carried out seal
certiûc¿tions, opened the ballot boxes, prepared the ballots for scanning,
processed the ballots, tallied and prqpared comparison tables, and
performed rnanual audiß. We found thatúese tasks rt'ere done in
accordance with the procedures est¿blished for the audit.
Transparenqt The openness of elections is particularly importântto
eirsure their integrity and to build publio confidence in fhe process. Wb
found tlnt numerous adminisüative safcguards were in place to e¡rsure the
opcnnsss of the
audit. Numerous outsideparticipants and witnesses were
on siæ.
Ms. Bonsall and Mr. Lewis were particularþ impressed by the role played
by Hawaii's Election Advisory Committee (EAC) who form tlp co¡e of
the official obsen¡ers. The EAC seryes â8 the "eyes and ears" oftlre
general public to ensure the security and irfngrity ofthe ballot processing
and t¿bulation system. It is composod of representatives of political
parties, and organizatiorts such as tbe League ofWomen Voters, the State
Bar Association, and the Information Systems Audit and Control
Association (ISACA). Traditionall¡ the chairperson ofthe EAC is also
the chairperson of tlre official observers.
Section I 645, HRS, authorizes the chief election officer and the county
clerks to designate official observers to be preselrt at the counting cÆnters'
They are to include at least one observer dosigrated by each political
parfy and one from the nelvs media, They are rcsponsible for conducting
logic and aßcuracytÊsts on the ballot counting program, conducting
manual audits, and monitoring the activities of the counting center team to
ensure that prescribed rules and procedures are followed precisely'
During the audit, represenüatives of the Leaguo, the llawaii Nervspaper
Agency, State Bar Association, Demoçratic Parfy, Republicarr Party, and
ISACA sen ed as official observers. The list of official observers is
shown in Exhibit 6.
Obssrvers art private citizens who have no direct connection with state
govemment. Many of them have had expericnce in past elections. They
know r¡'hat ûo watch for and what tests are needed. Some official
observers are vôry knowledgeable about computer operations' For
example, the curre¡t EAC chairperson, Mr. Russell Mokulellra, is a
private consultalrt who specializes in computer auditing.
16
Reporr ol
th.
Elocllon Overcloht Commltlc¡
Exhibit 6
L¡st of Official observers
The Official Observer team is composed of members of the Election Advisory Council
(EAC) including reprssentatives from the various political parties and the news media. Other
interested pêrsons or groups may be included pursuant to HRS 516-45(31 "Additionalofficial
observers as space and facilities permit designated by the chief election officer in state
elections and the clerk in county elections."
Below is a list of observers who offered their time to participate in the audit.
9itv and County of
Russefl Mokulehua
Dave Harris
Alice Kealoha
Forence Loebel
Robert Chung
Bixby Ho
Luree Hays
Dennis Kam
Al Katagihara
Hugh Jones
Aulani Apoliona
Honolç¡lu
lnformation Systerns Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
Republican Party of Hawaii
Republican Party of Hawaii
Republican Party of Hawaii
Repubfican Party of Hawaii
Democratic Party of Hawaii
Laague of Women Voters
Hawaii Newspaper Agency
Office of the Legislative Auditor
Hawaii State Bar Association
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Countv of Maui
Selberio Menor
Harriet Santos
Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Countv of. Kauai
Melinda Nesti
Wilfiam Scamahorn
Edward Coll
Kauai Republican Party Chair
Nonpartisan
Hawaii Green Party
Countv of Hawaii
Marcella DeWeese
Hobert Duerr, Jr.
HGEA
Parants Against lrradiation
Souroo: Office of Elections, March 1999.
17
Reporl ol thc Elactlon Ovarsisht êommlttoo
The Election Oversiglrt Committee found thc otrcial observersto be
diligent and dedicated. They clearly uderstood their lesponsibilities.
Prior to tåe audit they conducted "logic and aceuracy tests" using test
ballots to see ifttre machines were counting accurately. They observed
and monitored all operations to determine rvhether they met ïvith
prcscribed procedures.
Ms. Bonsall and Mr. I¡wis ranarked on the exte¡¡t of authority exercised
bythe official observers. They say that h no other jurisdictionhadthey
seen observers given so much latitude. Observers could stop the cpntral
countels and run rarrdom tests at any time to makc sure the machines lvere
counting ¡¡ctutately and that sofüpare wæ not breached. They also asked
periodically for such safeguards as listings of directories inthe conrputer
programto vorifr the integfþ ofthe sofrware systems. Tbroughout the
audil ttrey were able to discuss problems or complaints immediaæly with
tlre ohief slection officer or his staff.
For example, the chair of tlre EAC notedthatt[e audit hadgone very
snoodtly, but he also voiced concem that tho system documentation logs
generated by the central counters had been discarded. Thesc logs are
printouts from the centr¿l counters that doonnent such events as when the
maohines sta¡ted and stopped, whenthe hoppers were empf, and whe¡t
thers wsre feed jams. They are important as an audit trail for election
results, They verifr which batches ofballots we¡e read and rvhstl¡er there
has becn unwamantcd acocss to the system. Thç fedetal lhtíng Slttem
Standards require an audit trail ofsystern activity related Ûo vote t¿llying
fromtbe time vote counting begins until itis completed. Fede¡al law
requires electíon officials to preserve all recorrls and ¡iapers relating to the
voting for 22 months.3 While this lapse was not important for the
pr¡rposes ofthis audit, it woukl be signiñcant in any futrrre election.
In additionto the official observers, the ,{ssociation of Clerks and
Election Officers of Hawaii watched every step of the procoss' The
association is made up of county clerkS and elcction officials ftonr the
Neighbor Islands and Honolulu. Theywatched as thc ballotboxcs wcre
unsealed, oversaw the ballots being prepared for processing on the
maohines, watched the IF and VL central counters to veri$ that balloæ
n'ere fed and processed correctlg watched the processed ballot cont¿iners
being tra¡sfered to the storage areq and rnonitored the malrual audits.
Finally, watcho¡s u¡ho are menrbers oftho general public were allowed
rnto the counting center to view the operations from bshind a rarl' Many
carne. Some school æachers saw the autlit as an opportunity to educate
their students about the election process and brought their classes in to
view the oporation.
18
¡
n of tho Elecdon
Commltt€ô
Proþssianahsm, security, accoantabillty, and equity. The Election
Oversight Cornnittee was reassured to obsen¡e tlre professional behavior
of sate and county election staff. ftey each knerv tlreir respective
responsibilities for tlre audit and carried them out effectively. We
observed that they responded equally respeotfully to inquiries from
individuals of differsnt parties and interests. Elections office staffalso
ensured the security ofthe audit by posting security guards at the entrance
to the Stadium Hospitality Room, Each particþant or visitor was asked
to sþ in and was required to wear a badge. Also, video cameras were
inst¿lled to provide 24-hour surveillance ofthe counting center and to
ensure that ballots wers not tampered rvith.
Some suggestions to
Ímprove future
electians
The audit demsnstrated that the ES&S machines used in the general
election resulæd in accurate and reli¡ble votÊ counts, It also affirms tlre
competency and integrity of Hawaii's elsction officials and oitizen
participants. Certain ohanges are needed, ncvertheless, to keep up with
changingtimes andtechnologies: (l) the $tate's olection stafutes should
be amerrded to remove obsolete or rleficient provisions; new rules are also
needed; (z)ltß Office of Elections needs to be strenghenedto reducethe
lùelihood of firture problems.
The Iægislature should consider establishing a task force to studytle
changes needed. Such a task fo¡ce was estnblished in Maryland. The
fask force could be composed of mo¡nbers of the Legislahrre such as tlre
chairs ofths Senate and House Committees onthe Judiciary the chief
election officar, representatives from the Association of Clerks and
Election Officers of Hawaii, the Elections Advisory Committee, the
political parties, and othor organizations active in the electoral proeess
such as tho læague ofWome,nVoters.
Amend state law
Many state statutes and rules a¡e obsolete or overþ specific. They are
geared to a punchcard system. They sink to a level of detail tlut
conshains attempts to use new election technology. For example, fhe
provision relating to ballots speci$ing that votes are to be marked on the
right sidc of a candidats's name should be rcmove.d. ES&S had to desþ
special ballots and programs for Harvaii because in most other states
votes are marked to the left of oandidatæ' narnes.
The provisions for recounts are inadequate. They place candidates in an
untenable position whera they have to produce evideeice offraud or
difforeiroes in votes cast that would cause a difference in election results
whenthey h¿ve no access to the ballots that would produce the evidence.
ln many jurisdictrons, cont€sts are automatically recormted when tlre
difference between winning and losing candidates is I percent or less.
19
Rcport of tha El¡clion Ovuaight Gommlttaa
In additic¡r to amending the statutes, new nrles are need€d. ln response to
a request from the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the Department of the
Afùomey General not€d that ¿dministrative rules are needed ø properly
implanent Sectisn I l-97, HRS, that rvould prescribe wheir election
records a¡e available for inspection. The rules also need to be updated to
reflest advances in election lechnology. Currcnt rules are predicated on
using a punchcard systom and may be inapplicable or restrictive. The
Lqgislature could reçestthat the task forco conduot a comprehensive
study ofîhese and other questionable stiate laws that should be amended.
Strengthen the Oflice of Elections
We believe that the State would benefit if the Office of Blections were
reorganized, given greater suppo¡t, and its staffwere given opporhrnities
for professional development.
A snrdy of state election laws bythe taskforce should include an
cxâmination ofthc placernent ofthe Oñce of Elections. Currently the
offrce is only adminisrratively attached to the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor. It has lost many of the former advantages it had when it rvas
part ofthe lieutenant governor's office. These advantages included
periodic research and analytic support great€r l¿titude in budget
execution, and higher credibility. In most other states, the elections office
is under the direction of tle secrotary of statq an eleoted position wilh
functions simila¡ to those of }I¿waü's lieutcnant governor. In Utah and
Alaska, elections are under the lieutenant govønor.
We believe tlat Hawdi's Oftìc¡ of Elections would benefit if it were an
inægral part of the Office ofthc Licutenant ftvemor and subject to the
supervision of an elosted official. The chiefelection officer could be
appointed by the lieutenant govemor as a deputy in charge ofelections.
Currently the chief election ofñcor is appointed by au Elections
Appoinûnent Panel that has no authoriþ except to hire and firc the chief
election officer. The chief election offrcer is givenno continuing oversiglrt
by someone who can be held accountable, The public cannot hold the
appointmørt panel account¿ble for its actions whereas the public could
hold the lieuts¡rant govemor responsiblc forthe integrrty of elections,
Tlre ofüce would also benefit ifit were given a certain number of civil
seffice positions for technioal and clerioal staff, This would maintain
continuity in elections. Ms. Bonsall and M¡. Lewis warn that chaos has
resulted in certain eleotions offices when newly elected officials
terminated all ofthe elections staff.
We noæ that the budget for rhe Office of Electisns has decreased a total
af 21.4 porcent since the 1993-1995 fiscal bianium, To acc,ommodate
this decrease, the office had to cut its own staff as well as its hiring of
precinct offrcials during slections. Rururing an election is a relatively
20
Rrport of rhe Electlon Ovarrlght Commltt..
invisible function until something goes wrong. But the declining level of
support is jeopardizing the integrity of this basic dernocratic function. It
should be noted that the number of precincts has inoreased br¡t the number
of precinct officials has had to be cut. Ttæ number ofprecûrcts inc¡eased
from 325 in 1994 to 32E in 1996 to 334 in 1998. At the same time, the
number ofprecinct officials hadtobe cut from 3,578 in 1994 to 3,260 in
I 996 to 2,922 m 1998. hr 1998 ths offic.e also dela¡'ed hiring 5
warshouso seasonal staffand releæed 6 clerical/warehouse seasonal s,$ff
earlier than scheduled. This means that the precincts \ilete covered nrfre
thinly and had to operate with less supervision.
while budgets were being cut, the trumbe¡ of citizens ¿nd voters to
be served was growing. The implenretrtation of the Nationål Voter
Rsgistration Act (NVRA) began in January of 1995 whidr fostered
significant increases inthe voter registration roles. The NVRA also
added significant administrative costs to comply with the act. Combined
with aprosidential election in 1996 (the most expensive of election years
in the four-year budget cycle of elections), the impact of budget roductions
had a sigrificant advsrse impact on the Office of Election's abilþto
administer its fr¡nctions. Elections may be one of the few places in
govemment that ought to be exempted from budgetary reductions unless it
can be demonshated thatthere are equivalent reductions in citizens to be
^A,lso,
served.
Smallerbudgets madethe rnoye away fromthe old punchcard system
unavoidable. The former systern was labor intensive and time consuming.
The Offrce of Elections could no longer afford staffto run it. ln additiorl
tlrc office could no longer reþ on support frorn the State's Inform¿tion
and Communication Services Division (ICSD) which had suffered budgel
cuts of its own. In past elections, ICSD had provided 60 staff during
elections to preparc the punchcaril voling s¡'stem, proof ballots, and test
machinss. ICSD also supplied the Office of Elections with four full-time
stafff¡om April until the end of elections. Without technical support from
ICSD, ths Officc of Elections had ao alternative but to look for another
systenç one that it could afford.
lffe believe tbat the Office of Elections m¿de a reasonable choice in
leasing equipmeirt åonr ES&S. The cost for leasing eçipment $1.58
müion, was less than the estirnated cost for printing ballots for the
punchcard system aloræ, $ 1,88 million. ES&S had the only NASBD
qualified equipnront that could couut both precinot and absentse ballots.
The Offioe of Elections estimatedthat it saved S1.27 million using ES&S
equipnrent. We discussed the use of scanning equipment with tlre county
clerks. They unanimously supported its use and say that they would like
to continue rvith this or a similar system.
2t
Fcport of thc Elcctlon Overulght Commlttee
Finally, wo believe that st¿ts eleotion staffars handicapped bytlreir laok
ofacccss to continuing professional education and contact with other
election adminisfiators on the mainland. Ihe State would be well served
by encouraging their professional development tluough continuing
professional education. Iffunds wers available fot elections stâffto
atend workshops and semin¿rs, they could become more familiar with
teclrnologioal advances, system requirements, potÊntial problems posed by
tlIe various types of voting equipment, and perhaps they could have
anticipated beüer some of tlre problems tlnt occurred with the leased
equiprnent. Staffcould also be enoouragedto obt¿in and maintain
national professional ccrtification as election professionals.
Most of the State's election officials h¿ve lud exporience only with tlie
former puachcard system. They had become well versed with ie
operation. Implementing a nçw systcmcreated a new and different set of
probloms. Acoordiug to Ms, Bonsall and Mr, [æwis, glitches aro
inevitable an¡ime a change is mado to a neñ¡ voting systern. There is a
lEanring curve. Experiønce withthe systemis the moslimportânt element
in rmning a smoothelection.
Summary
Themembers ofthe Election Oversight Commitoee considored it a
privilege to have had the opportunity to rnonitor the audit of the 1998
general elections. rffe concluded that the voting equipment used inthe
1998 elections is accurate and counted cont€sts conectly. ES&S has fully
met its sùated obligations to work rviththe Stats to resolve problerns
created by its equipment.
We found no o¡edible evidEnc€ of any fraud. We einphasize the
dernocraoy is too important to all ofus to allow unfounded or unproved
allegations to undermine our confidsnce in eleøions,
There are no easy solutioot tôrt{,u't problems in administering electionsthe process is too complcxto tiìrker with. Any clrange to aflew voting
systsm is likely to result in mistakos and some initial conñ¡sion.
Nevertheloss, the audit found that 99.8 pcrcenf. of Harvaii's voters had
marksd their ballots correotly. \ilhile it takss stafftime to leam what the
significant procedures are with a new system, we found that state and
local level election staffare cornpetentpeople who arc very
knowledgeabls aboutthe process. They are committcdto making sure
that electio¡rs accurateþ reflect the will of the voting public'
-
22
I
ôl lhô
RgcommgndatiOnS
Gommittee
The Elections Oversight Committæ recommends that:
l.
The lægrslaturo establish atask force composed of the chairs of the
Senato and House CommitJees on ttre Judiciary, tlre chief elestion
officer, and represe,lrtatives of the Assooiation of Clerks and Election
Offico¡s of Flawaii, the Election Advisory Committee, thepolitical
parties, and other organizations active inthe electoral process such as
the læague of Women Voærs. The task force should conduct a
comprehensive study ofthe Sf¿te's election laws including tlre
placement of the chief electionofficer and the Office of Elsctions.
2.
The Legislature should consider \ilays to encourage the professional
developmeut of Office of Elections' staff.
23
Notes
1'
Federal Election commission, voting $tstem slandards,National
Clearinghouse on Election AdminisFation, 1990.
2.
Dominique-Christine Trønblay and Ron Gould, 'Yote Counting," in
ACE Project, International Foundation for Election Systerns, October
1998.
3.
See U.S. Codg Sections l9?4through 1974e.
25
NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
WATERS
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
VS
)
)
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was duly served by mailing the same, postage prepaid to the following:
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782
SCOTT NAGO
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782
AARON H. SCHULANER, ESQ
State of Hawaii
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782
BERNICE K,N. MAU
City Clerk
City and County of Honolulu
Office of the City Clerk
530 S. King Street, Room 100
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014
/S/ JAMES KAWASHIMA
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ
Attorney for Petitioner