The recent petition filed with the Hawaii Supreme Court exposes significant concerns about the integrity of upcoming elections in the state. On June 9, 2026, a group of Hawaii citizens, including a candidate for office and an elections commissioner, took the bold step of challenging whether elections can be certified without fulfilling required reconciliation steps under state law. This challenge, labeled as Cushnie, Gregory & Pasnik v. Scott T. Nago and Hawaii Elections Commission, highlights the crucial need for compliance with Hawaii’s election statutes.
At the center of this case is Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-155, which mandates a comprehensive reconciliation process for election records before certifying results. Such reconciliation includes verifying canvass records, audit logs, and ensuring that the number of ballots received aligns with what was reported. Alarmingly, the Elections Commission has documented that essential records were missing following the 2024 General Election. This raises fundamental questions about the transparency and reliability of Hawaii’s electoral process.
The petitioners argue for a simple but significant remedy: they seek a court order requiring that the reconciliation mandated by law be completed prior to the certification of the 2026 statewide election. They emphasize that they do not wish to challenge the results of previous elections or alter any vote totals; their focus is solely on ensuring the proper procedures are observed moving forward. This essential distinction underscores a commitment to the rule of law rather than partisan interests.
As detailed in the filed petition, findings from prior elections reveal serious inconsistencies that warrant immediate action. Investigations led to the conclusion that ballot-accounting records were not compliant with existing statutes, prompting credible concerns over the integrity of the counts. Notably, the Deputy Attorney General has confirmed that established procedures for auditing ballots come after the elections are certified. This limitation makes it challenging to conduct independent reviews of electoral outcomes once certification has occurred, potentially locking in mistakes or irregularities indefinitely.
The legal precedent backing this petition is firm. Previous decisions from the Hawaii Supreme Court illustrate a clear expectation for strict compliance with election laws. For instance, in Iwasa v. Nago, the court invalidated election results when mandatory processes were disregarded. Such rulings establish a vital framework suggesting that ignoring statutory requirements carries serious consequences for election legitimacy.
Timing is crucial. The window for corrective action is narrowing, as the 2026 election cycle is already in process. Should the Supreme Court delay its decision until after results are certified, the opportunity for meaningful correction might vanish. In essence, if the court does not act swiftly, irregularities may become irrevocably entangled within the certified election results, echoing past issues that arose when lawful processes were overlooked.
The diversity among the petitioners also highlights a rallying call for accountability transcending partisan lines. Ralph S. Cushnie, a member of the Elections Commission, Tara Malia Gregory, an electoral candidate, and Douglas W. Pasnik, a concerned citizen, all emphasize a shared objective: ensuring elections in Hawaii comply with statutory requirements. Their unified stance is not about political allegiance but about safeguarding the democratic process and ensuring that every voter can trust the system.
In conclusion, this emergency petition presents a call to action rooted in legal integrity. It underscores an essential principle of democracy: that processes governing elections must be transparent, follow the law, and uphold the voters’ right to trust in their electoral system. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision could potentially redefine how future elections are managed in the state, setting a precedent for compliance that could influence other jurisdictions as well.
"*" indicates required fields
