The Hawaii Elections Commission was set to meet on June 24, 2026, to elect a new chair, either permanently or temporarily, to facilitate the selection of a permanent leader. However, the meeting was cancelled by Chair Michael Curtis, citing the unlikely attainment of the six votes necessary to elect his successor and the impending change in the Commission's composition due to new appointments effective July 1. Curtis stated that the new chair would be appointed or elected in accordance with the law. The cancellation has sparked controversy among commissioners, who are now seeking to exercise their statutory authority to elect a chair.
Following the cancellation, several commissioners requested a meeting on July 1, allowing the newly appointed members to participate in the election of a chair. However, no meeting was convened, prompting Deputy Attorney General Jordan Ching to issue a legal opinion stating that if the Commission fails to elect a chair within 15 days, the Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court would fill the vacancy. This interpretation has been met with disagreement from some commissioners, who argue that the law requires the Commission to be given a meaningful opportunity to meet and vote before the Chief Justice can intervene.
The commissioners who disagree with the Deputy Attorney General's opinion point to specific statutes, including HRS §11-7(a)(5), which states that the chair shall be selected by the members of the elections commission, and HRS §11-7(d), which authorizes the Commission to act by majority vote and establish its own procedures. They contend that the Commission must be allowed to meet and vote before any external intervention can occur. The ability of the Commission to elect a chair is contingent upon its ability to meet, which is currently being hindered.
The history of the Elections Commission provides a precedent for the current situation. When the Commission was first established in 2004, it was unable to immediately elect a permanent chair. Instead of relying on the Chief Justice, the Commission elected temporary chairs to conduct its meetings while working towards selecting a permanent leader. This approach allowed the Commission to maintain its autonomy and respect the legislative directive that the chair be selected by the commissioners themselves. The current dispute centers on whether the Elections Commission will be permitted to exercise its assigned authority, rather than who should serve as chair.
