UMVA has learned that a coalition of Hawaii voters, a state office candidate, and an elections commissioner has filed an emergency petition with the Hawaii Supreme Court, demanding that the state complete the mandatory ballot reconciliation before certifying the 2026 statewide election.
The petition, filed on June 9 2026, challenges whether the Chief Election Officer can legally certify election results without first satisfying the exhaustive comparison and reconciliation mandated by Hawaii Revised Statutes §11‑155.
Under the law, certification must hinge on a meticulous audit of canvass records, recount results, tally sheets, and every other document generated during the voting process, while county clerks are required to maintain a flawless count of every ballot issued, spoiled, and received.
Records confirming compliance with these requirements were conspicuously absent for the 2024 General Election, prompting the petitioners to ask the court to halt certification until the missing data are produced.
Evidence uncovered by the petition reveals a troubling pattern: all four county clerk offices failed to supply chain‑of‑custody records that meet statutory standards, and in several instances the statewide voter registration system logged more ballots than were physically collected.
On April 1 2026, the Hawaii Elections Commission voted 5‑4—amid the presence of the Chief Election Officer—to formally document the failure to provide the required ballot‑accounting records for the 2024 election.
A February 26 2026 memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General underscored that the only established audit procedures occur post‑election but before certification, leaving a legal vacuum once results are certified.
The petitioners are not seeking to overturn past elections, remove any officeholder, or alter vote totals. Their sole request is that the Supreme Court compel strict adherence to the existing reconciliation statutes before the 2026 results are certified.
Among the petitioners is Ralph S. Cushnie, a member of the Hawaii Elections Commission who has long overseen investigations into ballot‑accounting compliance, and Tara Malia Gregory, a candidate whose campaign hinges on a certification process that respects statutory mandates.
Retired Marine Colonel Douglas W. Pasnik, a registered voter, also joins the suit, bringing personal experience from years of administrative complaints and oversight proceedings.
Legal precedent in Hawaii has repeatedly affirmed that election statutes impose mandatory, not merely advisory, requirements, and courts have previously issued writs of mandamus to enforce compliance before elections proceed.
With candidate filing closed and ballots poised for distribution, the window for corrective action is rapidly closing. If certification proceeds without the mandated reconciliation, the legal avenues for post‑certification review become murky, raising the specter of an irreversible, potentially invalid election.
This effort transcends partisan lines; commissioners appointed by both major parties unanimously acknowledged the statutory breach, underscoring a shared commitment to lawful, trustworthy elections.
