Case Title: Dupree v. Hiraga.

Citation: 121 Haw. 297

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
'++FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*!

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I

---000.

 

 

MICHAEL P, DUPREE, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee,
vs.

ROY T. HIRAGA, Clerk of the County of Maui, and SOLOMON P.
KAHO'OHALAHALA, Respondents /Appellees-Appellants.

 

No, 29464

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION, COUNTY OF MAUT
(CASE NO. BOR-08-01) 5)

octoser 20, 2009

MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA,
DUFFY, AND RECKTENWALD, JJ)

OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, J. 5)

Roy T. Hiraga and Solomon P. Kaho'ohalahala appeal from

 

9656 HY 02 Lo060N

the November 1, 2008 decision of the Board of Registration for

Maui County (Board) which determined that Kaho‘ohalahala was not

 

a resident of tuna'i *[£]or purposes of [the Novenber 2008)
election{.]*

‘he case began in September 2008, when appellee
Michael P. Dupree and eleven other registered voters from Léna'i
sent letters to Hiraga, the Clerk of the County of Maui, which
alleged that Kaho'chalahala was not a Lana'i resident. Hiraga
subsequently found, inter alia, that Kaho'chalahala was a Lana‘

resident when he registered to vote there in July 2008. Dupree

Gaia
 

‘++POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANA REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appealed that determination to the Board, which concluded that
Kaho'chalahala was in fact a resident of Lahaina rather than
Lana‘

‘The questions on appeal include whether: (1) the Board
lacked jurisdiction because Dupree’s complaint was an untimely
challenge to Kaho'ohalahala's eligibility to be a candidate for
the Lana'i seat on the Maui County Council, rather than to his
voter registration, (2) the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by
addressing issues beyond Kaho'chalahala's voter registration, and
(3) the Board erred in concluding that Kaho‘ohalahala was not a
Lana'i resident

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the
Board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Board did not
exceed its jurisdiction by addressing issues beyond
Kaho'ohalahala’s voter registration status, and the Board did not
err in concluding that Kaho'chalahala did not have the right to
remain a registered voter of Lanai. Accordingly, we affirm the
Board's Novenber 1, 2008 decision.

1. BACKGROUND

A, Dupree and other Lina‘i residents submit complaints to
Hiraga concerning Kaho’chalahala’s residency

Kaho'chalahala was originally from the island of Lanai

He was registered to vote on tana‘i from June of 1982 until July

 
‘s++PoR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER**#

of 2006, when he registered to vote as a resident of Lahaina,
Maui. In July of 2008, he registered to vote as a resident of
Lana'i City, with an address on Fraser Avenue, and also filed
nomination papers to run for the Lana‘ seat on the Maui County
Council. Two of the qualifications for election to the Maui
county Council are that the candidate must be a voter in Maui
County and must be, at the time of filing nomination papers, a
resident in the area from which the person seeks to be elected.’
Kaho'chalahala’s nomination papers included a certification by

Kaho'ohalahala that he met those qualifications.’ Hiraga did not

Maui County Charter, Section 3-1, provides for a County Council
coaposed of nine members, one from each of the following areas: Lany‘i,
Moloka'l, zage maul, Weat Maui, South Maul, Kahulut, Mokawao-Ho'tko “Pasa,
Pukalani-fula~Ulupalakua, and Wai luku-Waihe'e-Waikapd. Maui County Charter §
3-1 (2003), available at hetp://wne.co.maul.hi,us/ index. aepx?nidel62

2 he qualifications for County Council menbers are set forth in
Maui County Charter, § 3-3

Section 3-3 qualifications. To be eligible for
election er appointment te the council. = person mist
be a citizen of the United Staten, a voter in the
coutty, a resident of the county for a period of
ninety’ (90) days next preceding the filing of
Roninacion papers and at the tine of filing of
Rosination papers a resident in the area from which
Che person seeks to be elected. Tf a council mesber
ceases to be a resident of the county, or ceases to be
a resident of the council member's reaidency ai

Guring the council menber's term of office, or 1
Gounei! mesber is adjudicated guilty of a felony, the
‘council menber shall innediately forfeit office ana
the seat shall thereupon become vacant.

 

 

 

   

 

» ams § 22-3 (Supp. 2005) Nomination paper format) Limitations.

(a) No candidate's nane shali be printed upon any official ballot to be used
at any prinary. special primary, cf special election uniess a nomination paper
was filed in the candidate's behalf and in the nane by which the candidate ts

 

 
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S EAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

receive any challenges to Kaho'ohalahala’s nomination papere
prior to the September 20, 2008 primary.‘ Kaho'ohalahala voted
in the primary as a tana'l resident, and finished first among the
five candidates who ran for the Lana‘ seat. He and the
candidate receiving the second highest number of votes, John
ornellas, advanced to the November 4, 2008 general election.

on September 23, 2008, Hiraga received two letters from
Lana'i City residents. ‘The letters were identical in form, and

stated as follows:

re ie my understanding that you are responsible for
investigating complaints made regarding elections. in
Maul county, Hawaii "in the 2008 primary election for
the Maui County Couscii[,] Sol P. Kaho‘ohalahala
Fopresented hineelf as a resident of Lanai. Although
hie father resides here and he establiched = fost
Office Box in order to receive sail, it is widely
believed that he actually resides with his wife on

 

 

cormonly known. The nomination paper shall be in a form prescribed and
provided by the chief election officer containing substantially the following
infornstion:

ia) “the residence address and county in which the candidate resides:

‘ei “n'sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by the candidate
that the candidate qualifies under the law for che office the candidate ie
Seeking and that the candLdate has determined that, except for the information
brovided by the registered voters signing the nomination papers, all of she
Tnormation on the nomination pepers ie true and correct («]

‘uns 5 12-8 (supp. 1999) Momination papers) challenges evidentiary
hearings and decisions. (2) All nomination papers filed in conformity sith
Section 12-3 shall be deoned valid unless objection is made thereto by &
Fegistered voter, an officer of a political party whose name is on file with
the chief election officer, the chief election officer, or the county clerk in
the cae of a county office. All objections shall be filed in writing not
later than 4:30 p.m. on the thirtieth day or the next earliest working Gay
prior to the primary or special election

   

 
‘*8POR PUBLICATION In WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND FACIPIC REPORTER***

 

Would you please investigate hia claim to residency
here? “Many residents of this island would like to
know what the criteria (arel for establishing
Fesidency. I would like to know how to proceed to
file a claim that Mir, fahoshalahais falsified
Gocunents filed with his signature to run for the
office of Maui County Council, tana't Seat.

one of the writers added a handwritten note at the
bottom which stated, “In the nine yrs. I’ve lived here T have
never seen Sol at the gas station, stores, Bank or Post Office!

‘This is a small island; where is he?”

 

on September 24, 2008, Hiraga wrote to Kaho'ohalahala

as follows:

The Office of the County Clerk, County of Maui,
has received two written challenges to your voter
registration, pursuant to Section 11-25 (1993), Hawaii
Revised Statutes. *] The challenge alleges that you

 

© ng § 11-25 Challenge by voters; grounds; procedure. (a)
Challenging prior to election day. Any registered voter my challenge the
right of a person to be or to renain registered as a voter in any precinct for
any cause not previously decided by the board of registration or the supreme
court in respect to the sane person; provided that in an election of meubers
Of the board of trustees of the office of Havaitan affairs the voter making
the challenge must be registered to vote in that election. The challenge
shall be in writing, setting forth the grounds upon which it is based, and be
‘Signed by the persoh making the challenge. ‘The challenge ahali be delivered
to the clerk who shall forthwith serve novice thereat on the person
challenged. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, investigate and rule on the
challenge.

(b) Challenging on election day. Any voter rightfully in the polling
place may challenge the right to vote of any person who cones to the precinct
bfticials for voting purposes. The challenge shall be on the grounds that che
Voter is not the person the voter alleges to be, or that the voter 18 not
eatitied to vote in that precinct; provides that only in an electicn of
menbers of the board of trustees of the office of Hawaiian affairs, a person
Fegistered to vote in that election may also challenge on the grounds that the
voter is not Hawaiian. Wo other or further challenge shall be allowed. Any
person thus challenged shall first be given the opportunity to make the
Felevant correction pursuant to section 11-21. The challenge shall be
Considered and decided immediately by the precinct officials and the ruling
soall be announced

(G)" Tf neither the challenger nor the challenged voter shall appeal che
ruling of the Clerk or the precinct officials, then the voter shall either be

 

 

 

 

 

-s-
JOR PUBLICATION IN WEST“S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

do not reside on the Isiand of Lanai
‘you are hereby informed that our office will

conduct an investigation as soon as possible and will
Subsequently issue a ruling on the challenge. As part
Of oar investigation, we Fequest that you respond to
the challenge allegation, i-e., that you do not reside
at {] Prager Avenue.[*) Please send your response to
Our Office no later than October 3, 2008.

 

 

Kaho'ohalahala responded on October 3, 2008. He
submitted an affidavit dated october 2, 2008, in which he stated
that “I am a resident of Lanai City,” that *(mly residence is
fixed at [] Fraser Avenue, Lana‘i City and whenever I am absent
from the island of Lana'i, I intend to return{,]* and that at the
time of "fixing my residence in Lana‘i City, it was with the
intention of making it my permanent dwelling place."
Kaho'chalahala also stated that his family has continuously lived
on Lana‘i throughout his life, that he had “filed an affidavit of
voter registration with the belief and understanding that [he is]
a legal resident of Lana'i because of [his] permanent residence
at [) Fraser Avenue[,]* and that he had filed nomination papers
and voted in the primary ‘with the belief and understanding” that

he was a legal resident of Lana'i

allowed to vote or be prevented from voting in accordance with the ruling. If
fan appeal is taken to the board of registration, the challenged voter shail be
Allowed to vote; provided that ballot is placed in a sealed envelope to be
later counted or rejected in accordance with the ruling on appeal. The chief
election officer shall adopt rules in accordance with chapter 91 to safeguard
the secrecy of the challenged voter's ballot.

 

 

 

 

«We have deleted residential street numbers for purpos
opinion.

of thie

 

 
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IM WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Kaho'ohalahala also submitted an affidavit by his
brother, Gaylien Kaho'ohalahala, in which Gaylien stated that
Gaylien was a resident of Lana'i City and *[iJn the beginning of
July, 2008, (Kaho'chalahala] telephoned me and discussed with the
family his intention of returning to Lana‘ to live." Gaylien
further stated that ‘{wle welcomed (Kaho'ohalahala’s] return home
and he presently resides at {] Fraser Avenue and resided there
since the beginning of July, 2008."

Kaho'ohalahala also submitted a response arguing that
the letters were not challenges to his voter registration status
under HRS § 11-25, but were challenges to his nomination papers
under HRS § 12-8. Kaho'ohalahala noted that HRS § 12-8 required
objections to have been made to his nomination papers, which
included @ sworn statement declaring his residency, no later than
thirty days prior to the September 20, 2008 primary election,
that no timely objections were made, and that his nomination
papers were therefore presumptively valid. Kaho'ohalahala argued
that the complaints were underhanded attempts] to circumvent

the legal requirements for proper objections to nomination papers

 

and challenges to election results.” Additionally,

Kaho'chalahala argued that the complaints constituted a challenge

 
 

"FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

 

to an election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 (1993),” and that the
office of the County Clerk of Maui did not have jurisdiction te
hear such a challenge. He requested that Hiraga dismiss the
September 23, 2008 complaint letters as untimely challenges to
his nomination papers and for lack of jurisdiction to decide
election contest complaints.

Meanwhile, between September 24, 2008 and October 3,
2008, Hiraga received ten additional letters from Lana't
residents. Six letters were identical to the September 23, 2008
letters. The content of the other letters varied. one resident
submitted a letter alleging that Kaho'ohalahala falsified his
residence on his filing papers, that Kaho'chalahala’s siblings
resided at {] Fraser Avenue in Lana'i, and that Kaho'shalahala
actually resided in Lahaina, Maui. This resident requested that
Hiraga disqualify *Kaho'ohalahala(’s) results from the
(September’20, 2008 primary][,]* “exclude him from the General

Election{,]* and "restore Alberta de Jetley's eligibility in the

 

RS § 11-172 Conteate for cause; generally. ith respect to any
election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly interested, oF
any thirty voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the
Soprane cture. ‘The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes, such as but
Rot limited to, provable fraud, overages, oF underages, that could cause a
Bitterence in the election results. he complaint shail also set forth any
Yessons for reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the precinct
Officials or the officials at a counting center in an election using the
Clectronie voting system. A copy of the complaint shal! be delivered to the
Chief election officer of the clerk in the case of county elections.

 

 
‘tevoR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S EAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIPIC REPORTER***

 

General Election.*

Alberta de Jetiey, an unsuccessful candidate in the
primary election, submitted a complaint letter alleging that
Kaho'chalahala’s “statement to the Maui News about maintaining
his residency on Lanai while working for the Kahoolawe Commission
is false." De Jetiey requested that Hiraga ‘investigate this
matter so [that] we, the registered voters of Lanai, can move on
and elect soneone who is truly a resident of this island to
represent us.*

Dupree submitted a complaint letter alleging that

although Kaho'ohalahala was from Lana‘i, he did not own a hone,

 

manage a business, work on, or farm on, Lanai, that he had not
campaigned or held rallies there, and that he had not been seen
by local residents on the island. Dupree stated that
Kaho‘chalahala won the primary based on “off island voting
patterns[,]* but that residents of Lana‘i preferred several other
candidates for the Lana‘i seat, as they ‘are all local residents,
and they are in touch with the pulse of tanai[.]* Dupree

requested “that off

 

islanders give (Lana'i residents) the right
and opportunity to govern [them]selves[.]" Dupree stated that

although Kaho‘ohalahala was a "fine candidat

 

* he should “run in
the district that he currently resides in and give a current

Lanai resident the opportunity to represent their home island[.]*

 
 

{POR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

 

Another resident submitted a letter “challenging
(Kaho'chalahala‘s] running for County Council on behalf of the
island of Lanai, or being voted into that office in the general
election on Novenber 4, 2008, based on the question of [his]
permanent/legal residency on Lanai.* This resident cited to the
Maui County Charter and statements Kaho'ohalahala made to the
Maui News. ‘This resident asked if Kaho'ohalahala paid mortgage,
rent, utility bills or property taxes in Lana'i, and further
inquired as follows:

(2) What address did [Kaho‘ohalahala) use on his
Voter's Registration form; and, where is his
polling address?

(2) here did [Kaho‘ohalahala) vote on Septenber 20,
2008 in the primary?” Lahaina or anal?

‘his resident requested that Hiraga “investigate Mr
Kaho'ohalahala’s right to file nomination papers to run for
County Council to represent the island of Lanai, based on his
questionable residency in Lanai,* and further requested that it
Kaho'chalakala was found in violation of the residency
requirenent of the Maui County Charter, that Hiraga ‘remove Mr.
Kaho'chalahala’s name from the November 4, 2008 general election
ballot; or, if the ballots have already been printed, then any

votes he may receive NOT be allowed to be counted.”

 

Hiraga’s ruling on complaints

on October 10, 2008, Hiraga issued a ruling on the

n10-
 

'FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

twelve complaint letters. Hiraga treated the complaints
collectively, stating that *[glenerally, the writers of the

Complaint Letters allege that (Kaho'ohalahala} does not reside in
the Lanai residency area.“ The ruling stated in relevant part as

follows:

‘The Complaint Letters challenge mr
Kaho'chalahala’s residency based upon tyo separate
seacutary grounds, namely, [MRS § 12-8) and (MRS § 11
25).

Go'the extent that the Complaint Letters
constitute a challenge to Mr. Kaho'chalahala’s
Sandidacy pursuant to the provisions of [HRS § 12-8]
the challenge is untimely.” Section 12-8 clearly
provides that *All objections shall be filed in
Writing not later than 4:30 p.m. on the thirtieth day
OF the next earliest working day prior to the primary
oF special election."” The earliest date of receip: of
@ Challenge Letter by the Clerk's Office was Monday
[sic], Septenber 23, 2008, two days after the Primary
Election was conducted on Saturday, Seprenber 20,

 

‘The ruling went on to quote HRS § 11-13 (1993),* and

 

* wns § 12-19 Rules for determining residency. For the purpose of
this title, there can be only one residence fer an individual, but in
determining residency, a perton my treat oneself separate from the person‘s
spouse. Tie following rules shall determine residency for election purposes
only:

 

(2) the residence of a person Le that place in which the
person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever the
person is absent, the person has the intention to return;

(2) Riperson does not gein residence in any precsnct ints which
the person cones without the present intention of
establishing the person's permanent dreliing place within
Such precinet

(3) Tf-a person resides with the person's family in one place,
and deer business in another, the former is the person's
Place of residence; but any Gerson having a fanily, who
Establishes the person's dveiling place other than with the
person's fanily, with the intention of renaining there shall
Ee considered a resident where the person has established
Such dwelling place;

(4) The mere intention to acquire a new residence without

 

o1l-
+POR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

then concluded as follows:

Hight of the twelve Complaint Letters state,
+... eis widely believed thet’ [Me Kaho'chalahala]
actually resides with bis wife on Maui.” Assuming,
for the purpose of argurent, that this widely held
belief ie true, {HRS § 11-13) conterplates that a
person may have a residence separate and apart fron
fis or her spouse when it states as follows: "For the
purpove of this Eitie, there can be only one residence
for an individual, mut in detersining residency. a
Dereon may treat Sneself separate from the pereon’s
Spouse.

ie. Kaho‘ohalahala admits that he resided on
Maui when he was director of the Kahoolave island
Reserve Consission. However, [aRS § 11-13(5)) states
fas follows: *(5) A person dogs not gain or lowe a
Sesidency solely by season of the person's presence oF
abeence while employed in the service of the United
States or of this State, or while a student of an
{netitueion of learning, or while kept in an)
institution oy asylum, or whtle confined in prison{.)*
Therefore, Mr. Fahcohalahaia did not lose his
Fesidency die’ to his absence from Lanai vhile be was
erployed in service of the state

‘Que Complaint Letter alleges that “The [] Fraser
Ave. address is the hone of his father. iis siblings,
T believe, are listed on the deed of the hone. His
Fesidence for approxinately the last 10 years has been
(] Planing Road, Lahaina, HI.

‘The language of [HRS §°11-13(2), (2) & (4))
nakes it abundantly clear that physical presence or
absence from a particular place is not the deciding

 

 

 

 

 

physical presence at such place, does not establish
Fesldency, neither does here physical presence without the
Concurrent present intention to establish such place as the
person's repidence:
(5) _Riperson dees not gain or lose a residence solely by reason
of the person's presence or absence while employed in the
Service of the United States or of this state, or while a
Student of an institution of learning, or while kept in an
Gnetieution or asylum, or while confined ina prisons
(6) No menber of the armed forces of the United States, the
Penber's spouse or che mesber‘s dependent is a resident of
this stave solely by reason of being stationed in the Seater
(7) Aperson loses the person's residence in this state if the
Derson votes in an election held in another state by.
absentee ballot or in person.
In case of question, final determination of residence shall be made by
the clerk, subject to appeal co the board of registration under part 117
of this chapter,

 

 

 

 

-12-
 

‘s*47OR PUBLICATION I WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*"

 

 

factor in determining the residence of an individual

Stnder section 11-15, one's gtate of mind Seternines

   

 

 

 

one's place of residence." Atey. Gen: Op. 86-10.
(Baphasis added!

‘The Key to deciphering Mr. Kaho'chalahala’s
state of mind is found in his sworn affidavit. In ie,
he states

ie
3.” My residence is fixed at {] Fraser Avene,

Eana'i City, and whenever 1 an absent trom
che ieiand of tana, 1 intend to return

3. T'was born and raised on the island of
tana'i and retained ny residence on Lana'i
except for a brief period in which Iwas
In the service of the State of Hawai'l
with the Rahoolawe Taland Reserve
Commission

4. AE the time of fixing my residence in
Tasa'l city, ie vas with the invention of
making it my permanent dwelling place

tC)
(emphasis added.)

it is clear from the quoted portions of his
eworn affidavit that Mr. Kaho‘ohalehala intends to
Teside on the ieland of Lanal

‘The Office of the County Clerk, County of Maui,
has conducted an examination of Mr. Keho'ohalahala’
voter registration history and confirms that, with the
exception of the period from July 2006 to duly 2008,
Mr. Kaho'ohalahala’s residence address of record has
always been on Lanai

 

 

 

 

Pursuant co [MRS §§ 11-13 & -25), and based upon
the foregoing discussion, to the extent that the
Complaint Letters constitute 4 challenge to Me.
Kaho'chalahala’s right to renain a registered voter in
(Lanai) District/Precinet 13/07, the challenge se not
sustained

 

 

 

(Emphases in original; footnotes omitted)

Hiraga notified all of the complainants of his
decision, and of their right to appeal his decision to the Board
of Registration pursuant to HRS § 11-26 (1993).

C. Dupree appeals to the Board of Registration and the Board
overrules Hiraga’s decision

-13-
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HANAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER"

 

Dupree, proceeding pro se, sent an appeal letter dated
october 16, 2008 to the Board of Registration. Dupree stated
that he was challenging Hiraga’s decision *not to sustain the
challenge as to the true residency of (Kaho'ohalahalal{,J* and

argued in relevant part as follows:

while T would agree that according to Hawaii
Revised statutes that the challenges were received on
fan untimely basis, it doean’t change the truth and
vanidity of this challenge. Te doesn't change the
fact that Sol Kaho'ohalhala and hie brother Gaylien,
ay both have given false statements in their sworn
affidavits. T would argue that in this specific
Situation an exception should be granted and further
Consideration be given to this challenge.

i live’at [) tana street, 2 fev blocks from (J
Peaster [sic] Avenue, where Soi claims that he lives:
[have passed by that house almost one thousand times
Zines duly 2008, ten tines a day for over one hundred
ays, ‘when Sel supposedly returned here
according to he and his brother's svorn affidavit, T
have not seen hin once. Not once in a hundred days oF
2 thousand passes. i'm not surprised that Sol would
Gistort the truth but Gaylien too? I haven't seen Sol
on Lanas once this year, although 1 an not saying he
hasn't visited, T'm saying he doesn’t Live her
Ravea'e seen hin onee at the poet office, efther bank,
not at any Lanai store, nor the gas station, nor any
Festaurant. T haven't seen him walking, driving a
far, riding a bike, surfing or paddling a canoe. He
Sertainly ie not commuting to Maul. Four times a week
Ttake the only road down to Expeditions Ferry Service
at Manele Harbor and pass everyone who is going 0
Saul, 1 vee ali the Lanat faces commuting on the
Hirst boat to Yaul at 8:00 A¥, and again 1 have not
een his face once in the last three months aince he
hoved here as he swore before a notary public.” He
Goes not commute from Lenai to tahaina and then to
Kahului; that would be inpractical- ‘The Harbor Master
Of anai, Sheri Menze, alto sent a letter challenging
Soi's reaidency because she doesn't see Alm either
Ee he invisible, are we Blind, or are he and his
Brother not teliing the ruth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

i ask that you please uphold the challenge to
Sol Kaho'chalahala{'s] true residency and help the
Fesidents of Lanai co take a step forward and not
Allow this dishonest man to represent our island on

n14-
 

POR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

the Maul County Counc!, Ke misrepresent (ed) himself
on hie voter registration, his aomination papers. and
his avorn affidavit. Please renove him from the
ballot and replace hin with a true Lanai resident.

 

 

 

Kaho'ohalahala then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction. He argued that because there were no timely
objections to his nomination papers, which included a declaration
of his legal residency and registered voter status, his
nomination papers were presumptively valid. Kaho‘ohalahala
argued that this was an election contest within the meaning of
HRS § 11-172, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Hawai'i Supreme Court.

On October 21, 2008, Kaho'chalahala also filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (petition) with this court, which
named Hiraga as the respondent. In his petition, Kaho'ohalahala
similarly argued that none of the complaints challenged his voter
registration, that his nomination papers were presumptively valid
as there had been no timely objections, and that the complaint
was an election contest within the meaning of HRS § 11-172
Kaho‘ohalahala requested that this court vacate Hiraga’s
October 10, 2008 ruling and dismiss the underlying action because

it constituted an election contest, which Hiraga did not have the

 

jurisdiction to decide.
Kaho'ohalahala also filed with the Board a Motion for

Stay of Proceedings pending disposition of his petition, and a

n15-
 

‘*#POR PUBLICATION IM WEST’S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Motion in Limine to Exclude Accepting Testimony trom Witnesses by
‘Telephone or Video. A hearing on Kaho'ohalahala’s motions was
held on October 27, 2008. At the hearing, Dupree argued at one
point that ‘the fundamental reason that we are here is because
one clause in the Maui County charter . . . says that one
of the menbers of the Maui County Council must be a resident of
Lanai(,]* but later argued that ‘although in my original
challenge I didn’t list the word voter registration I didn’t list
the word nomination paper either but the thrust of the argument
was that (Kaho'chalahala] is not a resident{.J* After the
hearing, the Board denied Kaho'ohalahala’s motion to stay, motion
to dismiss, and motion in limine to exclude testimony given by
telephone or video. ‘The Board issued an order dated October 28,
2008, denying the three motions, concluding in relevant part as
follows:

EINDNGS oF Fac.

2." " he county Clerk's october 10, 2008 ruling
from which wr. Dupree bas appealed to thia poard
determined that the County Clerk does not have
Jurisdiction to determine Mr. Kaho'chalanala’s
Gandidacy pursuant to (Wes) § 12-8

3.) “the County Clerk's Octéber 10, 2008 ruling
construed Nr. Dupree's challenge to be a challenge by
a registered voter under IRS § 11-25, challenging the
fight of Mr. Kaho‘ohalahala to be a registered voter
inthe precinet that includes Lanai

42" Mr. Dupree’s appeal of the County Clerk's
fuling wae filed on detaber 16, 2008 and challenged
the application of the rules for determining residency
that Were applied by the County Clerk

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

 

 

 

 

-16-
 

‘*+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

 

2. The Board of Registration for the County
of Maui has jurisdiction over the parties herein
hae primary jurisdiction of the subject matter of
appeal, which is a challenge by a registered voter
Under #RS 5 11-25, challenging che right of Mr:
Kaho'ohalahala to be a registered voter in the
precinct that. includes Lanai

3. Me. Dupree hau standing to being this
appeal of the County Clerk Roy #iraga’s determination
Fegarding the voter registration status of Solomon
Kano'ohalakala.

  

   

on October 30, 2008, this court denied Kaho'ohalahala’s
petition for writ of mandamus, holding in relevant part as
follows:

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamss filed by petitioner Solomon P. Kahoohalahala
and the papers in Support, it appears that
Fespondent's October 10, 2008 ruling aid not decide
whether petitioner was nominated or elected as a
Candidate in the September 20, 2008 primary election,
but decided only that the challenges to petitioner's
nomination papers were untimely and that petitioner ie
@ registered voter on Lanai. The October 10, 2008
Fullng was not tantamount to a judgeent in 3 primary
Slection contest given pursuant to MRS § 11-173.5(b]
(1993), but was a ruling only on a challenge co
nomination papers and on a person's voter registration
Statue, Jurtediction to render such ruling wae with
Fespondent pursuant to MRS §§ 12-8(b) (1993) and
in=38 ta) (1393),

Kaho'chalahala v. Hiraca, No, 29415, 2008 WL 4769470, at *1 (Haw.

oct. 30, 2008)

 

 

A hearing was held on Dupree’s appeal on October 31,
2008. Board chair John Henry characterized Dupree’s appeal as a

“challenge to [] Kaho'chalahala’s right to remain a registered

-a7-
‘sseFOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAVA'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERY*®

voter on Lanai* pursuant to HRS §§ 11-13 and 11-25.” Dupree
initially presented his appeal as a “challenge of voter
registration(,]* but also argued that Kaho'ohalahala registered
to vote on Lana'i so that he could “file his nomination papers
for candidacy.* Counsel for Kaho'ohalahala objected that the
Board ‘has already determined that it’s not hearing questions
related to candidacy[,]* and that any evidence “along those lines
( is irrelevant and immaterial[.]* The Board sustained the
objection. Counsel for Hiraga joined in the objection,
additionally noting that ‘this Board does not have jurisdiction
to consider such matters." The Board agreed, and asked Dupree to
“keep it to his voter registration.*

Dupree argued that Kaho'chalahala’s residence was fixed
in Lahaina, and that Lahaina is where Kaho'ohalahala intends to
return to whenever he is away. Dupree argued that although
Kaho'chalahala registered to vote in Lana'i in July of 2008, he
lacked the present intention and corresponding physical presence
necessary to be a Lana'i resident

When asked if he had any personal knowledge about where

Kaho'ohalahala sleeps at night or resides, Dupree testified that

 

> estten transeripte of the October 27 and 31, 2008 hearings are
part of the Fecord on appeal, The record does not Indicate who prepared the
Erangeripts. Although Hiraga identifies two passages that he asserss were
inaccurately transcribed, all parties cite to the transcripts in their briefs
and do not otherwise dispute thelr sccuracy or authenticity.

 

n18-
‘s+4ron PUBLICATION I WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

he Ykn{elw [that Kaho'chalahala] was on the island [of Léna'i]
last weekend because . . . he showed up at the Aloha Festival and
stayed overnight a couple of nights{.]* Dupree also testified
that he had heard that Kaho'chalahala was at a political rally
just before the primary.

Dupree then called Ron McComber to testify." McComber

testified in part as follows:

(Mocomber}: I've Lived on lanai for thirty aine years,
I've known (Kaho'ohalahalal for those thirty nine
years, sometines he lived om cheve and sometines sh
he dogsnt. what I'm saying is now for the, the past
probably ten yeara he has not physically lived on
Tanai, that's, that’s addressing the, the problen of
him tiving on’ tanai, he has fot Lived there

(Dupree}: and ah as of July (2008) has he returned to
the isiand to Live en the ‘#land.

Wecomber]: For

[Dupree] + Ac far"as your understanding

WeConber]+ Av far ao I know, he's cone back one tine
since that time and it was for chat rally, and he has
ot Lived on Lana’

[Dupree]: tm, and 20, you're (sic} detection is that
he's not an actual resident of the island?

DlcConber]: That is my understanding, 7 Live there,
and it’s avery small island, not very many things go
On Lanai that people don’t know, and the population of
the island is very rare (sic] of who cones and who
Goes, who lives, ho ian't.. t's kind of a, a melting
pot and there 5 no ingication that I cen find
anyshere from anybody chat [Kaho'obalabelal has moved
Back thee and lived there for the last, at least, cen
years.

 

 

 

 

A Board member then asked McComber if, since July of

2008 when Kaho‘ohalahala registered to vote on Lanai, McComber

 

had seen “any signs that [] he had established . . . any material
“fon MoConber's name is spelled in several different ways in the
transcript and the briefs, For the purposes of this opinion, we adopt the

   

fag used by the Board in its Wovenner 1, 2008 decision.

 

-19-
 

“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIPIC REPORTER:

goods there, a car, or moving van, anything along that line[.]*
McComber testified that he had ‘not seen [Kaho'chalahala) cone

back over there, and move in, move clothes in, bring a car over

 

there. wis brother picks him up at the dock and, and drives
around, he does not have a car that I know of over there.*

counsel for Kaho'ohalabala then moved for a directed
order or decision that Dupree “has not by preponderance of
evidence presented sufficient () evidence to support [the]
overturning of mr. Hiraga’s [decision] [,]" and deputy corporation
counsel joined in that motion. The Board denied the notion, and
corporation counsel called Hiraga to testify.

Hixaga testified that subsequent to receiving the
complaint letters alleging that Kaho'ohalahala was not a Lana‘i
resident, he conducted an investigation which included
researching Kaho'ohalahala’s voter registration history. Hiraga
testified that Kaho'ohalahala’s voter registration records dated
back to 1982, and that Kaho'ohalahala had been continuously
registered to vote on Lana‘i with the exception of the period
from July 2006 to July 2003. He also testified that it was his
understanding that during those two years, Kaho'chalahala was

employed by the State of Hawai'i

-20-
 

‘st+70n PUBLICATION It WEST'S HAMNAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*”

Ellen Pelesaro” then testified for Kaho'ohalahala. she
testified that she had known Kaho'chalahala since 1991, and that
Kaho'chalahala’s family had been on Lana'l for seven generations.
Pelesaro testified that Kaho'chalahala had an ‘immense love
affair with (the island of Lana't],* and that *he cane right back
from college and went to work there and began to do community
service on that island that led ultimately to his running for
office." she testified that Kaho'ohalahala had held a nunber of
elective offices requiring Lanai residency. He had previously
held the Lana‘i seat on the Maui County Council, was on a
citizen's advisory committee, was a state representative, and was
the Lana'i representative to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Comission.
Pelesaro stated that when Kaho'chalahala previously represented
Lana'i on the Maui County Council, he commited to and from work
on Maui because he received an allowance for that purpose.
Pelesaro testified that Kaho'chalahala had recently
served as Executive Director of the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve
Commission, and that he was currently employed by the state as an
instructor at Maui Community College (McC). She testified that
he resided’ with his wife at an address on Fleming Road in Lahaina

while employed at the Commission and MCC because “they've got no

8 there are different spellings of her nane in the record. For
purposes of this opinion, we adopt the spelling used by the Board.

 

w21-
‘s++POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REFORES AND PACIPIC REPORTER***

appointment for him to conmute.* During a break between his
employment with the Commission and MCC, Kaho'ohalahala was on
Lana'i ‘for awhile* as well, helping to care for family menbers.
Pelesaro testified that Kaho'ohalahala’s wife was the Vice
Principal at Lahainaluna School, and Pelesaro did not know if she
joined him on Lana'i during that period.

Pelesaro stated that “(Kaho'chalahala] and his wife had
talked as long as [she had] known them, about remaining on Lanai
for the rest of their lives, their children are there, their
grandchildren are there, it was work related why he had to
physically not be there all the time.” she also testified that
she knew Kaho'ohalahala to be truthful, and that she did not
believe he would lie under oath.

The Board asked for the opportunity to ask
Kaho'ohalahala sone “questions for clarification,* but his
counsel objected and the Board responded that it would ‘not yield
to ask him questionst.]"

The Board entered the following decision dated
November 1, 2008, sustaining Dupree's appeal and overruling

Hiraga’s October 10, 2008 decision:

the decision 1s dated Novenber 2, 2008, but there is no indication
in the record of when it was served. However, Hiraga states in his opening
brief, and the other parties do not dispute, that they were served on

November 12,2008

 

    

-22-
 

"FOR PUBLICATION IM WEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER**

 

‘CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DEcuszox
‘EMNDINGS oF pact

‘Mc, Dupree’s Complaint to the County Clerk

2. tar. Kaho'ohalahala is a candidate for the

 

Maul county Coune!l for the seat designated for the
Fesident of the Zeland of tans! for the 2008 general
election

3°’ ay leteer received september 29, 2008, Mr.
Phoenix Dupree, also known as Michael Phoenix Dupree,
Also known as Phoenix, a registered voter of the stave
GE Hawai'i, filed a challenge to Mr. Keho'chalahala’s
Fight to be or to remain registered as a voter of the
Eanal Distriet/Precinet 13/07

4." Mr. Dupree contends that while Mr.
Kaho'chalahala is from Lane! and has family on Lane’,
he is in face not @ resident of Lana't

Sr" Baged primarily on Mr. Kaho'ohalahala’s
stated intention of establiahing his residence in
Tana't city, with the intention of making 4¢ his
permanent veiling place, the County Clerk concluded
that “with the exception of the period from July 2006
to July 2008, Mr- xaho'ohalahala’s residence adaress
of record has always been on Lanai." accordingly,
the County Clerk detersined that Mr. Dupree'®
challenge was not sustained.

 

 

3. By letter dated October 16,2008,
Me. Dupzee appeals the County Clerk's decision that
Solomon P. Kaho'ohalahala is a registered voter in
(Lana's) District /Precinet 13/07.

7." Up until July 10, 2006, Mr. xabo'ohalahala
resided at [] Akolu Place, Lana't City, tana'l, Hawai't
56069.

8. on or about July 10, 2006, mr.

Kaho'chalahala changed his residence from Lana'i co ()
Flesing Road,’ cahaina, Maull1

‘On er about July 15, 2008, me.
Kaho'chalaals changed hie tesidense tot) Fraser
avenue, anal city, “here his brother and his
Brother's family reaiae.

for “Mr. Eaholchalahala ie employed by the
Research Corporation of the University If Hawai as
dn Instructor/facilitator et Maul Community College,
at ite campus in Wai luks, Maui (.]

tl, Mr. Kehoohalahala is married to Lynn
Kaho'chalabala, who is a vice principal at Lahainalus
High School, in Lahaina, Maul.)

12.” ‘while originally from tana‘i, and while
hi brother continues co live on Lanal, Mr
Kaho'chalahala does not own or work fora business on
Usna'i, nor does he own or rent a house or keep a car

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23+
 

YOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

 

13. Mr, Dupree ha Lived on tana'i since 199
and 1s cirrentiy employed 25 the general manager of
the Blue Ginger café. We presented Ron MeComber, a
Fesident of Lanai, a@ a witness who testified that he
has not seen Mir. Faho'ohalahala on cans’:

id. Since July 2008 when Mr Kaho'ohalahala
claims that he moved back to tans), ur. Dopree has
ot seen Mr. Kaholohalahala at the post office, either
bank, the Lana'i store, the gas station, or any

1S. ‘The Couity Clerk received letters from
eleven other Fesidente of Lana'i disputing Me
Kaho'ohalahala’e Lana't residency.

36." In support of bis claim of residency on
the {eland of Lana't, Me. Kabo'chalahala submiteed an
affidavit in which he states that he "was born and
Faised on the island of Lana'i and retained (nis!
Fesidence on Lana'l except for a brief period in which
he] was in the service of the State of Hawai'i with
the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Comission.*!(")

Ui. ir. Kaho'ohalansla further states that his
fantiy hae conésnuously Lived on the Leland of tana’
throughout hie life and that it is ha understanding
that he is a legal resident of tana‘ because [] hic
persanent residence is, and was at the time he filed
Bie nomination papers, {] Fraser Avenue, Lana‘i city.

Te. Mr. Kabochalahela's brother, Gaylien,
also submitted an affidavit in which he staves shat
Me. Kabo'ohaiahaia talked with him ebout returning to
Eana'i to live and that tr. Kaho'ohalaala has resided
at {] Frazer {sic} Avenue since [the] beginning of
Suny, 2008.

19." Other than Mr. Kaho'ohalahala’s self
proclaimed intention, which was corroborated by he
Brother, and a witness testifying as to his veracity,
Ro evidence was presented regarding his abandoneent of
Bis residency in Lahaina and his permanent relocation
fo tana’!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board's decision included a footnote at this point, which
stated the following:

‘The County Clerk concluded that Mr. Kaho'shalahata
said not lose his residency due to bis absence from
Lanai while he was employed in the service of the
Stacer, however, Mr. Kahsohalabala legally changed
his residency ffom Lana't to Lahaina on July 10, 2006.

M re must be noted that the Board's findings made only a passing
reference to Pelesara, who was Kaho'ohalahala’e only witness at the
October 31, 2008 Board hearing. Also, although POF 3 susmarized Hiraga‘s

 

-24-
 

‘**POR PUBLICATION In WEST'S EAWAZ'T REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER’

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3." " Appettant Michael P. Dupree has standing
to bring this appeal of County Clerk Roy T. Hiraga’e
decision regarding Mr. Dupree’s challenge to Solomon
P. Kaho'chalahala's residency for election purposes
bins} '§ 11-25 (“Any Togiatered voter may challenge the
right of a person to be or to remain registered as 3
voter in any precinct for any cause not previously
Gecided by the board of registratien or the supreme
court in respect to the sane person{.J")

4” “RGreuant’ to the Maul County Charter
Section 3-1, the Council shall be compesed of nine
nenbers elected at large, and ay it pertains to this
Case, one of whom shal! be a resident of the island of
Tana’s

 

Cetober 10, 2008 ruling, the Board did not discuss the details of Hiracs's
testinony in ite findings. see Auplication of Hawaii Elec. Licht Co. inc.
60 wa. 625, 641-42, 594 7.24 612, 623 [1979] ("The Toquirenent that the
[agency] set out findings of fact’ and conclusions of law is no mere technical
oF perfunctory matter. The purpose of the statutory requirement that the
agency set forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to
jure Feagoned deciaion making by the agency and enable judicial review of
agency decisions.) {citations omitted). In that regard, *"[aln agency's
findings mat be sufficient to allow the reviewing court to track the steps by
hich the agency reached ite decision.’ ‘Nakamura v. State, 98 Hawal't 263
276, 47 P.3d.730, 743 (2002) (Acoba, J., joines by Ramil, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part) (quoting a
Goma, 7 Haw. App. 227, 250, 751 P-24 1031, 1034 (19941) orackate omictea)
Ke this court has stated:

 

‘The circumstance that the evidence is in the
transeript and that the court, by weighing it, can,
Getermine for itself "the facts" does not suffice.
‘The agency io the fact finder, and the undigested
transcript is not a substitute for a set of findings
of fact. Nor shoulda court be put inva position
wherein it is forced to ferret out the faces(.

- + 60 Haw. at 642, 594 P.2d at 623-24 (citation and
ellipsis omitted)

 

‘Thus, although che Soard’s ultimate decision was not clearly
‘erroneous for tho reasons set forth in section 1.8 infra, it ie important for
Sauinistrative agencies to be complete in thelr factual findings to encourage
Confidence in “reasoned decision Raking by the agency.* Nakamura, 98 Hawai's
av 276, 47 P.3d at 743 (Acoba, J, joined by Ramil, J., concurring in part and
Gissenting in part) (citation omitted); cf. Zaaua 2. Kea House Restauranc, 97
Mawal't 402, 412, 38 P.34570, 580. (200i) {acoba, J-> concurring in part and
Gissenting in part}. (*Pindings and conclueione by an administrative agency in
fa contested case must be reasonably clear to enable the parties and the court
foagcertain the basis of the agency's decision.")

 

 

325-
 

 

5. Pursuant to Maui County charter section 3-
3, to be eligible for election or sppoinement to the
council, a person mst be a citizen of the united
States, ‘a voter in the county, a resident of the
county for a period of ninety’ (30) days next preceding
the flting of"nonination papers and at the cime of the
filing of nomination papers, a resident in the area
from which the person’ seaks to be elected.

‘6. Pursuant to [HRS] § 11"13(1),, for election
purposes, Mr. Yaho'chalahala’s residence is that place
Tn'which his habitation is fixed, and to which,
whenever he is absent, he intends to return.

T° pursuant to [HRS] 6 11-1312), "Cal person
does not gain residency in any precinct into which the
Derson comes without the present Intention of
establishing the person's permanent dwelling place
within such precinee."

Pursuant ‘to (HRS) § 11-1313), *(4)E @
person resides with the person's family in one place,
find does business in another, the former te the
person's place of residence: but any person having a
Family, who establishes the person's dwelling place
other than with the person's family, with the
{ntention of remaining there shail be considered a
Fesident where the person haa established such
Guelling place.”

De purauane eo [HRS] § 12-13(4), *[eIhe mere
intention to acquire a new residence without physical
Presence at such place, does not establish residency,
either does mere physical presence without the
Concurrent present. intention to establish such place
a5 the persen’s residence.”

30. Pursuant to (HRS] § 11-13(5), *fa]_person
does not gain or lose a Fesidence solely by reason of
the person's presence or absence while employed in the
Service of the United States or of this state, or
While a student of an Snatitution of learning, or
While kept in an institution or aaylum, of while
Gontined ina prison."

Sr." § fational, sensible, and practicable
interpretation of a statute 18 preferred to one which
ig unressonable or impracticable, inasmuch as the
legislature is presuned not to intend an absurd
result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if
possibie, inconsistency, contradiction, and
{Hogicaitty. organ V_ Planning Depavenent, county
of Kauai, 104 wawait 175, 66 p.2d 962 (2008)

12, In order to velinguish one’s domicile or
residence there mist be an invent to remain
persanently at the new place where one is physically
resent and to simultaneously abandon the previously
Permanent place of abode. Acquisition of the new
Gomiciie mist have been completed and the animus to
Fenain in the new location fixes, before the former
Gomiciie can be considered lost.” See kata v,.

 

 

  

 

 

 

-26-
 

"POR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Bommel, 125 F.Supp. 6 1D. Hawai! 1954); Zoweld v.
Bowell, 40 Haw. 625" (2954); Anderson v. Anderson, 38
Maw. 261 (1940); Zumwale vi Zumale, 23 Haw. 376
(I3i6). Residence 18 not lost by ® temporary absence
nor by maintaining @ temporary home elsewhere. Hurley
okpdaen, 30 Haw. 887 (29291

3. The party initiating the proceeding shall
have the burden of proof, including the burden of
Producing evidence as weil ag the burden of persuasion
by a preponderance of the evidence. [HRS] § 91-10(51>
Tawai's Administrative Rules (HAR)) § 2-51-43 (3)

V4. Mr. Dupree, as the person initiating ‘the
proceeding, presented sufficient credible evidence co
Drove by a presonderance that Mr. Kaho‘ehalshala dia
Rot abandon his residence in tahaina, Maul... and
id not relocate his permanent residence to Lana'l

to

city, Lay

   

 

becrsrox

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Board sustains Mr, Dupree’s
appeal of the County Clerk's October 10, 3008
determination and the County Clerk's deciaion’ te
hereby overruled. Por purposes of this 2008 election,
Mr. Kaho'ohalahale te @ resident of Lahaina, Maui(.)

Tn the event of an appeal of this decision, Me
Kaho'chalahale shall be allowed co vote “provided that
the bailot Le placed ins sealed envelope to be later
counted or rejected in accordance with the ruling on
appeal." Sea (HRS) § 12-25(6)

 

 

 

‘Three days after the issuance of the Board’s decision,
Kaho'ohalahala won the general election for the Lana'i seat on the
Maui County Council

Hiraga and Kaho'ohalahala both appealed to the
Intermediate Court of Appeals from the Board's November 1, 2008
decision. on June 10, 2009, Dupree applied for mandatory and
discretionary transfer of the appeal to this court. on July 1,
2009, this court granted the transfer on both grounds.

XI, ISSUES ON APPEAL

 

Kaho'chalahala raises the following issues on appeal

-27-
 

}POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAMAI'T REFORTS AUD PACIFIC REPORTER’

1) “The Board lacked jurisdiction to hear and resolve
Dupree’s appeal because Dupree never challenged
kaho'ohalahala’s voter-registration status."
Specifically, Kaho’chalahala challenges Findings
of Fact (Fs0F) No. 3 and 4 and Conclusions of Law
(ce0L) No. 2 and 3 of the order denying his motion
to dismiss, and FOF No. 3 and CsOL No. 2-5 of the
Board’s November 1, 2008 decision.

2) “The Board erred in reversing the clerk’s ruling
because Dupree failed to adequately prove that
Kaho'ohalahala[’s] residence was uahaina, Maui.
Specifically, Kaho'ohalahala challenges FsOF No
5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 19 and Cs0L No. 4-6, 12,
and 14 of the Board's November 1, 2008 decision

 

Hixaga raises the following issues:

1) “The [Board] exceeded its statutory authority and
jurisdiction(.]* Hiraga argues that although the
Board has jurisdiction to determine voter
registration eligibility, "the (Board's) decision
improperly expanded the Board's jurisdiction co
rule on whether Kaho'ohalahaia’s candidacy for
County office met the criteria set out in the
County Charter” and it lacked juriediction to
determine residency “for election purposes."
Specifically, Hiraga challenges Fs0F No. 2 and
CsOL Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the “Decision”
section of the Board's November 1, 2008 decision.

2) “the (Board) erred in considering and relying on
immaterial and irrelevant criteria for
residency, ]* including the letters of citizen
complainants who did not appeal Hiraga’s opinion
or testify at the hearing on appeal," as well as

However, Hixaga failed to provide any argunent in his briet with
regard to whether it was appropriate for the Board to rely on the letters from
the other complainants, and accordingly this point is waived. Hawaii Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b) (7) (+Pointe not argued may be deaned
waived."). In any event, although the Soard referred to the letters in FOF
No. 15, there 4a no indication that the Board relied on the Letters tn
Feachifg its decision. Moreover, HAR § 2-51-43(h) provides chat "rules of
evidence in HRS § 91-10 shall be applicable to appeals co the Boards of
Registration, and HRS § $1-10(1) provides, with some limitations, that ‘any

 

 

-28-
s++foR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

whether Kaho'chalahala worked on Lana’, owned a
house or business there, kept a car there, or had
been seen by Dupree there. Specifically, Hiraga
challenges Fs0F 12, 13, 14, and 15.

3) CSOL No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are erroneous because "the
[Board] lacked statutory authority and
jurisdiction to draw these legal conclusions." In
addition, COL No. 14 ‘does not accurately state
the law and is not supported by the evidence."

4) ~The [Board] erred in concluding that Dupree had
met his burden of proof[.]*

III, STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Adainistrative Agency Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact
while the parties agree that findings of fact should be
reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law should be
reviewed uider the right/wrong standard, they disagree on the
standard applicable to the Board's ultimate determination that
Kaho'ohalahala was a resident of Lahaina rather than Lana'i
Kaho'chalahala states that findings of fact and conclusions of
law that present mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed
under the clearly erroneous standard. Hiraga states that the
principle issue in this case is whether he correctly interpreted
HRS § 11-13 that Kaho'chalahala was a Lana‘i resident, which is a
conclusion of law reviewable under the right /wrong standard.

Dupree states that the Board’s determination that Kaho‘ohalahala

oral or documentary evidence may be received.

 

-29-
 

'YOR PUBLICATION IN EST’S HAWAI'T REVORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*:

 

was not a Lana'l resident is entitled to *a presumption of
validity[,"] citing Keliipuleole v, wilson, 85 Haw. 217, 226, 941
P.2d 300, 309 (1997).

Tn Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v, Int’)
Longshore & Warehouse Union, 112 Hawai'i 489, 146 P.34 1066
(2006), this court identified the applicable standard of review
as follows:

An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo,
while an agency's factual findings are reviewed for clear
fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous
‘Miandad -becouse the conclusion ia -deneodent upon the tacts
ing

 

As a general matter, a finding of fact or mixed
determination of lew and fact is clearly erroneous when (1)
the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding
or determination, oF (2] despite substantia! evidence to
Support the finding of determination, the appellate court is
Jefe with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
inne been made. Substantial evidence is credible evidence
which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable
I person of reasonable caution to support @ conclusion

 

 

 

Ad. at 499, 146 P.3d at 1076 (emphasis added) (internal quotation
marks, citations, and brackets omitted); see Siexra Club v. Dep't
of Transp., 115 Hawai'i 299, 167 P.3d 292 (2007) (holding that in
general, an agency’s conclusion of law that presents mixed
questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous
standard, but questions concerning whether an agency has followed
Proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making
its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de

novo); Beroutka v. Cronin, 117 Hawai'i 323, 326, 329-30, 179 P.3d

=30-
‘*+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

50, 1053, 1056-57 (2008) (holding that *(w]here both mixed

 

questions of fact and law are presented, deference will be given
to the agency’s expertise and experience in the particular field
and the court should not substitute its om judgment for that of
the agency(,]* and that the Chief Election Officer did not

clearly err in rejecting signatures on a petition for inclusion

on the presidential ballot (citation omitted))

B. gurisdiction
“the existence of jurisdiction is a question of law

that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard.’ Captain

Andy's Sailing, I D

State of Hawai'i, 113 Hawai'i 194, 192, 150 P.34 833, @d1 (2006)

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

©. Interpretation of a statute
Stnterpretation of a statute is a question of law which

we review de novo." Kikuchi v, Brown, 110 Hawai'i 204, 207, 130
P.3d 1069, 1072 (App. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

XV. DISCUSSION
A. The Board had jurisdiction to consider Dupree’s appeal

o31-
‘s++POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS**

 

1, Miraga had the authority to initiate an investigation
based on Dupree’s letter to him

Kaho'ohalahala argues that the Board did not have
jurisdiction to hear Dupree’s appeal because *{Dupree’s] initial
complaint to (Hiraga] did not challenge Kaho'ohalahala’s voter
registration{,]* but instead sought to “declare Kaho'halahala an
ineligible candidate." However, for the following reasons, we
conclude that Hiraga acted within the scope of his authority in
construing Dupree’s letter ae a challenge to Kaho'chalahala’s
right to vote as a Lina'i resident.

HRS §§ 11-25 and 12-8 impose two distinct
responsibilities on county clerks, First, under HRS § 12-8(a), a
voter may challenge a candidate’s nomination papers based on the
candidate's assertion of residency. See HRS § 12-8 (a voter may
file an objection to a candidate's nomination papers up to 30
days prior to the primary or special election day); MRS § 12-3
(Nomination paper: format; Limitations{}*) (a candidate's
nomination.papers must include the "residence address and county
in which the candidate resides"). Upon receipt of an objection
to nomination papers, the clerk has the authority to issue a
preliminary decision, and to file a complaint in the circuit

court if the clerk determines that disqualification may be

332
   

'YOR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

warranted.‘ HRS § 12-8(d) & (e).

Second, under HRS § 11-25, a registered voter may also

 

challenge ancther person's right to be or renain a registered
voter based on that person's assertion of residency. See HRS §
11-25(a) (noting that prior to election day, a voter may
challenge another person's right to be or renain a registered
voter “for any cause"); HRS § 11-15 (1993 & Supp. 1998)
(application to register*) (requiring a person seeking to
register to vote to submit an affidavit which includes a
declaration of that person's residence). upon receiving a
written challenge signed by the registered voter and “setting

forth the grounds upon which it is based," the clerk is required

Rs § 12-814) & (e) provider

(a) except for objections by an officer of a
political party filed directly with the eieuit court,
the chief election officer or the clerk in the case of
County offices shall have the necessary powers and
authority to reach a preliminary decision on the
nerits of the sbjection; provided that nathing in this
Subsection shall be construed to extend toe
Candidate right to an adniniserative contested case
hearing as defined in section 91-1(3) The chief
Glection officer or the clerk in the case of county
Offices hall render a preliminary decision not later
than five working days after the objection is filed.

(e) If the chief election officer or clerk in
the case of county offices determines that the
objection may warfant the disqualification of the
Sandidate, the chief election officer or clerk shall
file a complaint in the circuit court for a
determination of the objection; provided that such
complaint shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit
Gourt not later than 4:30 p.m. on the seventh working
Gay after the objection was filed

 

   

-33-
se+F0R PUBLICATEON IN WEST'S HAWAE'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

to notify the person challenged and to “investigate and rule on
the challenge’ as soon as possible. HRS § 11-25(a).

Dupree’s letter to Hiraga alleged that although
Kaho'ohalahala was from Lana'l and had family there, he did not
Live there. Dupree alleged that Kaho'ohalahala did not own a
hone, own or manage a business, or work on Lana‘i. Dupree stated
that Kaho'ohalahala had not campaigned on Lana‘, and that he had
not been seen around the island shopping, going to the post
office, filling up his tank at the gas station, or driving on his
way to catch the commuter boat to Maul. In sum, Dupree’s letter
set forth a detailed factual basis in support of his contention
that Kaho'ohalahala was not a resident of Lana‘i.

As Kaho'ohalahala observes, Dupree’s letter focused on
Kaho'chalahala’s residency for the purpose of challenging his
eligibility as a candidate from Lanai, rather than his right to
vote on Lana'i. However, that does not mean that Hiraga was
required to ignore Dupree’s factual allegations insofar as they
cast doubt on the legitimacy of Kaho'chalahala’s voter
registration on Lana'i. To the contrary, Hiraga acted within the

scope of his authority when he construed the letter as a

 

challenge to Kaho‘chalahala’s right to vote as a Lana‘i resident,
and initiated an investigation on that basis, See Am, Newspaper

Publishers Ass'n v, NLRB, 193 F.2d 782, 900 (7th Cir. 1951) (in

ae
unfair labor practice proceeding under the Labor Management
Relations Act, court observes that when a complaint ‘clearly
describes an action which is alleged to constitute an unfair
labor practice but fails to allege which subsection of the Act
has been violated or alleges the wrong subsection, such failure
or mistake, if it does not mislead the parties charged, does not
prevent the (National Labor Relations Board] from considering and
Peraament United Sales. Inc.

ve NERS, 920 F.2d 130, 135-136 (2d Cir. 1990) (NLRB order finding

deciding the charge so presented")

 

that employer violated a section of the National Labor Relations
Act not charged in the complaint was enforceable, where the
employer had notice of the allegedly unlawful acts and the issue
had been fully litigated); cf. Maha‘ulepu v. Land Use Com‘n, 71
Haw. 332, 335, 790 P.2d 906, 908 (1990) (*ordinarily, deference
will be given to decisions of administrative agencies acting
within the’realm of their expertise."); see also Haole v. State,
111 Hawai'i 144, 152, 140 P.34 377, 385 (2006) ("it is well
established that an administrative agency's authority includes
those implied powers that are reasonably necessary to carry out
the powers. expressly aranted. The reason for implied powers is
that, as a practical matter, the legislature cannot foresee all
the problens incidental to carrying out the duties and

responsibilities of the agency.") (2006) (emphasis added).

-35-
 

‘s*+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hiraga’s decision to investigate in these circumstances
did not cause unfair surprise or undue prejudice to
Kaho'ohalahala. In Perry v, Planning Commission, 62 Haw. 666,
685-86, 619 P.2d 95, 108 (1980), this court held that pleadings
in administrative proceedings are to be construed liberally
rather than technically. In Berry, the appellants sought a
special permit from the County of Hawaii Planning Commission and
the State Land Use Commission to use land within an agricultural
district for "quarrying" purposes. Id, at 669, 619 P.2d at 99.
After the permit was granted, several owners of property
adjoining the proposed quarry site appealed, arguing that the
permit exceeded the scope of the application by including
permission for a screening and crushing operation. Id. at 673,
619 P.2d at 101. ‘The circuit court agreed, and invalidated the
permit. Id at 685, 619 P.2d at 107. This court reversed,
holding that although the appellants originally sought permission
only for “quarrying operations,“ the full extent of the proposed
operations was fully disclosed in additional documents, the
notice of the public hearing, and during the public hearing, and
that communications between the adjacent land owners and the
commissions *reveal(ed] an awareness that the proposed use
extended beyond" quarrying. Id, at 685, 619 P.2d at 107. In

finding that the "circuit court’s holding is contrary to

-36-
‘sesv0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Prevailing principles of administrative law that regard such
formalism with disfavor(,]* id. at 686, 619 P.2d at 108, this

court stated:

Modern judicial pleading has been characterized as
Sinplified notice pleading. Tes function is to give
Sppoeing parties fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon Fests.” That the same, if
not more lenient st alee governs administrative
pleadings is indisputable,

 

 

 

Id, at 685, 619 P.2d at 108 (citation, internal quotation marks
and ellipsis omitted)

‘This court went on to cite Aloha Airlines, Inc. v
Civil Aeronautics Bd., 598 F.2d 250 (D.C. Cir. 1979) as follows:

Pleadings in adninistrative proceedings are not judged
by the standards applied to an indictment at coanon
Yaw. re te ufticient tf the respondent understood
the issue and was afforded full opportunity to justify
Les conduct during the course of the Litigation

‘Thos, the question on review is not the adequacy of
the pleading but is the fairness of the whole
procedure:

erry, 62 Haw, at 686, 619 P.2d at 108 (quoting Aloha Airlines

 

Inc., 598 F.2d at 262 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis
omitted) )

The analysis of Berry is instructive here, since there
were multiple forms of relief possible (loss of voter
registration in a particular precinct under HRS §§ 11-25 and 11-
26, disqualification as a candidate under HRS § 12-8) based on
the same underlying factual allegation concerning

Kaho'chalahala's residency. Bven in the context of civil

-3-
‘s*0F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAAr'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

pleadings, the failure to expressly plead a particular claim for
relief is not dispositive, where the complaint alleges the
underlying facts relating to that claim and there is no prejudice
to the opposing party. Suzuki v, State, 119 Hawai'i 288, 296,
196 P.3d 290, 298 (App. 2008) (plaintiff's complaint construed as
including a claim for race discrimination)

Moreover, Dupree was proceeding pro se when he
submitted his letter to Hiraga. Pleadings prepared by pro se
litigants Should be interpreted liberally. see Giuliani v.
Chuck, 1 Haw. App. 379, 385-86, 620 P.24 733, 737-38 (1980) ("the
rules [of civil procedure] do not require technical exactness or
draw refined inferences against the pleader; rather, they require
a determined effort to understand what the pleader is attempting
to set forth and to construe the pleading in his favor. This is
particularly true when a court is dealing with a complaint drawn

by a layman unskilled in the law.

 

Kaho'ohalahala does not allege that because Hiraga
construed Dupree’s letter as a challenge to his residency for
voter registration purposes, Kaho‘ohalahala was denied full
opportunity to be heard in opposition. on the contrary,
Kaho'ohalahala acknowledges that Hiraga contacted him the day
after receiving the first two complaint letters, informed

Kaho'ohalahala that he was construing the complaints as

-3e-
‘s++FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWA'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!

 

challenges to his voter registration status pursuant to HRS §

25, stated that he would conduct an investigation on the ma

 

and asked Kaho'chalahala to respond to the allegation.
Kaho'chalahala responded both by alleging that he was a resident
of tana'i, and by arguing that the complaint letters were
untimely challenges to his nomination papers. Kaho'ohalahala
continued to argue this point in his motion to dismiss, his
petition for writ of mandamus, and at the October 31, 2008
hearing on the merits. From the start, he was notified of the
allegations and took full advantage of the opportunity to
respond. Although Kaho'ohalahala disagrees with the outcomes of
the various rulings, he was not denied a fair opportunity to
respond.

In sum, Hiraga acted within the scope of his authority
in construing the complaint letters as a challenge to
Kaho'ohalahala’s residency under HRS § 11-25, and investigating
on that basis. The Board therefore did not err in denying
Kaho'ohalahala’s motion to dismiss, and had jurisdiction to hear
Dupree’s appeal from that aspect of Hiraga’s decision."”

YT ds unclear whether Kaho'shalahala also challenges the
sutticiency of Duproe's Octoner 20, 2008 letter of appeal to the Bosra
However, since we are cbligeted to ensure the existence of Jurisdiction, gee

073 Haw. 8,14, 828 2.28

260, 263 (19921; Hawadi Nomt Alliance Auaoc, vind. Comm'x, 106 Wawai's 21,
153; 100 p.3a 952, 167 12008), we nave reviewed that letter and conclude ¢

kt gufticiently challenged Kaho'ohalahaia’s voter registration status for th
Board to have jurisdiction to hear che appeal

 

 

  

-39-
‘s*4POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

‘Therefore, the Board did not clearly err in entering Fs0P Nos. 3
and 4 in the order to dismiss and Fs0P Nos. 2 and 3 in its
November 1, 2008 decision. Nor was the Board wrong in entering
cs0L Nos. 2 and 3 in the order denying his motion to dismiss, or
Cs0L Nos. 2-6 in the Board’s November 1, 2008 decision
2, the Board dia not exceed its jurisdiction by referring

to Kaho‘ohalahala’s candidacy and the residency

vequirement of the Maui County Charter

Hiraga concedes that the Board had jurisdiction to hear
Dupree's appeal insofar as it challenged Kaho'chalahala’s voter
registration status. However, Hiraga argues that the Board
exceeded its jurisdiction in parts of its Novenber 1 Decision by
addressing matters related to Kaho'ohalahala’s candidacy
Specifically, Hiraga challenges FOF No. 2, which states that
Kaho'ohalahala “is a candidate for the Maui County Council for
the seat designated for the resident of the Island of Lana‘i[.]*
Hiraga next challenges Cs0L Nos. 4 and 5, which summarize maui
County Charter §§ 3-1 and 3-3 and state that the council shall be
composed of nine members, including one who is a resident of

HRS § 11-26(a) provides that in instances where the clerk rules on
fa challenge to voter registration prior to election day, "the person ruled
agsinst may appeal from the ruling to the beard of registration(.|*" In his
October 20, 2008 letter to the Soard, Dupree alleged chat Kaho'ohalahala
‘misrepresent (ed) hinself on his vorer registration, IMs nomination papers and
his sworn affidavit." Dupree’s appeal thus sufficiently notified
Kaho'chalahala that Dupree waa chatienging hia residency for voter

Fepistration purposes, and Fahoohalshale was given 2 full opportunity to
Fespond. faxky, 62 Haw. at 685-86, 619 7.2 108.

 

 

-40-
   

-FOR PUBLICATION IW WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AKD PACIFIC REPORTER*

 

Lana'i, and that to be eligible to run for the seat, the
candidate must be a resident for 90 days next preceding the
filing of nomination papers. Kaho'chalahala also argues that the
‘maui County Charter references indicate that the Board's
decision went beyond its statutory authorization" in that they
‘suggest that Kaho'ohalahala did not truthfully certify in his
nomination papers that he qualified to run for the Maui County
Council.* .Hiraga also challenges CsOL Nos. 3 and 6, which
discuss the challenge to Kaho‘ohalahala’s residency ‘for election
purposes," as well as the portion of the decision holding that
Kaho'ohalahala is a resident of Lahaina *[£lor purposes of the
2008 election{.]" Hiraga argues that by including these
passages, the Board not only ruled on Kaho‘ohalahala’s voter
registration, but also exceeded its jurisdiction and ruled on his
qualifications as a candidate as well. For the following
reasons, we disagree with this interpretation of the Board’s
ruling

FOF No. 2, which states that Kaho'ohalahala is a
candidate for the Lana‘i seat, is an undisputed fact and the
Board did not exceed its jurisdiction by including it because it
provided background and context for the appeal. CsOL Nos. 4 and
5 contain extraneous information on the Maui County Charter and

the residency requirement for running for a council seat, and it

-41-
 

FOR PUBLICATION IW MEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!

 

is not clear from the record why the Board included them in its
ruling. However, any error in including them is harmless because
they were not material to the Board’s holding and do not purport
to address Kaho'ohalahala’s candidacy.

Finally, although the Board stated in several instances
that it was ruling on residency “for election purposes,“ it is
apparent from the Board's decision that it was not purporting to
rule on whether Kaho'ohalahala was properly a candidate, but only
on whether he was properly registered to vote. First, the phrase
“for election purposes” appears in HRS § 11-13, which sets forth
the rules for determining residency for voting purposes. HRS §
11-13 ("The following rules shall determine residency for
election purposes only{.J"). Thus, the Board’s reference to that
phrase does not imply that it was making any determination with
regard to his candidacy. Second, the limited scope of the
Board's holding is also apparent when the challenged phrase is
examined in the context of the relief granted by the Board. Cf.
Tavlor-Rice v. State, 91 Hawai'i 60, 75, 979 P.24 1086, 1101
(2999) (clarifying the scope of a challenged conclusion of law by
viewing it in context with the trial court's other findings and
conclusions). tn the “Decision” section of its November 1, 2008
decision, the Board stated that, pursuant to HRS § 11-25(c), if

Kaho‘chalahala chose to appeal, he would be allowed to vote

-42-
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

vprovided that the ballot is placed in a sealed envelope to be

later counted or rejected in accordance with the ruling on

 

appeal." ‘The decision did not mention any possible consequences
for Kaho'ohalahala‘s candidacy under the provisions applicable to
a candidate whose nomination papers have been successfully
challenged. See HRS § 12-8. Accordingly, the Board ruled only
on Kaho'chalahala’s right to be or remain a registered voter,
which was within the scope of its jurisdiction. HRS §§ 11-25(a)
and 11-26(b) (1993). Thus, the Board did not exceed its
jurisdiction in entering FOF No. 2, Cs0L Nos. 4 and 5, and by
stating that it was determining Kaho'ohalahala’s residency for
purposes of the 2008 election.

B. The Board did not clearly err in finding that Kaho‘chalahala

was not a resident of Lina'i for the purpose of voting in
the 2008 election

 

The starting point for our analysis is HRS chapter 11,
which is entitled “Elections.* HRS § 11-12 (1993) provides that
a person may not register to vote in a precinct other than that
in which he or she resides. HRS § 11-13 provides in relevant

part as follows:

 

dency. For the
is title, there can be only one residence
widual, but in determining residency, a
person may. jolt separate from the person's
‘Spouse. The following rules shall determine residency
Hor election purposes only:

(2) “The residence of a person is that place in

which the person's habitation is fixed, and to

“hich, ‘whenever the person 1s absent, the person

  

    

 

-423-
+*POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER!**

 

hae the intention to return;
(2) “A person does not gain residence in any
precinct into which the person cones without, che
Present intention of establishing the person's
Permanent dvelling place within euch precinct;
(3) Tf a person resides with the person"

family in one place, and does business in
another, the former {a the person's piace of
Fesidence; but any person having a family, who
establishes the person's dwelling place other
than with the person's family, with the
intention of remaining there chal! be considered
a resident where the person has established such
Gvelling place:

(a). the Bere intention to acquire a new
residence without physical presence at such
Place, does not establish residency, neither
Goes more physical presence without the
concurrent’ present intention to establish such
place as the person's residence:

{5}. A person does not gain or lose a residence
solely by reason of the person's presence or
absence while employed in the service of the
United States or of this state, or while a
Student of an inetitution of learning, or while
Kept in an inetitution er asylum, or while
confined in & prison;

 

 

 

 

 

 

ia] “a'person 1oses the peron’s residence in
thls Scate If the person vates in an election
held in another state by absentee ballot or in

person.
Tn case of question, final determination of
Fealdence shall be made by the clerk, subject to
appeal to the board of registration under part
THT of this chapter,

 

 

HRS § 11-13 was enacted in 1970 as part of a

comprehensive revision of the State’s election law." The House

 

Although Lt has been anended several tines since then, chose
amendments are not relevant to the substance of this appeal. For example, in
1975, the introductory paragraph of HRS # 11-13 was amended co eliminate a
requirement that if "a husband is a resident of this state, then the
Feridency of the husband shall determine the residency of che wife.” Comare
1970 Haw, Sess. Laws Act 26, § 2 at 19-20 wich 1975 Haw. Sess, Laws Act 6, 5
i at 49-50. I 1977, the Legislature, inter alia, eliminated a provision for
Computing the length’ of residence, 1977 Haw. Seao. Laws Act 189, 8 1 at 403-
Og” No substantive changes have been made co HRS § 11-13 since then.

Since ite adoption in 1970, there have been no published Hawai'i
cases interpreting HRS § 11-13.

 

 

44
“*+POR PUBLICATION In WEST’S HAWAr'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

Judiciary Committee stated that *(tJ)he purpose of the bill is to

consolidate, streamline, and update all the material relating to

 

elections presently scattered throughout the statutes."

Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1178, in 1969 House gournal, at 852.
Prior to the 1970 recodification, the Hawai‘ Revised
Statutes provided that *(nJo person shall register or vote in any
other precinct than that in which he resides,“ but provided no
guidance on determining residency other than noting that “[i]f
any person resides in more than one precinct he may elect in
which precinct he will register, but he shall register in one

precinct only." HRS § 11-2 (1968). Similar provisions were

* WRS § 11-2 (1968) stated as follows

Age, place of registering and voting. Every
person ho has reached the age of twenty years, or who
Will have reached the age of twenty years on or before
the date of the next election, and is cthervise
qualified to register may do go in the precinct in
nich Re resides.” No person shall register or vote in
any other precinct than that in which he resides;
provided, that where there is a mistake in placing the
ane of the elector on the list of electors of a
Drecinct in which he does not actually reside, che
elector shall nevertheless be allowed to vote therein,
it otherwise qualified: and the chairman of the
inspectors of election of the precinct where the
elector has voted shall notify the county clerk of the
error in order chat the nane of the elector may De
Placed on the next succeeding list of electors of the
Brecinct where he actually resides

3E any person resides in nore than one precinct
hhe may elect in which precinct he will register, but
he Shall resister in one precinct only

 

 

 

 

 

45-
 

‘s*+¥0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S ERWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

 

included in Hawai'i’s election laws since at least 1897.”
In enacting HRS § 11-13, the Legislature noted that
*[rlesidency has been clarified’ to address various issues,
including the ‘many instances of voters residing in one area of
the State and claiming residency in another." H. Stand. coma,

Rep. No, 1178, in 1969 House Journal, at 852; $. Stand. Comm.

® civil Laws of the Mawaiian Island 1897, Appendix at § 28, stated

as follows

Piace of registering and voting. Every person
qualified to register may do so in the Precinct in
hich Ne resides; and no person shail register or vote
Yn any other [plrecinct chan that in which ne resides

Tf any person resides in more than one
(wirecinct, ne may elect which [plrecinct he will
register in: but he shall register in one [plrecinct
oniy

Provided, however, that at any epecial election,
any person who has previously registered, and since
registering has moved his residence to another
precinet without having had an opportunity to register
therein, may vote in the precinct in which he was last
Fesistered.

 

 

%  Specificaliy, the House Judiciary Committee report provided:
21a. Residency has been clarified by

jtablishing that a person may only reside in one

place and my only register to vote from that place.

 

 

there are many instances of voters residing in
one area of the State and claiming residency in
Shother. ‘There are also inseances of out-of-state
Fesidents declaring the intent of becoming Hawaii
state residents pricr to the tine they are physically
{peated in the State. there are also many instances
ofa mate resident of this state marrying a fenale
Yesident of another state, who under the present law
hay not vote in this state until she has physically
Tocated here for one year, Under the present law the
voting zesidence of the above people ie vague

 

-46-
 

‘++P0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

 

Rep. No, 830-70, in 1969 Senate Journal, at 1374-75.
Im substance, HRS § 11-13 sets forth general
requirenents for establishing residency in subsection (1), and
then provides additional rules in subsections (2)-(7) that
address specific situations that may arise. the definition in
subsection (1) requires the voter to both have a “habitation .
fixed* in the place where the voter registers, and to have the
intention to return to that place whenever absent. That
formulation adopts a commonly stated test for determining
domicile, which has been used by many other states to evaluate
residency for voter registration purposes, see Note, Collece
‘Student Voting: A New Prescription for an Old Ailment, 56
Syracuse L. Rev. 145, 151 (2005) (noting that “state election

laws uniformly equate ‘residence’ to ‘domicile’*

 

+ as well as by
this court in cases decided prior to the 1970 recodification, see
Ince Hurley, 30 Haw. 887, 996-97 (1929). Additionally, this
court has used similar formulations of the test to evaluate
domicile in other contexts. Yamane v, Piper, 51 Haw. 339, 340,
461 P.2d 131, 132 (1969) (defining -resident~ in terms of

‘domicile’ when determining whether a person is a resident of

he relevant portion of the Senate Judiciary Coamittes report was
identical to the House Judiciary Committee report.

 

-4a7-
 

"FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S NAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Hawai'i for income tax purposes); Blackburn v, Blackburn, 41 Haw.
37, 40-41 (1955) (construing "resided" to mean "domiciled* in the
divorce context); Rowell v. Powell, 40 Haw. 625, 628-30 (1954)
(applying domicile principles to evaluating whether husband was a
resident of the Territory of Hawai'i for the purposes of a
separate maintenance suit).

HRS § 11-13(4) addresses changes in residency, and
provides that “[t]he mere intention to acquire a new residence
without physical presence at such place” is not sufficient to
establish a new residence. Thus, consistent with HRS § 11-13(1),
this section requires both action and intent on the part of the
voter before a new residence is established. The requisite
intent is to ‘acquire a new residence." HRS § 11-13(4). This
necessarily implies a concurrent intent to abandon his or her
prior residence, since a person can have only one residence under
the statute. HRS § 11-13 ("there can be only one residence for

an individual”

 

In the instant case, the Board found chat
Kaho‘ohalahala was a Lana'i resident up to the 2006 election.
There is substantial evidence to support that finding. The

record establishes that he was born and raised on tana‘i, had
family there, returned periodically over the years, was

registered to vote there from 1982 up until 2006, and although he

-48-
 

s*4POR PUBLICATION I WEST’S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

lived and was employed elsewhere at various times, his stated

 

intent was always to return,
However, in 2006, Kaho'ohalahala changed his voter
registration to Lahaina, where he was living and working at the
time. The Board found that by so doing, he lost his residency on
Lana'i. The Board did not clearly err in reaching that
conclusion. By registering to vote in Lahaina, Kaho'ohalahala
represented that it was his place of residence. See HRS § 11-13
("there can be only one residence for an individual"); HRS § 11-
15 (a citizen seeking to register to vote must submit an
affidavit including a declaration of his residence). That
statement of intent, together with his habitation on Maui,
established Maui as his residence. HRS §§ 11-13(1) & (4).
Courts from other jurisdictions that apply a domicile
test have concluded that the act of registering to vote or voting
in a new district results in the loss of residence in a district
where the voter previously resided. See Klumker v. van Allred,
811 P.2d 75, 78-79 (N.M. 1991) (finding that three brothers were
not residents of the county where their fanily ranch was located
because, although they visited the ranch regularly and kept
personal items there, they had moved outside the county and voted
at those locations); Kauzlarich v. Ad, of Trs., 278 P.2d 888, 891

(Ariz. 1955) (husband and wife were not residents of a county for

-49-
 

“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER‘

 

voting purposes even though they purchased property there, moved
fa house and some personal property onto the premises, and went
there each weekend to work on the property with the intention of

moving there because they were still living outside the count:

 

where they had registered to vote and voted); gee also Del Rio
Indep. sch, Dist, v, Aldrete, 398 §.W.2 $97, 603 (Tex. 1966)
(noting that the place where a person votes is evidence of
whether that person’s actions corroborate his stated intention to
change his residence for voting purposes)

Kaho'chalahala and Hiraga both argue that because
Kaho'ohalahala was working for the State of Hawai'i when he was on
Maui, HRS § 11-13(5) provided that he would not lose his Lana'i
residency. However, that statute provides that *[a] person does
not lose a‘residence solely by reason of the person's presence or
absence while employed in the service of . . . this State{.] *
(emphasis added). HRS § 11-13(5). In the instant case,
Kaho'ohalahala did not lose his Lina'i residence solely by reason
of being employed on Maui. Father, he lost it because he
registered to vote in Lahaina. While HRS § 11-13(5) protects the
preexisting residency of a state employee who retains the intent
to return to his original residence in the future and acts
consistently with that intent, it does not protect someone who,

Like Kaho‘ohalahala, renounces that pr

 

xisting residency by

-50-
‘s*+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S EAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

registering to vote elsewhere.

‘Thus, when Kaho'ohalahala registered to vote on Lana’
for the 2008 election, he did so not as someone seeking to vote
there after a long, unbroken period of residency on the island.
Rather, it was as someone who was seeking to change his residency
to Lana'i after having become a resident elsewhere, in this case
Maui. In addition to satisfying the basic residency test of HRS
§ 11-13(1), i-e., that he had a “habitation fixed" on
Lsna'i and that he intended to return there when absent, he also
needed to have a sufficient “physical presence’ on Lana'i under
HRS § 11-13(4) to corroborate his intent to abandon his Maui
residence.

‘The Board concluded in COL No. 14 that Dupree
established that Kaho‘ohalahala did not abandon his residence in
Lahaina and relocate his permanent residence to Léna‘i.” The
Board did not clearly err in reaching that conclusion. The Board
found, and there is substantial evidence in the record to
establish, that Kaho‘ohalahala did not om or work for a business

on Lana'i, and did not own or rent a house or keep a car on the

» tn his points of error on appeal, Hiraga contended that COL No. 14
was an inaccurate statenent of the law. fowaver, Hiraga failed to offer ay
SRrounent in support of this contention, and accordingly it ie desnes waived
WRAP 26(b) (7) (Points not argued may be deened waived.) in any event,
although this conclusion does not directly track the provisions of HRS § 11-
13, we believe that it fairly summarizes the showing Fequired under HRS § 11-
13° (I) g°(4) in the circunstances of this case

 

 

-s1-
‘**0F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

 

island, Hiraga and Kaho'ohalahala argue that those findings are
immaterial or not dispositive. while they are certainly not
dispositive, they are relevant because they support an inference

that Kaho'ohalahala had not established the necessary physical

 

presence on Lana'i.™ Cf. Yamane, 51 Haw. at 340-41, 461 P.2d at
132-33 (concluding that “the pulling of stakes was complete’ and
appellee was no longer a Hawai'i resident for income tax purposes
when he had moved to Wake Island with his wife and children, sold
his car, TV, and household furnishings, and did not leave real or
personal property or an open bank account in Hawai'i)

‘The Board further found that Dupree had not seen

Kaho'ohalahala at “the post office, either bank, the Lana‘i store,

 

the gas station or any restaurant on Lana'i.* There was
substantial evidence to support that conclusion as well. Once
again, while none of those observations are dispositive, they are
relevant. The record establishes that Lina'i is @ small, close
knit community where residents would likely see each other at
such locations. ‘Thus, the observations support the inference
that Kaho'chalahala had not established a sufficient physical
presence of tana’

%  aho‘ohalahala sotes that the letters submitted by eight of che
citizen complaints staved that he had a-P.0. Bor on Lanai» However, the
Soard Gid'not enters finding on that Seoue; im any event, even if

Keho'ohalaala had a P.O. Box on Uana'l, there ie still ingufficient evidence
to establish the necessary physical presence on Lana'i

 

52+
 

WFOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

Although Kaho'ohalahala and his brother's affidavit
established that Kaho'chalahala had been ‘welcomed’ back to his
brother's home in July 2008, there was nothing in the record to
establish that Kaho'chalahala actually lived there or anywhere
else on Lana'i in any conmonly-understood meaning of the term.
Kaho‘ohalahala’s affidavit states that his “residence is fixed at
() Fraser Avenue in Lana'i City." Similarly, his brother's
affidavit states that Kaho‘ohalahala “presently resides at []
Fraser Avenue (and has} resided there since the beginning of
July, 2008." However, neither affidavit states that
Kaho‘ohalahala actually lives at that address, or that he has
stayed there for any particular number of nights, keeps personal
items there, shares in paying the utility bills, or provides any
other details consistent with actual residence at a particular
location.

Moreover, there is no evidence in the record
establishing that Kaho'ohalahala had abandoned his established

residence on Maui.* To the contrary, the record shows that he

* _kaho'ohalahata contends in his brief that the Bosrd erroneously
put the burden of proof on Kaho'ahalahala with regard to the question of
‘uhether he had abandoned his Lahaina residence after registering to vote there
in 2006. However, the Soard explicitly acknowledged in COL No. 13 that Dupre
had both the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion in the proceeding.
MRS §91-10(5) and WAR § 2-51-a)(hI, and there fa nothing in the record to
indicate that the Board misapprehended that burden.

-53-
‘sse70R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HRWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERY*®

 

 

continued to work there, as did his wife,** and they continued to

 

stay at their home in Lahaina.” Cf, Arakaki v. Arakaki, $4 Haw
60, 62, 502 P.2d 380, 382 (1972) (party in a divorce proceeding
“had a job, home, family and financial obligations in this state”
and accordingly was a Hawai'i resident before becoming an
‘employee of the Federal Government working in Japan‘; this court
rejected his claim that he no longer was a Hawai'i resident since
“[t}here is insufficient evidence in the record to rebut the
presumption that appellant’s domicile in Hawai'i continued while
he resided in Japan").

‘There was evidence that Kaho‘chalahala visited Lanai
after registering to vote there in guly 2008. Dupree testified
that he had heard that Kaho'ohalahala was on Lanai for a rally
just before the primary, and that he had observed Kaho'ohalahala
on Lanai at the Aloha Festival in October 2008, when
Kaho'ohalahala stayed on the island for several days. McComber

also testified that Kaho'chalahala returned to Lana‘i for the

% Although under HRS § 11-13 @ person may have a separate residence

from that of the person's spouse, the location of one’s spouse and children
Gan nevertheless be relevant to determining whether a person actually
Felocated his or her residence. Cf. Yamane, 91 Haw. at 340-é1, 461 .2¢ at
152-33 (the fact that appelice had soved to Wake Teland with his wife and
Ghilaves, sold thelr personal belongings, and did ot leave real or personal
property or an open bank account in Hawai't, was evidence that he was no
Tonger a resident of Nawal'd)

   

 

 

P __Te dp unclear whether Kaho'ohalahala and hie wife owned or rented
their hone in Lahaina

o54-
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*"

rally, and that he had geen Kaho'ohalahala’s brother *pick[) him

up at the dock and. . . drive(] him around* on an unidentified

 

number of instances

 

‘hese visits do not constitute a sufficient physical
presence on Lana‘ to establish that Kaho‘chalahala had changed
his residence from Maui to Lana'i within the meaning of 11-13(4),
nor are they sufficient to establish a “habitation . . . fixed*
on Lana'i for the purposes of HRS § 11-13(1) in these
circumstances, i.e., where a previous resident has lost his or
her residence by virtue of registering to vote elsewhere, and now
seeks to reestablish it.

Although there are no Hawai'i cases directly on point,
several cases from other jurisdictions have considered challenges
to the registration of voters who sought to return to their
original residence after registering to vote elsewhere. Although
the voters in those cases had a nore significant physical
presence in their original areas of residence than Kaho‘chalahala
had on Lanai in July 2008, the courts nevertheless found that

they were not properly registered in those areas.

% FOP No. 13, which states that McComber testified that he *hald]
pot seen Mr. Kaho'chalahala on Lana'i,* is therefore clearly erroneous

However, we find the error was harnleas aince Neconber's testimony wae einilar
to that of Dupree. The brief vieits by Kahohalahala to bana’ were
ineufficient fo establish that Kaho'chalahala's "habitation (wale fsxed"

there. HRS § 11-1312)

 

-55-
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANA‘ REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

In Klunker, the New Mexico Supreme Court considered a
challenge to the voter registration of three brothers in Catron
County, Arizona. The brothers were born and raised in Catron
County, had extended family there, and had a family homestead
which they visited several times a month. 811 P.2d at 76. ‘They
kept clothing and other personal effects at the homestead, and
stated that they intended to return to the homestead whenever
they were absent. Id, However, prior to the election in
question, the brothers had all moved outside of the county with
their immediate family members, had been employed and voted in
their new locations, and listed the new location as their
residence on their driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, tax
returns, and bank accounts. Id, at 76-77. The district court
found that because of a scarcity of employment in Catron County,
the brothers were required to maintain a second residence in
other locations, but that their habitation remained fixed at
Catron County. Id. at 77.
Applying New Mexico's elections statute,” the New

% sew Mexico's elections statute contained the sane basic definition
of renidency ao WRS § 11-13(1), Nuts, Stat, Ann. § 1-1-7(A) (est 1978), aa
ell’as a lise of additional principles which is sistlar in structure to HRS §
11-13, but with sone variations in individual provisions, gee, e.d., N.¥.
Stat. ann. § 1-1°7(c) (*(A] change of residence is made only by the act of
Fenoval Joined with the intent to resain in ancther place.*) and (Hl (* (Ml
Deron loses His residence in this state if he votes in another state in an
Slection requiring residence in that state, and has not upon his return

Fogained his residence in thie state under the provisions of the constitution
of New Mexico-")-

 

-56-
‘s*4POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAVAZ'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Mexico Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in
finding that the Allred brothers’ habitation was fixed in Catron
County, since “there was no substantial evidence that they had

the requisite physical presence in Catron County." Id. at
78. Although the brothers were present in the county when they
registered to vote, returned to their home in the county as often
as once a week and maintained personal property there, ~(wJhat is
required is not momentary, or occasional or sporadic physical
presence; it is significant physical presence consistent with the
ordinary conception of living (or abiding, or residing, or
welling, or maintaining a habitation) in a place." Id. at 78
(emphasis in original). After noting that the brothers had lost
their original residency in Catron County because they had
registered to vote and had voted elsewhere, the court went on to
hold “none, of the Allred brothers had a sufficient physical
presence in Catron County at the time each registered to vote
there in 1988 so as to effect a change in his residence for
voting purposes." Id, at 79.

In Kauzlarich, the Arizona Supreme Court considered an
election contest alleging that the Oak Creek School District
wrongfully denied a married couple their right to vote in an
election. 278 P.24 at 890, The couple purchased property in the

ak Creek district, moved a house and some personal property to

-57-
 

'POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

 

the premises, and worked on the house every weekend with the
intention of making it their future home. id, at 891. The
couple also stated that their residence had always been with the
husband’s parents, who had moved from Beaver Creek to the Oak
creek district. 4. However, the husband had been employed in
Beaver Creek for the three years preceding the election, and
continued to vote in Beaver Creek after his parents had moved to
Oak Creek. Id, at 890. The trial court found that the husband
and wife were not residents of Oak Creek for the purpose of

voting in the election. Id.

 

applying Arizona’s statute for determining residency,
the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
determination that the husband and wife were not residents of oak
creek. 1d. at 892. Although the couple stated that their
residence had always been with the hushand’s parents, the court
found that.the “fact that (the husband) voted in Beaver Creek
precinct . . . long after his parents had moved to [the] Oak
Creek district, completely refutes so far as establishing his

Arizona's elections statute also contains the sane basic

definition of residency as HRS § 11-13(2), A.C-A. § S5-512(1) (2939), ag well
a5 a list of additional principles which is similar in structure to iRS § 11-

   

15, "bur with sone variations in Individual provisions, gee, eae, A.C-A- § 55-
512(7) ("The place where a man's fanily permanently resides 12 his residence

Unies he be separated therefron, but if it be a piace of temporary
establishment for his family, or for transient chjects, it ia otherwise.) ond
(8) (The rere intention to acquire a new residence vichout act of renoval
avails nothing; neither does the act of renoval without ehe intention|<1*)

-58-
‘**POR PUBLICATION In WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER‘*#

right to vote in Oak Creek precinct is concerned, the statement
that he was residing with them [at that time].* Id. at 991. the
court also found that the couple's claim that they resided with
the husband’s parents was not supported by the evidence because
they did not purchase groceries for the parents’ home or pay the
parents rent or board, and the home was too small to accommodate
the couple and their two small children in addition to the
husband’s parents and grandparents, who lived there as well. Id.
at 892,

While there are some differences in the underlying
statutory schemes, the rationale of these cases is instructive in
applying HRS § 11-13 to the circumstances of this case. Although
someone who has established residency in a place can maintain
that residency despite being physically absent as long as he or
she intends to return and acts consistently with that intent,
see, €.0., Holton v, Hollingsworth, 514 $.8.24 6, 9-10 (Ga. 1999)
{although voter left his hometowm to serve in the military and
then lived in a house in another community, voter was properly
registered in hometown when he maintained significant ties there
and intended to return), different considerations apply once a
person has. established a new residence elsewhere. HRS § 11-13(4)
recognizes that principle by explicitly requiring that the person

have a "physical presence’ which corroborates the person’s intent

-59-
 

/+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAKA'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

 

to abandon his or her prior place of residence.
‘The requirement of a ‘physical presence* in HRS § 11-
13(4) must be read in pari materia with the other provisions of
MRS § 11-13. HRS § 1-16 (1993) (*Laws in pari materia, or upon
the sane subject matter, shall be construed with reference to
each other. what is clear in one statute may be called in aid to
explain what is doubtful in another.*). HRS § 11-13(1) requires
the voter to have a “habitation [that] is fixed" in order to
establish residency, while HRS § 11-13(2) provides that *[a]
person does not gain residence in any precinct into which the
person conés without the present intention of establishing the
person's permanent dwelling placel.1° (emphasis added). Both
habitation and dwelling place imply that the person is living at
the location. Thus, the statute requires that the person seeking
to relocate his residence to a new district must establich a
@welling or otherwise live in the district, in the connonly
understood meaning of those terms. HRS § 1-14 (“The words of a
law are generally to be understood in their most known and usual
signification, without attending so much to the literal and

strictly grammatical construction of the words as to their

 

general or popular use or meaning.
In arguing that Kaho‘ohalahala had a sufficient

physical presence on Lana‘i, Hiraga and Kaho'chalahala both invoke

-60-
   

VOR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER"

 

the principle that a person need not live in an area for any
particular time in order to establish residence there. see

o v. Anderson, 38 Haw. 261, 263 (1948) (*(T]he length of
actual residence is inmaterial to the acquisition of a domicile.
A day or an hour will suffice.") (citations omitted); Bowell, 40
Haw. at 630 (*Length of residence is not a factor where the act
and intention to acquire a domicile concur. . . . No definite
period of time is necessary to create a domicile and one day is

sufficient provided the animus manendi exists

 

(citation
omitted). “As a general proposition, that principle is correct.
Z£ a person who has been living on the mainland packs up their
belongings and ships them to Hawai'i, flies to Honolulu and moves
in with family members with the intent of making Hawai'i their
permanent home, they could be considered residents from the day
they arrived. at the other extreme, consider a person who has a
hone in Los Angeles, flies to Honolulu and registers to vote, and
then returns to Los Angeles on the same day, all with the stated
intent of making Honolulu his or her permanent residence.
Recognizing such a person as a Honolulu resident would render the
physical presence requirement in HRS § 11-13(4) an absurdity.
See State v. Haugen, 104 Hawai'i 71, 76-77, 85 P.3d 178, 183-84
(2004) ("the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd

result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible,

61.
 

-FOR PUBLICATION IM WEST’S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER:

inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality*) (citation
omitted). Rather, the voter in such a case would need to have a
more significant physical presence in Hawai'i, consistent with
the intent to abandon his or her California residence, before he
or she could be considered a Hawai'i resident

Kaho'ohalahala suggests that his absences from Lana'l
were not relevant, since temporary absence from a residence does
not result in the loss of that residence absent an intent to
leave it. See HRS § 11-13(2). Similarly, Hiraga cites In re
Huxley for the proposition that a county council member or
supervisor need not reside exclusively in his district, and may
maintain temporary homes in other places. 30 Haw. at 896-97.
However, those arguments presuppose that Kaho‘chalahala had
established residency on Lana‘i when he left after registering to
vote there in July 2008. Since we conclude that he had not done
so, the provisions of HRS § 11-13(2) do not apply to his
subsequent absences, and In xe Hurley is therefore
distinguishable.

Hiraga contends that *[t]he key to determining

 

In_z2 uurlev concerned @ chsllenge to the residency of a Kauai
county supervisor, Eric Knudsen, in 1927. Rnudsen bad homes ané substantial
business interests in both Waimes and Koloa, and split his time between the
Exo locations. 30 Haw. at 890-31. ‘This court concluded that Knudsen was a
Feeident of Waimea. Kiudeen ad a far nore established physical presence in
Sines than Xahoohalahal did on Lanwi. Algo, although Fowdsen had been
Fegistered to vote in Koloe for several onthe in 1923, he had transferred his
registration vo Wainea before the 1923 election and renained registered there
for the 1925 and 1927 elections. Ig. at 891-92.

 

362-
 

s*+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAZ'T REPORTS AND FACIPIC REPORTER"

 

residency is the person's state of mind[,)* and suggests that the

Board failed to provide proper weight to evidence regarding

 

Kaho'ohalahala‘s intent.” However, that argument is contrary to

the plain language of HRS § 11-13(4), which requires an analysis
of both intent and the existence of a physical presence which
corroborates that intent. Cf. Blackburn, 41 Haw. at 42, 44 (in
rejecting a claim by a party to a divorce proceeding that he had
changed his domicile from California to Hawai‘, this court noted
that *[i]ntention has always been given large consideration, but
claimed intention without acts to support it is not controlling*
‘and “since actions speak louder than words the conduct of @
person is the most important evidence of his intention to acquire
a domicil{e} in a place") (citations omitted).

Finally, we note that there are provisions in the
Hawai‘ Administrative Rules that relate to voter registration,

HAR §§ 2-51-20 to -31 (2000), including a provision that

% th support of this argunent, Hiraga cites to a 1986 opinion by the
state Attorney General, which concluded that a legislator who temporarily,
Lived outside of his district while his house inside the district was being
renovated did not lose his residency in the district. Op. Attn'y Gen. 66-10
(3986), 1986 WL 80018. In reaching that conclusion, the opinion staced chat

Inder section 11-13, one's state of mind determines one’s piace of
residence.” Jd, siip op. at *2. However, there was nothing in the opinion
te indicate chat’ the legislator had reyistered co vote in the tenporary
Gsstrict cr had otherwise acted inconsistent with maintaining his residency in
his original district during his tesporary absence from it. Thus, the opinion
Adivesses a factual situation diatinct from that here, and the opinion's
Comment about che importance of intent mist be considered in Light of ‘that,
fsctual context. In any event, “Attorney General's opinions are highly
instructive but are not binding upon thie court.” Taniguchi v. Age"n of
Apartnent Owners of King Manors Ine, 11 tawari 37, de n-12, 153 P-3d i138,
{itrenel2 (2007) (enphasie in origimal; citations omitted).

 

 

 

 

63
 

FOR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S EAWAZ'r REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS**

 

addresses the determination of residency, HAR § 2-51-25.” Hiraga

 

% aR § 2-51-25 provides in relevant part:

(a) In addition to the rules for determining residency
provided in MRS § 11-13, the following shall also be applicable in
Setermining the residence of a person for election purposes

a

a

‘The residence of a person ie that place in

ibich the peracn’s habieation is fixed,

sihere the person intends to renain, and

‘then absent intends to return:

When @ person has more than one residence
(A) “rE a person faincaine a homeowner's
property tax exemption on the

Gwolling of one of the residences,
there shail be a rebuttable
presumption that the residence
Subject to the homeowner's property
fax exemption is that person's
Fenisence,

() Tf’ pereon clains a renter’s tax
credit. for one of the residences,
there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the residence
Subject to the renter's tax credit
fg that person's residence; and

[c) Tf a perton has not physically
resided at any one residence within
the year innediately preceding the
election, there shall be a
Febuttable presumption that the
Fesidence in which the person ha
not resided is not the person's
Fesidence:

 

 

jen a person of this State is employed in

the service of the United States, 1s'a

Student of an institution of leaning, o

{a in an institution, asylum, or prison

(A) A’person does not gain or lose
residence ina precinct or this
State solely by reason on being
present in or absent from a precinct
or this States and

1B) A'person once having established
Feeidency ina precinct shall be
allowed to register and vore and to
Continue to vote from the address at
which the person ia reglatered even
Though, while residing outside of
the precinct of the State, the
person no longer has a place of
bode in the precinct and the
person's intent co return to the
precinct may be uncertain

 

~64-
“*POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ MAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
did not refer to any of those provisions in his October 10, 2008

ruling, and the Board's Novenber 1, 2008 decision contain only a
brief reference in COL No. 13 to HAR § 2-51-43(h) (*Rules of
evidence as specified in HRS § 91-10 shall be applicable . . .*
to a hearing before the Board challenging voter registration
prior to election day). Neither Hiraga nor Kaho'chalahala
contend here that the Board erred by failing to consider HAR § 2-
51-25. while this court has the discretion to notice plain
error, HRAP Rule 28(b) (4), we decline to do so here since it does
not appear that the outcome would be any different under HAR § 2-
51-25.

In sum, the Board did not clearly err in concluding
that Kaho'ohalahala was a resident of Lahaina rather than Lana‘i
for purpose of voting in the 2008 general election, and that
Dupree's appeal should be sustained as a result. In light of
this analysis, Kaho'ohalahala’s and Hiraga’s challenges to FsOF
Nos. 5, 7-8, 12, 14-16, 19 and CsOL Nos. 3-6, 12-14 in the

November 1, 2008 decision are without merit.

() Should a person's statue change and the person takes
up residency in another precinct or state, there shal! be a
Feburegble presumption that the new place of residence is that
person's residence.

(G)_ For purposes of this section, a rebuttable presueption
is a presumption considered true unless prove false by evidence to
the contrary.

 

 

 

-65-
 

/*P0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AKD PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

v. conciusrow

 

We affirm the November 1, 2008 Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Board of Registration,

county of Maui.

Kenneth Kupchak, Robert
‘Thomas and Christi-anne

Kudo Chock (of Damon Key
Leong Kupchak Hastert) for
petitioner/appellant-appellee

Brian 7, Moto, Corporation
Counsel, and Jane Lovell,
Deputy Corporation Counsel,
County of Maui, for
respondent /appell
appellant Roy T. Hiraga

  

Benjamin E, Lowenthal
for respondent /appellee-
appellant solomon
Kaho'ohalahala

-66-