Case Title: Castillo-Barkley v. Cronin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBRARY

No. 29371

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

 
 
   
   
 
 

MARY JEAN CASTILLO-BARKLEY, Plaintiff,

aaa

KEVIN B, CRONIN, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, Defendant.

sO1KY 2-190!

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

GS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Accba, JJ.
and Intermediate Court of Appeals’ Judge Foley, )
in place of Duffy, J., unavailable)

 

We have considered Plaintiff Mary Jean Castillo~
Barkley’s Election Complaint and Defendant Kevin 8. Cronin's
motion to dismiss or for sumary judgment. Having heard this
matter without oral argument and in accordance with HRS § 11-
173.8(b) (Supp. 2007) (requiring the suprene court to “give
judgment fully stating all findings of fact and of law”), we set
forth the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and
enter the following judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Hanalei ¥. Aipoalani was one of two Democratic
party candidates for the office of state representative, District
44, in the September 20, 2008 primary election.

2. The primary election results for the Democratic
candidates for the office of state representative, District 44,

were: (1) Karen Awana:

 

1,072 votes; (2) Hanalei Aipoalani: 1,012

votes; (3) blank votes: 233; and (4) over votes: 1
3. The above election results were challenged by a
complaint filed on September 26, 2008 by plaintiff Mary Jean

Castille-Barkley

 

Plaintiff Castillo-Barkley filed her compl

 

int
“{als a concerned voting resident of Hawaii and treasurer for the
‘Friends of Hanalei Aipoalani.'”

5. Defendant Cronin filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for plaintiff Castillo-Barkley’s lack of requisite
standing,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

“With respect to any election, any candidate, or

 

qualified political party directly interested, or any thirty
voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the
supreme court.” HRS § 11-172 (Supp. 2007).

2. An election complaint filed by a plaintifé who is
not within a category of plaintiffs specified by HRS § 11-172 is
subject to dismissal for lack of standing. Elkins vs Arivoshi,
56 Haw. 47, 48, 527 P.2d 236, 237 (1974).

3. Plaintiff Castillo-Barkley is not within a category
of plaintiffs specified by HRS § 11-172. She is not a proper
party to the election contest complaint and she lacks requisite
standing under HRS § 11-172.

supGMENT
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and

conclusions of law, the election contest complaint is dismissed.
The clerk of the supreme court shall

  

with sei

 

certified copy of

   

s judgment ief election

 

accordance with HRS § 11.

 

73.5(b).

 

TED:

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 2, 2008.

Mary Jean Castillo-Barkley,
plaintiff pro se
On the complaint

Aaron H. Schulaner, em Mikonson
General Counsel, Office of

Elections, for defendant

Kevin 8. Cronin on the Mme edeyaree

motion to dismiss