Case Title: Taylor v. Nakamura

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No, 26180

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

JANES MARIE TAYLOR, Plaintiff 2
PETER NAKAMURA, County Clerk for =
the County of Kaua'i, Defendant =

——

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING a

EINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
ga.)

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy,

os

ie have considered Plaintiff Janee Marie’ Taylor’ s
Election Complaint, Defendant Peter Nakamura’s motion to dismiss
land the affidavit and exhibits appended to each. Having heard
this matter without oral argument and in accordance with HRS
§ 11-173.5(b) (Supp. 2005) (requiring the supreme 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.

EINDINGS OF FACT

1, Plaintiff Janee Taylor was one of five candidates
for the office of mayor of the County of Kaua'i in the
Septenber 23, 2006 Kauai county primary election.

2. The primary election results for the office of

(2) Bryan J. Baptiste: 6,173

 

mayor of County of Kauai were
votes: (2) Jesse Fukushima: 4,725 votes; (3) John R. Hoff: 1,984

votes: (4) Bruce J. Pleas: 1,083 votes; and (5) Janee M. Taylor:

377 votes.

nat
3. On Septenber 26, 2006, defendant county clerk Peter
Nakamura determined that candidate Bryan J. Baptiste received
majority of the votes cast for the office of mayor.

4. On September 26, 2006, defendant Nakamura declared
that candidate Baptiste was elected mayor in the Septenber 23,
2006 primary election in accordance with Section 1.03.B.1 of the
charter of the County of Kaua'i.

5. On September 29, 2006, plaintiff Taylor filed a

 

complaint contesting the September 23, 2006 Kaua'i county primary
election for mayor.

6. ‘The complaint contests the election results, for
mayor based on plaintiff Taylor‘s allegations of discrepancies in
the primary election printouts, the possibility of Kaua'i
County's noncompliance with federal and state election laws and
the failure to properly educate and advise voters.

7. Plaintiff Taylor seeks a judgment from the suprene
court directing an investigation of election procedures and
practices concerning the September 23, 2006 county primary
election.

8. Defendant Nakamura filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be
granted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1, When reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the

court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true and view them

2
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; dismissal is proper
only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle
him or her to relief. AEL Hotel 6 Restaurant Workers Health &
Welfare Trust Fund v, Bosque, 110 Hawai'i 318, 321, 132 P.3d
1229, 1232 (2006).

2. ‘The court's consideration of matters outside the
pleadings converte a motion to dismiss into one for summary
judgment. Fovtik v, Chandler, 88 Hawai'i 307, 313, 966 P.2d 619,
625 (1998). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Estate of Doe v. Pau.

Revere Ins. Group, 86 Hawai'l 262, 269-270, 948 P.2d 1103, 1110-
quai (1997).

3. Discrepancies in the September 23, 2006 Kaua'i
county primary election printouts and the possibility of Kaua'i
County's noncompliance with federal and state election laws do
not anount to actual information of mistakes or errors sufficient
to the change the election results for mayor.

4. The failure to properly educate and advise voters
in Kaua'i County does not denonstrate that the results of the
Septenber 23, 2006 Kaua'i county primary election for mayor would
have been changed.

5. In a prinary election challenge, HRS § 11-173.5(b)
(Supp. 2005) authorizes the suprene court to “decide what
candidate was nominated or elected.”

3
‘The remedy provided by HRS § 11-173.5(b) (Supp.

 

2005) of having the court decide which candidate was nominated or
elected is the only remedy that can be given for primary election
irregularities. Funakoshi v, King, 65 Haw, 312, 316, 651 P.2d
912, 914 (1982).

7. An investigation into election procedures and

 

practices is not a remedy authorized by HRS § 11-173.5(b) (Supp.
2005).

8. There is no genuine issue of material fact related
to plaintiff Taylor's primary election contest.

aUDGMENT

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, judgment is entered in favor of defendant
Peter Nakamura, County Clerk for the County of Kaua'i.

The clerk of the supreme court shall forthwith serve a
certified copy of this judgment on the county clerk of the County
of Kaua'i in accordance with HRS § 11-173.5(b) (Supp. 2005).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 10, 2006.

Janee Narie Taylor,
plaintiff pro se
on the complaint

Christiane L. Nakea-Tresler a

and Rosa Flores

for defendant Peter Nakamura
on the motion to dismiss Pease C17 susetey Ore
—— ~o
G me
Rome. Qe fh.