Case Title: Kahoohalahala v. Hiraga

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
wo, 29415 gle

3
8
8
=

 

ROY T, HIRAGA, COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY OF MAUI, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, 99.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus filed by petitioner Solomon P. Kaho'chalahala and the
papers in support, it appears that respondent's October 10, 2008
ruling did not decide whether petitioner vas nominated or elected
as 4 candidate in the Septenber 20, 2008 primary election, but
decided only that the challenges to petitioner’ s nomination
papers were untimely and that petitioner is a registered voter on
Lanai. The October 10, 2008 ruling was not tantamount to a
judgnent ina primary election contest given pursuant to HRS §
11-173.5(b) (1993), but was a ruling only on a challenge to
nomination papers and on a person’s voter registration status.
Jurisdiction to render such ruling was with respondent pursuant
to HRS $5 12-8(b) (1993) and 11-25(a) (1993). therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kena vs
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary renedy that will not issue unless
the petitioner denonstrates a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.)? In Re

oats
Discipl ss rene Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368,
984 P.24 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel
an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual
only if the individual's claim is clear and certain, the
official's duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be
free from doubt, and no other renedy is available.).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 30, 2008.

Gener &, Delis