Title: Tataii v. Cronin.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY
on ILICATION. i oo

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

---000-

 

STEVE TATAII, Plaintiff,

 
 
 
 
 
 

KEVIN B. CRONIN,
the State of Hawai'i and NETL ABE:

 
 
 

omg

No.

   

29477
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING s
DECEMBER 16, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.
Pex Curiam. In this original proceeding, plaintiff

Steve Tataii, an unsuccessful congressional candidate in the

November 4, 2008 general election, challenged, pursuant to

Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 11-172 (1993)! and HRS § 11-

174.5 (Supp. 2007)%, the election results for the first

HRS § 11-172 (1993) Contests for cause; generally.
With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified
political party directly interested, or any thirty voters of
‘any election district, may file @ complaint in the supreme
court. The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes,
such as but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or
underages, that could cause a difference in the election
results. The complaint shall also set forth any reasons for
reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the
precinct officials or the officials at a counting center in
Sn election using the electronic voting system. A copy of
the complaint shall be delivered to the chief election
officer of the clerk in the case of county elections.

 

 

* RS § 11-174.5 (Supp. 2007) Contests for cause in
general, special general, special, and runoff elections
fa) In general, special general, special, or runoff
elections, the complaint shall be filed in the office of the
Clerk of the supreme court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the
twentieth day following the general, special general,
special, of runoff election and shall be accompanied by a
(continued...)

 
 

FOR PUBLI WAT! WIC a

congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Pursuant to HRS § 11-174.5(b), we issued, concurrently with this
opinion, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment in
favor of defendant chief election officer Kevin Cronin and
defendant Neil Abercrombie and against plaintiff Tataii

We hold that: (1) plaintig£ Tataii’s election contest
complaint, filed after 4:30 p.m. on the twentieth day following
the November 4, 2008 general election, was filed within the time

provision of HRS § 11-174.5(a); and (2) plaintiff Tataii failed

(.. continued)
deposit for costs of court as established by rules of the
suprene court. The clerk shall issue to the defendants
named in the complaint a summons to appear before the
suprene court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day
after service thereof.

(b) In cases involving general, special general,
special, or runoff elections the complaint shall be heard by
the suprene court in which the complaint was filed as soon
as it reasonably may be heard. On the return day, the
Court, upon its motion or otherwise, may direct summons to
be isfued to any person who may be interested in the result
of the proceedings.

‘At the hearing, the court shall cause the evidence to
be reduced to writing and shall give judgment, stating all
findings of fact and of law. The judgment may invalidate
the general, special generai, special, or runoff election on
the grounds’ that a correct result cannot be ascertained
because of a mistake or fraud on the part of the precinct
officials: or decide that a certain candidate, or certain
candidates, received a majority or plurality of votes cast
and were elected. If the Judgnent Should be that che
general, special general, special, or runoff election was
invalid, a\certitied copy thereof shall be filed with the
governor, and the governor shall duly call a new election to
be held not later than one hundred twenty days after the
judgment is filed. If the court shall decide which
Candidate or candidates have been elected, a copy of that
judgment shail be served on the chief election officer or
Gounty clerk, who shall sign and deliver to the candidate or
candidates certificates of election, and the same shall be
Conclusive of the right of the candidate or candidates to
the offices.

 
_*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATL REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

to meet his burden of demonstrating errors, mistakes, or
irregularities that could cause a difference in the election
results.
1. Background

Plaintiff Tataii was the Republican candidate in the
November 4, 2008 general election for the office of U.S.
Representative, District I. The election results for that office
were: (1) Neil Abercrombie (0): 154,208 votes; (2) Steve Tataii
(R): 38,118 votes? and (3) Li Zhao (L): 7,594 votes.

Plaintiff Tataii challenged the above results by filing

an election contest complaint pursuant to HRS §§ 2

 

-172 and 11-
174.5. The complaint was filed in the supreme court on Novenber

24, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. The complaint alleged tha

 

(2) defendant
Neil Abercrombie, despite representations that he would
participate in pre-election debates with plaintiff Tataii,
refused to debate plaintiff Tataiis (2) the absence of debates
left Hawai's voters “in (the] dark about which candidate {was}
the best choice”? (3) plaintiff Tatail’s 38,115 votes “could have
been considerably higher if debates had taken place”; and (4)
defendant Abercrombie’ s refusal to debate caused plaintiff Tataii
to lose the election. Plaintiff Tataii sought a judgment from
this court ordering a new election for the office of U.S.
Representative, District I and ordering defendant Abercrombie to
participate in a series of televised debates with plaintiff
Tataii prior to a new election.

Defendant Abercrombie moved to dismiss the complaint
     

(TER

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

and as untimely filed after 4:30 p.m. on November 24, 2008.

 

Defendant Cronin also moved to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and noted

that this court

 

acked jurisdiction over this proceeding “unless
[this court) determine [4] that the 4:30 p.m. deadline [prescribed
by HRS § 11-174.5(a)] is dizectory as opposed to mandatory.”

Ii. Discussion

A. The 4:30 P.M. Provision of HRS § 11-174
Dixectory.

Plaintiff Tataii filed his election contest complaint

 

in the supreme court at 4:32 p.m. on November 24, 2008, the
twentieth day after the Novenber 4, 2008 general election. HRS §
11-174.5(a) provides that the complaint “shall be filed [in the
suprene court] not later than 4:30 p.m. on the twentieth day

fo!

 

wing the general . . . election{.J.”
“Where the language of a statute is plain and

unambiguous that a specific time provision must be met, it is
mandatory and not merely directory.” Coon v. City and County of
Honolulu, 98 Hawai'i 233, 255, 47 P.3d 348, 370 (2002) (quoting
State v. Himuro, 70 Haw. 103, 105, 761 P.2d 1148, 1149 (1988).
“We have also recognized, however, that while the word ‘shall’ is
generally regarded as mandatory, in certain situations it may be
given a directory meaning.” Coon, 96 Hawai'i at 256, 47 P.3d at

371 (quoting Himuro, 70 Haw. at 105, 761 P.2d at 1149).

 

“In determining whether a statute is mandatory or

directory, the intent of the legislature must be ascertained.”

4
a “ATION IN HAWATI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Himuro, 70 Haw, at 105, 761 P.2d at 1149 (citing Jack Endo
Electric, Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617, 585 P.2d
1265, 1269 (1978). “The legislative intent may be determined
fron ‘a consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object,
and the consequences that would result from construing it one way
or the other.'” Id. (ellipsis omitted). “we are also mindful
that ‘our primary duty in interpreting statutes is to ascertain
and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which, in
the absence of a clearly contrary expression is conclusively
obtained by the language of the statute itself.” Id. (ellipsis
and citation omitted) .

As to the time provisions of HRS § 11-174.5(a), the
twenty-day provision 1s clear and must be given a mandatory
reading. A directory reading of the “no later than 4:30 p.m.”
provision as being tantamount to “the close of business” would
not be contrary to the legislature's intent to restrict the
period for a general election challenge to twenty days and the
consequences of @ directory reading of the 4:30 p.m. provision
Would not extend the period for a general election challenge
beyond twenty days and would not confound the statutory schene of
HRS § 11-174.5(a). We hold that the twenty-day provision of HRS
§ 11-174.5(a) is mandatory and the “no later than 4:30 p.m.”
provision of HRS § 11-174.5(a) is directory. Plaintiff Tataii’s
complaint filed at 4:32 p.m. on Novenber 24, 2008 was filed

within the time provision of HRS § 11-174.5(a).
tee . "$ HAWAII " ORTER***

Denonstrath Tereaul
That Could Cause A Difference In The Election
Resulta,

An election contest complaint “shall set forth any
cause or causes, such as but not limited to, provable fraud,
overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in the
election results.” HRS § 11-172. “A complaint challenging the
results of (a general] election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to
state a claim unless the plaintiffs demonstrate errors that would
change the outcome of the election(.]” Akaka v, Yoshina, 64
Hawai"i 363, 387, 935 P.2d 98, 102 (1997) (citing Elking vs
Ariyoshi, 56 Haw. 47, 48, 527 P.2d 236, 237 (1974) and Funakoshi
vsKing, 65 Haw. 312, 317, 651 P.2d 912, 915 (1982) (**Difference
in the election results’ in [HRS § 11-172] mean[s] a difference
sufficient to overturn the nomination of any particular candidate
or candidates in the primary.”)).

[The (plaintift) must show that he or she has
actual information of mistakes or errors
sufficient to change the result. The [plaintiff]
has the burden of demonstrating that the specific
acts and conduct of which [he or she] complain[s]
would have had the effect of changing the
Eesults. in the absence of facts showing that
irregularities exceed the reported margin between
the candidates, the complaint is legally
insufficient because, even if its truth were
assumed, the result Of the election would not be
affected.

It is not sufficient that the [plaintif#]
points to a poorly run and inadequatels
Supervised election process that evinces room for
abuse or possibilities of fraud. An election
contest cannot be based upon mere belief or
indefinite information...

 

Akaka v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai'i at 387-388, 935 P.2d at 102-103,

6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAFT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

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

Upon considering a complaint contesting a general
election, this court “may invalidate the general . . . election
on the grounds that a correct result cannot be ascertained
because of a mistake or fraud on the part of the precinct
officials; or decide that a certain candidate, or certain
candidates, received a majority or plurality of votes cast and
were elected." HRS § 11-174.5(b).

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
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, AELv. Bosque, 110 Hawai'i 318, 321, 132
P.3d 1229, 1232 (2006).

‘The court's consideration of matters outside the
pleadings converts a motion to dismiss into one for summary
judgment. Buscher v, Boning, 114 Hawas'i 202, 212, 159 P.3d 814,
824 (2007). 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, Silva y, City and
County of Honolulu, 115 Hawai'i 1, 6, 165 P.2d 247, 252 (2007).

Plaintiff Tataii made no showing that defendant

Abercrombie was under any obligation to debate plaintiff Tataii.
‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

‘Therefore, the refusal to debate was not an error, mistake, or

irregularity that would change the results of the election for

 

£ Tataii

 

vu ve, District I. We hold that plaint

 

= Represen’

 

failed to meet his burden of demonstrating errors, mistakes, or
irregularities that could cause a difference in the election

results. The renedy of ordering 2 new election with televised

 

debates was not authorized by HRS § 11-174.5(b).

steve Tataii
plaintiff pro se Gor

Aaron #. Schulaner -

for defendant Bt inee—
Kevin 8. Cronin

Corianne W. Lau and Pesta Ene (ae EL
Shannon M-i, Lau (of
Aleson Hun!

Floya
& Ing) for defendant
Neil Abercrombie

Kane. Rul tr