CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/14/2023 1

Debate Participation 

Amsterdam v. KITV 4 (David Alan Ezra, 1:10-cv-253) 

and Moseley v. Hawaii (Susan Oki Mollway, 1:10-cv-255) 

(D. Haw.) 

Two minor candidates for a special congressional election filed pro 

se emergency actions in the federal court to compel their inclusion 

in separate televised candidate forums. The district judges denied 

the plaintiffs relief on the papers. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: News media; campaign 

materials; pro se party. 

At 8:45 a.m. on May 3, 2010, the day of a televised debate for a special congressional election in Hawaii, candidate Karl F. Moseley filed a pro se federal 

action challenging his exclusion from the debate.1 Moseley styled the action 

as an ex parte petition for a writ of mandate.2

The May 22 special election was called to fill a vacancy created by Neil 

Abercrombie’s resigning as Honolulu’s representative in Congress to make a 

successful run for governor.3

On the day that the action was filed, Judge Susan Oki Mollway construed 

the petition as a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order, 

which she denied.4 Because of the press of time, she ruled without a proceeding.5

 Moseley did not “clearly identify any basis for requiring the sponsors 

and broadcasters of tonight’s congressional debate to include every candidate 

for office, as opposed to having only the three candidates furthest ahead in 

the polls.”6 Judge Mollway also struck the petition for failure to present “a 

short and plain statement” of his claims, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8, and granted Moseley leave to file a proper amended complaint.7

At 2:10 p.m., Moseley filed a notice of appeal.8

 Moseley also faxed to the 

court of appeals a handwritten writ request.9 The court of appeals denied 

1. Petition, Moseley v. Hawaii, No. 1:10-cv-255 (D. Haw. May 3, 2010), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. 

3. See Abercrombie Sets February 28 as Resignation Date, Honolulu Advertiser, Jan. 4, 

2010; Derrick DePledge, Abercrombie Wins All but 1 District, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 

Nov. 4, 2010. 

Abercrombie’s reelection was thwarted by David Ige’s victory in the August 10, 2014, 

Democratic primary election. See Ian Lovett, Hawaiian Governor Loses Primary by Wide 

Margin; Senate Race Is Undecided, N.Y. Times, Aug. 11, 2014, at A9; Sean Sullivan, Abercrombie Loses Democratic Primary in Hawaii, Wash. Post, Aug. 11, 2014, at A2. 

4. Opinion at 2, Moseley, No. 1:10-cv-255 (D. Haw. May 3, 2010), D.E. 8 [hereinafter

Moseley Opinion], 2010 WL 1783570; see Bid to Halt Debates Refused, Honolulu Advertiser, 

May 4, 2010. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Mollway for this report by telephone on January 23, 2013. 

5. Interview with Hon. Susan Oki Mollway, Jan. 23, 2013. 

6. Moseley Opinion, supra note 4, at 4. 

7. Id. at 2, 5–7; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (2010). 

8. Notice of Appeal, Moseley, No. 1:10-cv-255 (D. Haw. May 3, 2010), D.E. 9. 
Debate Participation 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/14/2023 

Moseley mandamus relief that day.10 On May 11, Moseley filed in the district 

court a request for dismissal of the appeal,11 and the court of appeals granted 

the dismissal on June 7.12

On May 6, another candidate, Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, called the 

court to say that his April 30 pro se motion for injunctive relief13 was intended as a motion for a temporary restraining order requiring his participation 

in a televised candidate forum to be held on May 7.14 On May 7, Judge David 

Alan Ezra directed the defendant television station to respond by noon.15 As 

did Judge Mollway, Judge Ezra ruled without the need for a proceeding.16 He 

denied Amsterdam relief, because legal precedents did not require television 

stations to include minor candidates in programs of this type.17 On August 

31, Judge Ezra granted the television station’s motion to dismiss the case.18

In the election, Amsterdam came in ninth out of fourteen candidates, 

with 170 votes, or less than 0.1%, and Moseley came in last, with eighty votes 

or less than 0.05%.19

9. Petition, In re Moseley, No. 10-71427 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010). 

10. Order, id. (May 3), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1028. 

11. Request for Dismissal, Moseley, No. 1:10-cv-255 (D. Haw. May 3, 2010), D.E. 15. 

12. Order, Moseley v. Hawaii, No. 10-16039 (9th Cir. June 7, 2010). 

13. Injunction Motion, Amsterdam v. KITV 4, No. 1:10-cv-253 (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2010), 

D.E. 4; see Complaint, id. (Apr. 30, 2010), D.E. 1; see also Bid to Halt Debates Refused, supra

note 4. 

14. Opinion at 1, Amsterdam, No. 1:10-cv-253 (D. Haw. May 7, 2010), D.E. 8 [hereinafter 

May 7, 2010, Amsterdam Opinion]. 

15. Id. at 1. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Ezra for this report by telephone on February 25, 2013. 

16. Interview with Hon. David Alan Ezra, Feb. 25, 2013. 

17. May 7, 2010, Amsterdam Opinion, supra note 14, at 2–5. 

18. Opinion, Amsterdam, No. 1:10-cv-253 (D. Haw. Aug. 31, 2010), D.E. 18, 2010 WL 

3489358. 

19. Hawaii Office of Elections, Elections Results, 2010 Special Vacancy Election—U.S. 

House of Representatives, District 1 (May 22, 2010), files.hawaii.gov/elections/files/results/ 

2010/special/special2010-summary.pdf.