Court Opinion

ID: 9605584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:39:08.606118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:35.789484
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF
KOBAYASHI. J.,
WITH WHOM LEVINSON, J.. JOINS
I concur with the opinion of the majority as to the remand for further proceedings to determine the propriety of dismissal of the charges as a de minimis infraction. However, I am of the opinion the remaining part of the judgment of the district judge should be affirmed, except as stated herein.
The opinion of the majority overlooks completely a critical portion of HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972) which provides in relevant part:
In case of any candidate . . . who was not nominated at the primary election as a candidate for the general election, the itemized statement of expenses shall be filed within twenty days following the primary election . . . (emphasis added).
*619Keeping in mind that a violation of HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972), constitutes a misdemeanor offense,1 if the majority opinion prevails, a candidate in a primary election who is not certain of his nomination because of a delay in the certification of election results2 or because of an election contest in court,3 would be in violation of HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972), thus, committing a misdemeanor crime even before a determination is had as to his status — nominated or not nominated.
The majority opinion runs contra to the legislative prescription of avoiding statutory constructions which would *620lead to absurd results.4
In Pacific Insurance Company v. Oregon Auto Insurance Company, 53 Haw. 208, 211, 490 P.2d 899, 901 (1971), we stated:
[E]ven in the absence of statutory ambiguity, departure from literal construction is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and the literal construction in the particular action is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act. (Emphasis added.)
I am of the opinion that HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972) must be construed with reference to HRS §§ 11-155 and 11-174 (Supp. 1972).5
The determinative factor in HRS § 11-193 is a candidate who is “not nominated”. The provisions of HRS §§ 11-155 and 11-174 (Supp. 1972) show clearly that, in the instant case, the certification of the lieutenant governor of the election results, even in a judicially contested case, determines whether or not a candidate is nominated. What is clear in HRS §§ 11-155 and 11-174 (Supp. 1972) aids in construing the clause “a candidate who is not nominated” and further makes it clear that a primary election is not concluded until the said certification is obtained. Any other construction would clearly be inconsistent with the purposes, policies and provisions of said HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972).
I therefore conclude that the district judge was correct in his construction of said HRS § 11-193 (Supp. 1972), save and *621except, the court erred in generally excluding Saturdays and Sundays in its calculation of the twenty days.6

 See HRS §§ 19-6(1) and 19-7 (Supp. 1972).

 HRS § ll-2(a) (Supp. 1972) reads in relevant part:
The lieutenant governor shall be the chief election officer ....
HRS § 11-155 (Supp. 1972) reads:
§11-155 Certification of results of election. On receipt of certified tabulations from the election officials concerned, the chief election officer or county clerk in county elections shall compile, certify, and release the election results. The number of persons to be elected receiving the highest number of votes in any election district shall be declared to be elected.

 HRS § 11-174 (Supp. 1972) reads:
§11-174 Hearing, judgment, (a) In primary election contests the court shall hear the contest in a summary manner and at the hearing the court shall cause the evidence to be reduced to writing and shall within four days following the return give judgment fully stating all findings of fact and of law. The judgment shall decide what candidate was nominated or elected, as the case may be. in the manner presented by the petition, and a certified copy of the judgment shall forthwith be served on the chief election officer or the county clerk, as the case may be, who shall place the name of the candidate declared to be nominated on the ballot for the forthcoming general election. The judgment shall be conclusive of the right of the candidate so declared to be nominated: provided, that this subsection shall not operate to amend or repeal section 12-41.
(b) In cases involving general and special elections the complaint shall be heard by the circuit 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 issued 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 or special election on the grounds that a correct result cannot be ascertained because of a mistake or fraud on the part of the election inspectors; or decide that a certain candidate, or certain candidates, received a majority or plurality of votes cast and were elected. If the judgment should be that *620the general or special election was invalid, a certified copy thereof shall be filed with the governor, and he shall duly call a new election to be held within sixty days after the judgment is filed. If the court shall decide which candidate or candidates have been elected a copy of that judgment shall be served on the chief election officer or county 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. (Emphasis added.)

 HRS 8 1-15(3) reads: “Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected. “

 HRS § 1-16 reads:
Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful in another.

 HRS 8 1-29 reads:
The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a Sunday or holiday and then it is also excluded. (Prior to Supp. 1973.)