Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 11
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-106 (2026)

  Deficient return identification envelopes

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §11-106  Deficient return identification envelopes.  If:

     (1)  A return identification envelope is returned with an unsigned affirmation;

     (2)  The affirmation signature does not match a reference signature image; or

     (3)  A return identification envelope contains another condition that would not allow the counting of the ballot,

the clerk shall make an attempt to notify the voter by first class mail, telephone, or electronic mail to inform the voter of the procedure to correct the deficiency.  The voter shall have five business days after the date of the election to cure the deficiency.  The chief election officer may adopt rules regarding requirements and procedures for correcting deficient return identification envelopes.  The counting of ballots and disclosure of subsequent election results may continue during the time period permitted to cure a deficiency under this section.  The clerk's inability to contact voters under this section shall not be grounds for a contest for cause under section 11-172.  This section shall apply to all return identification envelopes, including ballots utilizing the provisions of section 11-107 or chapter 15 or 15D. [L 2019, c 136, pt of §2; am L 2021, c 213, §21]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs, 18 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs, 18 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2021). “Code §3019 (d)(1), (e)(1)(A) (allowing ballots with mismatched or missing signatures to be cured up to “two days prior to the certification of the election”); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-106 (providing five-day post-election cure period for unsigned ballots, ballots with mismatched…”
King v. Lutey (Haw. 2024). · cites it 19× “HRS § 11-110(b)(1)(A); see HRS §§ 11-106 (Supp. 2021), 11-108 (Supp.”
Rosenlee v. Takahashi (Haw. 2025). · cites it 15× “HRS § 11-110(b)(1)(A); see HRS §§ 11-106 (Supp. 2021), 11-108 (Supp.”
Ahia v. Lee (Haw. 2023). · cites it 14× “HRS § 11-110(b)(1)(A); see HRS §§ 11-106, 11-108 (Supp. 2021). 4. HRS § 11-102 (Supp.”
Cushnie v. Nago (Haw. 2024). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 11-106 (Supp. 2023) (stating in part that a voter “shall have five business days after the date of the election to cure the deficiency”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.