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

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-11 (2026)

  Registration

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

PART II.  REGISTRATION

 

     §11-11  Registration.  A person who registers as required by law shall be entitled to vote at any election provided that the person shall have attained the age of eighteen at the time of that election.  The county clerk shall be responsible for voter registration in the respective counties and the keeping of the general register and precinct lists within the county. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L 1976, c 106, §1(1); gen ch 1985]

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Souza, 732 P.2d 253 (Haw. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Souza, 732 P.2d 253 (Haw. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “More particularly, he claims noncompliance with § 11-11 l-2(b) of the Rules pertaining to breath testing instruments which provides as follows: (b) Testing for accuracy, maintenance and repair of all breath testing instruments and related accessories employed pursuant to this…”
State v. Wetzel, 782 P.2d 891 (Haw. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “1 On appeal, he seeks reversal of his conviction arguing that (1) the blood test result was improperly admitted into evidence because the State of Hawaii (State) failed to show strict compliance with § 11-11 l-5(e) of the State Department of Heálth’s Rules for the Testing of…”
State v. DeMille, 763 P.2d 5 (Haw. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Relying on Souza , Defendant asserts that there was no showing by the State of strict compliance with § 11-11 l-5(d)(l) and §11-11 l-5(j)( 1) of the Rules.”
Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Gov't v. Cnty. of Hawai'i, 120 P.3d 217 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to HRS § 11-11 (1993), the “county clerk shall be responsible for voter registration in the respective counties and the keeping of the general register and precinct lists within the county.”
State v. Tengan, 691 P.2d 365 (Haw. 1984). · cites it 2× “The maintenance standards are set out at § 11-11 l-2(b), which provides in part: (b) Testing for accuracy, maintenance and repair of all breath testing instruments and related accessories employed pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the following: (1) It shall be the…”
State v. Christie, 766 P.2d 1198 (Haw. 1988). “Under these circumstances, we could not say the incorporation of the manufacturer’s recommended method for testing accuracy in section 11-11 l-2.1(j)(3) of the Rules constitutes an impermissible subdelegation of rule-making authority.”
State v. Gates, 777 P.2d 717 (Haw. App. 1989). “Section 11-11 l-5(i), which is applicable to chemical laboratory methods other than the use of a breath-testing instrument, provides that the result shall be expressed “to the second decimal place as found[,]" with an example that a found result of 0.”
State v. Lowther, 740 P.2d 1017 (Haw. App. 1987). “3 Section 11-11 l-2(b) (3) of Chapter 111 of Title 11 of the State Administrative Rules requires the testing of the Intoxilyzer for accuracy with a minimum of two reference samples of known alcohol concentration and provides that ”[t]he results of such analysis must agree with…”
State v. Shoichi Nakahara, 704 P.2d 927 (Haw. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “All renewal requests shall be submitted as required in § 11-11 l-8(a) and (b). Here, the district court found that Thomas had less than eight hours of instruction and training, the minimum required for an operator of an Intoxilyzer under section 11-111-4 of the Rules.”
State v. Christie, 764 P.2d 1245 (Haw. App. 1988). “For example, in the predecessor rules which were in effect from November 27, 1981 through November 21, 1986, the Department specified in § 11-11 l-2(a)(7) as follows: In addition to those recommended by the manufacturers, there shall be the following procedural safeguards[.”
Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson, 60 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995). “II, § 1; Haw.Rev.Stat. § 11-11 (1985); Mont. Const, art.”
State v. Lewis, 736 P.2d 70 (Haw. App. 1987). “That section provides: Testing for accuracy shall be done no less frequently than every thirty (30) days and after every maintenance and repair using a minimum of two (2) reference samples of known alcohol concentrations at a known temperature within the range of one hundredths…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.