§11-172 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 a
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 voter service center officials or the officials at a counting center in
an election using the electronic voting system. A copy of the complaint shall
be delivered to the chief election officer or the clerk in the case of county
elections. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L 1973, c 217, §1(xx); am L 1975, c 36,
§1(15); am L 1991, c 9, §2; am L 2021, c 213, §31]
Case Notes
A candidate's campaign coordinator has no standing to contest
election. 56 H. 47, 527 P.2d 236.
Sufficiency of complaint. 56 H. 47, 527 P.2d 236.
Electorate as whole had standing. 61 H. 179, 599 P.2d 286.
Plaintiffs failed to meet burden of demonstrating that
irregularities in voting procedures for OHA trustees either could have caused a
difference in election outcome or could have precluded the correct result from
being ascertained. 84 H. 383, 935 P.2d 98.
Where plaintiff made no showing that defendant was under any
obligation to debate plaintiff, the refusal to debate was not an error,
mistake, or irregularity that would have changed the results of the election;
thus plaintiff failed to meet plaintiff's burden of demonstrating errors,
mistakes, or irregularities that could have caused a difference in the election
results and the remedy of ordering a new election with televised debates was
not authorized by §11-174.5(b). 119 H. 337, 198 P.3d 124.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
Watland v. Lingle, 85 P.3d 1079 (Haw. 2004).
Watland v. Lingle, 85 P.3d 1079 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 35× “In reviewing the plaintiffs claims, the Akaka court observed: We have held that a complaint challenging the results of an election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to state a claim unless: (1) the plaintiffs demonstrate errors that would change the outcome of the election, Elkins…”
Tataii v. Cronin, 198 P.3d 124 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 11× “Plaintiff Tataii challenged the above results by filing an election contest complaint pursuant to HRS §§ 11-172 and 11-174.5. The complaint was filed in the supreme court on November 24, 2008 at 4:32 p.”
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 8× “” Additionally, Kaho'ohalahala argued that the complaints constituted a challenge to an election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 (1993), 7 and that the Office of the County Clerk of Maui did not have jurisdiction to hear such a challenge.”
Taomae v. Lingle, 118 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 8× “As mentioned previously, Plaintiffs challenge the validity of the passage of H.”
Akaka v. Yoshina, 935 P.2d 98 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 11× “HRS § 11-172 provides in relevant part: Contests for cause; generally.”
Dicks v. State, 557 P.3d 831 (Haw. 2024).
· cites it 27× “Plaintiff claims the primary ballot violates article II, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution and Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 12-21, 12-31, and 12-42 (2009), and citing to HRS §§ 11-172 (Supp. 2021), 11-173.5 (2009 & Supp.”
Hawaii State Afl-cio v. Yoshina, 935 P.2d 89 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 25, 1996, alleging that “Defendant Yoshi-na’s failure to count all ballots cast on the convention question of November 5, 1996 is improper and unlawful and will produce an erroneous and invalid ‘certification’ of elec *376 tion…”
Waters v. Nago, 468 P.3d 60 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 4× “An election contest is instituted by filing a complaint in the supreme court “set[ting] 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.”
Funakoshi v. King, 651 P.2d 912 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 4× “*314 Plaintiff seeks relief under HRS § 11-172 (1976) which provides that With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly interested, or any thirty voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the supreme court.”
Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago., 378 P.3d 944 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Green Party also asserts that the circuit court and the ICA applied the wrong standard to this case because both courts made reference to the process by which a party may challenge an election result pursuant to HRS § 11-172. However, there is no indication in the record that…”
State Ex Rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 932 P.2d 316 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” Section 11-172—entitled “Contests for cause; generally”—specifies which parties are eligible to bring such an action, where it must be brought, and suggests the nature of the kinds of complaints covered: With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified political party…”
Elkins v. Ariyoshi, 527 P.2d 236 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 4× “Barr was not a proper party to the proceedings and did not have the requisite standing under HRS § 11-172. We nevertheless gave him leave to speak in behalf of Mr.”
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.