PART II.
BALLOTS
§12-21 Official party ballots. The
primary or special primary ballot shall be clearly designated as such. The
names of the candidates of each party qualifying under section 11-61 or 11-62
and of nonpartisan candidates may be printed on separate ballots, or on a
single ballot. The name of each party and the nonpartisan designation shall be
distinctly printed and sufficiently separate from each other. The names of all
candidates shall be printed on the ballot as provided in section 11-115. When
the names of all candidates of the same party for the same office exceed the
maximum number of voting positions on a single side of a ballot card, the
excess names may be arranged and listed on both sides of the ballot card and
additional ballot cards if necessary. When separate ballots for each party are
not used, the order in which parties appear on the ballot, including
nonpartisan, shall be determined by lot.
The chief election officer or the county clerk,
in the case of county elections, shall approve printed samples or proofs of the
respective party ballots as to uniformity of size, weight, shape, and thickness
prior to final printing of the official ballots. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L
1973, c 217, §2(f); am L 1979, c 139, §7; am L 1981, c 214, §1; am L 1987, c
232, §2]
Attorney General Opinions
Each party's ballot should be separate and severable from the
other parties' ballot, and it is impermissible to place candidates of two minor
parties on opposite faces of a ballot card. Att. Gen. Op. 80-7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case:
Hustace v. Doi, 588 P.2d 915 (Haw. 1978).
Hustace v. Doi, 588 P.2d 915 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 4× “HRS §§ 12-21, -22. Each voter may receive only one of these ballots.”
Dicks v. State, 557 P.3d 831 (Haw. 2024).
· cites it 5× “First, it appears Plaintiff is claiming that the primary ballot fails to comply with the provision in HRS § 12-21 that states “[t]he name of each party and the nonpartisan designation shall be distinctly printed and sufficiently separate from each other.”
Dicks v. State of Hawaii Off. of Elections (D. Haw. 2022).
· cites it 5× “They do not articulate specific claims but assert that the primary election ballot violates HRS §§ 12-21 and 12-31, and that improper votes shall not be counted pursuant to HRS § 12-31.”
Cordery v. State of Hawai'i Off. of Elections (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Referring to the front and back of the 2022 primary election ballot, and the instructions on the ballot, Plaintiffs assert that the design and order of the ballot used for the 2022 Primary Election were inconsistent with HRS §§ 12-21 and 12-31, as well as the Hawai#i…”
Penn v. State of Hawai'i, Off. of Elections (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 2× “With regard to ballot irregularities, Penn appears to assert that “opportunities for election fraud” were “enhance[d]” because (a) submission of mail-in ballots do not require proof of identity or residency, (b) the ballot design does not comply with HRS §§ 12-21 (2009)…”
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.