PART III.
BALLOT SELECTION
§12-31 Selection of party ballot; voting.
No person eligible to vote in any primary or special primary election shall be
required to state a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of
voting. Each voter shall be issued the primary or special primary ballot for
each party and the nonpartisan primary or special primary ballot. A voter
shall be entitled to vote only for candidates of one party or only for
nonpartisan candidates. If the primary or special primary ballot is marked
contrary to this paragraph, the ballot shall not be counted.
In any primary or special primary election in
the year 1979 and thereafter, a voter shall be entitled to select and to vote
the ballot of any one party or nonpartisan, regardless of which ballot the
voter voted in any preceding primary or special primary election. [L 1970, c
26, pt of §2; am L 1973, c 217, §2(i); am L 1974, c 34, §2(c); am L 1979, c
139, §9; gen ch 1985]
Cross References
Constitutional provision, see Const. art. II, §4.
Case Notes
Where political party did not develop evidence showing that
the State's open primary system severely burdened its associational rights, the
party's facial challenge failed; among other things, the party provided no
evidence showing a "clear and present danger" that adherents of
opposing parties determined the party's nominees. 833 F.3d 1119 (2016).
Where plaintiff claimed provisions requiring an open primary
were facially unconstitutional because allowing voters to associate anonymously
with a political party violated a party's First Amendment right of free
association: (1) plaintiff's purely facial challenge to the open primary
failed; and (2) the court could not assess whether plaintiff's associational
rights were burdened without considering evidence as to the extent, if any, of
that burden. 982 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (2013).
Selection of a party's ballot does not automatically make
voter a party member. 56 H. 519, 542 P.2d 1272.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case:
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
· cites it 2× “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-31 (1985). The State provides three mechanisms through which a voter's candidate-of-choice may appear on the primary ballot.”
Hustace v. Doi, 588 P.2d 915 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 12-31. [1] Thus a nonpartisan candidate may seek votes only from voters who are designated nonpartisan or have not voted in a previous primary or have been freed from their previous affiliation by the disqualification of their party or by reregistration.”
Democratic Party v. Nago, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Haw. 2013).
· cites it 4× “As amended in 1970, HRS § 12-31 provided in pertinent part: “No person shall be entitled to vote at a primary or special primary election who shall refuse to state his party preference or nonpartisanship to the precinct officials, unless he wishes to vote only for the board of…”
Democratic Party of Hawaii v. Scott Nago, 833 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2016).
“” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-31 . Thus, voters must commit to one party’s slate prior to voting; they may not choose a Republican nominee for one state office and a Democratic nominee for a different state office.”
Miller v. Cunningham, 512 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 12-31; Idaho Code §§ 34-402 , 34-404, 34-904; Mich.”
Dicks v. State, 557 P.3d 831 (Haw. 2024).
· cites it 6× “Next, as to HRS § 12-31, it appears Plaintiff is claiming that the primary ballot violates that statute by requiring a person to identify a party preference before voting.”
Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F. Supp. 2d 641 (N.D. Miss. 2007).
“The Nine states that have classic “open” primaries with no party registration include: Hawaii, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 12-31; Idaho, Idaho Code §§ 34-402 , 34-404, 34-904; Michigan, Mich.”
Malish v. Nago (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 4× “In connection with their request for a declaratory judgment, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the voting instructions on the 2022 primary election ballot violate article II, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution and HRS § 12-31 (2009). The disputed instruction says: “You MUST…”
Dicks v. State of Hawaii Off. of Elections (D. Haw. 2022).
· cites it 2× “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. Compl. at 4. Claiming that federal question is the basis for subject matter jurisdiction,…”
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.