§12-8 Nomination papers; challenge;
evidentiary hearings and decisions. (a) All nomination papers filed in
conformity with section 12-3 shall be deemed valid unless objection is made
thereto by a registered voter, an officer of a political party whose name is on
file with the chief election officer, the chief election officer, or the county
clerk in the case of a county office. All objections shall be filed in writing
not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day or the next earliest working day
prior to the primary or special election.
(b) If an objection is made by a registered
voter, the candidate objected thereto shall be notified of the objection by the
chief election officer or the clerk in the case of county offices by registered
or certified mail.
(c) If an objection is filed by an officer of
a political party with the circuit court, the candidate objected thereto shall
be notified of the objection by an officer of the political party by registered
or certified mail.
(d) Except for objections by an officer of a
political party filed directly with the circuit court, the chief election
officer or the clerk in the case of county offices shall have the necessary
powers and authority to reach a preliminary decision on the merits of the
objection; provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
extend to the candidate a right to an administrative contested case hearing as
defined in section 91-1(5). The chief election officer or the clerk in the
case of county offices shall render a preliminary decision not later than five
working days after the objection is filed.
(e) If the chief election officer or clerk in
the case of county offices determines that the objection warrants the
disqualification of the candidate, the chief election officer or clerk shall
file a complaint in the circuit court for a determination of the objection;
provided that the complaint shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court
not later than 4:30 p.m. on the seventh working day after the objection was
filed.
(f) If a political party objects to the
nomination paper filed by a candidate because the candidate is not a member of
the party pursuant to the party's rules filed in conformance with section
11-63, an officer of the party whose name appears on file with the chief
election officer shall file a complaint in the circuit court for a prompt
determination of the objection; provided that the complaint shall be filed with
the clerk of the circuit court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day or
the next earliest working day prior to that election day.
(g) If an officer of a political party whose
name appears on file with the chief election officer, the chief election
officer, or clerk in the case of county offices files a complaint in the
circuit court, the circuit court clerk shall issue to the defendants named in
the complaint a summons to appear before the court not later than 4:30 p.m. on
the fifth day after service thereof.
(h) The circuit court shall hear the complaint
in a summary manner and at the hearing the court shall cause the evidence to be
reduced to writing and shall not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fourth day after
the return give judgment fully stating all findings of fact and of law. The
judgment shall decide the objection presented in the complaint, and a certified
copy of the judgment shall forthwith be served on the chief election officer or
the clerk, as the case may be.
(i) If the judgment disqualifies the
candidate, the chief election officer or the clerk shall follow the procedures
set forth in sections 11-117 and 11-118 regarding the disqualifications of
candidates. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L 1973, c 217, §2(d); am L 1975, c 36,
§2(4); am L 1977, c 189, §2(2); am L 1990, c 125, §1; am L Sp 1995, c 27, §§8,
15; am L 1997, c 288, §3; am L 1999, c 141, §3; am L 2011, c 143, §5; am L
2012, c 34, §3]
Attorney General Opinions
Nomination papers of a party candidate may be challenged if
candidate is not a party member. Att. Gen. Op. 72-1.
Case Notes
Judgment by trial court void where judgment was not entered
until more than a month after the last day the judgment should have been
entered under a mandatory reading of this section and two days after the
primary election; it was the legislature's intent that time was to be a
limitation and that the provisions requiring that judgment be issued within
nine days of the summons being served are mandatory rather than directory;
judgment vacated and case remanded. 129 H. 77 (App.), 293 P.3d 617 (2012).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1986–2015 · leading case:
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 22× “” Kaho'ohalahala also submitted a response arguing that the letters were not challenges to his voter registration status under HRS § 11-25, but were challenges to his nomination papers under HRS § 12-8. Kaho'oha-lahala noted that HRS § 12-8 required objections to have been made…”
Hirono v. Peabody, 915 P.2d 704 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 8× “By certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 5, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to HRS § 12-8(a) (1993), 3 objected in writing to the nomination papers filed by Peabody on the ground that no person from the Libertarian Party had filed nomination papers for the…”
Hussey v. Say, 325 P.3d 641 (Haw. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “t specified the County Board did not exceed its jurisdiction under HRS chapter 11 because it ruled “only on Kaho'ohalahala’s right to be or remain a registered voter” under HRS § ll-25(a), and “did not mention any possible consequences for Kaho'ohalaha-la’s candidacy under the…”
Kawauchi v. David, 293 P.3d 617 (Haw. App. 2012).
· cites it 95× “See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 12-8 (1985). That year, however, the Legislature enacted Act 125.”
Lawson v. Attorney Gen.., 351 P.3d 1156 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Arguably, Dupree can be distinguished on grounds that an election clerk has a statutory duty, pursuant to HRS § ll~25(a) (2009) and HRS § 12-8(d) (2009), to expeditiously investigate posed challenges and objections.”
Hankins v. State of Hawaii, 639 F. Supp. 1552 (D. Haw. 1986).
“§ 12-8(a), on the basis that plaintiff did not meet the durational residence requirement of the Hawaii Constitution.”
Kostick v. Nago, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Haw. 2012).
“§ 12-8. • June 13: Printing of voter ballots begins and counties start assigning voters to precincts.”
Laird-Woods v. Kuwada (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 12-8(d) and (e) (1993); HRS § 602- 5(3) (Supp.”
DeJean v. Nago (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2d 704 (1996) (a candidate for governor must seek the nomination to the office with a candidate for lieutenant governor from the same political party); HRS § 12-8 (2009 & Supp. 2013). Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus.”
Dejean v. Chang (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2d 704 (1996) (a candidate for governor must seek the nomination to the office with a candidate for lieutenant governor from the same political party); HRS § 12-8 (2009 & Supp. 2013). Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(a) — 4 cases
Hirono v. Peabody, 915 P.2d 704 (Haw. 1996).
“By certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 5, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to HRS § 12-8(a) (1993), 3 objected in writing to the nomination papers filed by Peabody on the ground that no person from the Libertarian Party had filed nomination papers for the…”
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
“” Kaho'ohalahala also submitted a response arguing that the letters were not challenges to his voter registration status under HRS § 11-25, but were challenges to his nomination papers under HRS § 12-8. Kaho'oha-lahala noted that HRS § 12-8 required objections to have been made…”
Hankins v. State of Hawaii, 639 F. Supp. 1552 (D. Haw. 1986).
“§ 12-8(a), on the basis that plaintiff did not meet the durational residence requirement of the Hawaii Constitution.”
Kawauchi v. David, 293 P.3d 617 (Haw. App. 2012).
“See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 12-8 (1985). That year, however, the Legislature enacted Act 125.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(c) — 1 case
Hirono v. Peabody, 915 P.2d 704 (Haw. 1996).
“By certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 5, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to HRS § 12-8(a) (1993), 3 objected in writing to the nomination papers filed by Peabody on the ground that no person from the Libertarian Party had filed nomination papers for the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(d) — 3 cases
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
“” Kaho'ohalahala also submitted a response arguing that the letters were not challenges to his voter registration status under HRS § 11-25, but were challenges to his nomination papers under HRS § 12-8. Kaho'oha-lahala noted that HRS § 12-8 required objections to have been made…”
Lawson v. Attorney Gen.., 351 P.3d 1156 (Haw. 2015).
“Arguably, Dupree can be distinguished on grounds that an election clerk has a statutory duty, pursuant to HRS § ll~25(a) (2009) and HRS § 12-8(d) (2009), to expeditiously investigate posed challenges and objections.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(e) — 2 cases
Hirono v. Peabody, 915 P.2d 704 (Haw. 1996).
“By certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 5, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to HRS § 12-8(a) (1993), 3 objected in writing to the nomination papers filed by Peabody on the ground that no person from the Libertarian Party had filed nomination papers for the…”
Kawauchi v. David, 293 P.3d 617 (Haw. App. 2012).
“See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 12-8 (1985). That year, however, the Legislature enacted Act 125.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(g) — 1 case
Kawauchi v. David, 293 P.3d 617 (Haw. App. 2012).
“See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 12-8 (1985). That year, however, the Legislature enacted Act 125.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-8(h) — 2 cases
Hussey v. Say, 325 P.3d 641 (Haw. App. 2014).
“t specified the County Board did not exceed its jurisdiction under HRS chapter 11 because it ruled “only on Kaho'ohalahala’s right to be or remain a registered voter” under HRS § ll-25(a), and “did not mention any possible consequences for Kaho'ohalaha-la’s candidacy under the…”
Kawauchi v. David, 293 P.3d 617 (Haw. App. 2012).
“See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 12-8 (1985). That year, however, the Legislature enacted Act 125.”
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.