Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
22-AUG-2022
10:46 AM
Dkt. 11 FFCL
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
KARL O. DICKS; JAMES RYAN MALISH; ROBERT SANTILLAN;
and CHARLOTTE ROSECRANS, Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, Defendant.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Karl Orlando Dicks,
James Ryan Malish, Robert Santillan, and Charlotte Rosecrans
(collectively, Plaintiffs) submitted a document entitled
“Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65
HRCP” (complaint), which was filed as an election contest
complaint. On August 17, 2022, Defendant State of Hawai#i Office
of Elections (Defendant) filed a memorandum in opposition. Upon
consideration of the complaint and memorandum in opposition, and
having heard this matter without oral argument, we enter the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 12, 2022, the court received a document
from Plaintiffs that was filed as an election contest complaint.
2. In the document, Plaintiffs assert that, based on
an August 10, 2022 email received from Defendant, Defendant
“failed to properly apply the qualification process, as per
statute, upon the Hawaii Republican Party . . . for the year 2022
Primary Election.” Plaintiffs assert that the Hawai#i Republican
Party “should not have been placed on the 2022 Primary ballot,
and should have been disqualified as an active party that is not
in compliance and is not in good standing as a ‘Party.’”
3. Plaintiffs request the following relief:
(a) The Hawai#i Republican Party name be barred
from appearing on the 2022 general election ballot;
(b) Nullification of the 2022 primary election
and results; and
(c) That this court “accommodate all Legally
Qualified Candidates that have registered as ‘Republicans’” by
listing them as nonpartisan on the 2022 general election ballot.
4. Plaintiffs cite Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS)
§§ 11-173.5 and 11-174.5 as conferring the court with
jurisdiction over this matter.
5. Plaintiffs also cite to HRS §§ 11-63 through 11-65
and HRS §§ 12-2, 12-8, and 831-2, as well as the United States
Constitution and Hawai#i Administrative Rules.
6. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. When reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for
2
lack of jurisdiction, the court’s review “is based on the
contents of the complaint, the allegations of which [the court]
accept[s] as true and construe[s] in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Casumpang v. ILWU,
Local 142, 94 Hawai#i 330, 337, 13 P.3d 1235, 1242 (2000)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
2. When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, the court need not accept conclusory or formulaic
recitations on the legal effects of the events alleged. Kealoha
v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225 (2013).
3. HRS § 11-172 (Supp. 2021) governs election contests
and provides in relevant part: “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.”
4. HRS § 11-173.5 (2009 & Supp. 2021) provides for
contest for cause to be filed in the supreme court involving
primary elections, special primary elections, and county
elections held concurrent with a regularly scheduled primary or
special primary election.
5. HRS § 11-174.5 (2009 & Supp. 2021) provides for
3
contests for cause to be filed in the supreme court involving
general elections, special general elections, special elections,
or runoff elections.
6. HRS § 602-5 (2016) sets forth the jurisdiction and
powers of the supreme court.
7. HRS §§ 11-62 through 11-65 (2009) address
political parties, which include qualification requirements and
determinations of party disqualification.
8. HRS §§ 12-2 (Supp. 2010) and 12-8 (2009 & Supps.
2011, 2012) address when the primary election is to be held and
candidates, as well as objections to nomination papers.
9. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and viewing
them in the light most favorable to them, Plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over their complaint
or the relief they seek. See Tataii v. Cronin, 119 Hawai#i 337,
339, 198 P.3d 124, 126 (2008) (“A complaint challenging the
results of [a general] election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to
state a claim unless the plaintiffs demonstrate errors that would
change the outcome of the election.” (Quoting Akaka v. Yoshina,
84 Hawai#i 383, 387, 935 P.2d 98, 102 (1997))); Funakoshi v.
King, 65 Haw. 312, 316, 651 P.2d 912, 914 (1982) (“By the
omission of language providing for the invalidation of an
election and the allowance of a new election in HRS
§ 11–173.5(b), the legislature clearly intended that the only
remedy that could be given for primary election irregularities
was the statutory remedy of having this Court decide which
4
candidate was nominated or elected.”).
10. Barring the Hawai#i Republican Party name from
appearing on the 2022 general election ballot, nullifying the
2022 primary election and results, and requiring all qualified
candidates who have registered as Republicans to be listed as
nonpartisan on the 2022 general election ballot are not remedies
provided by HRS § 11-173.5(b) (“The judgment shall decide what
candidate was nominated or elected[.]”) or HRS § 11-174.5(b)
(“The judgment may invalidate the general . . . election on the
grounds that a correct result cannot be ascertained because of a
mistake or fraud on the part of the voter service center
officials; or decide that a certain candidate, or certain
candidates, received a majority or plurality of votes cast and
were elected.”).
11. The complaint thus fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
JUDGMENT
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, judgment is entered dismissing the complaint.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 22, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
5