Hawaii Supreme Court to Rule on Elections Commission Meeting Rights
Hawaii Supreme Court to hear case on whether Office of Elections can block Elections Commission meetings.
2 min read
Honolulu — The Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday, October 16, in Cushnie and McKay v. Nago, a case centered on whether the Office of Elections can prevent the Elections Commission from meeting. The dispute stems from the Office of Elections’ refusal to provide administrative support needed for the Commission to convene after its former chair’s term expired on June 30, 2026.
Legal Battle Over Meeting Authority
The case hinges on Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-1.5(b), which mandates that the Office of Elections provide staff support to the Commission as requested. Elections Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay requested administrative support to hold a public meeting, but the Office of Elections denied the request, citing a lack of Commission action by majority vote.
This creates a central legal question: How can the Commission take a majority vote to authorize the support needed for a meeting if it cannot hold the meeting without that support? The Commission has not convened since June 30, 2026, raising concerns about its ability to perform its oversight duties.
Correspondence Distribution Concerns
The dispute has expanded beyond meeting logistics. A recent filing with the Supreme Court reveals that correspondence addressed to the Commission has not been properly distributed to commissioners. In June 2024, the Commission unanimously voted to require all Commission-business correspondence to be shared with members. It also passed a 6–1 resolution to distribute all communications addressed to the Commission.
A July 5 email from Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp, regarding efforts to convene the Commission, was sent to the Commission’s official email but was not distributed to Cushnie and McKay. Cushnie obtained the email through a public-records request. On September 28, McKay asked for clarification on how correspondence is distributed, but as of October 11, she had received no response.
Who Controls the Commission’s Function?
The broader issue is who controls the Commission’s ability to function. The Legislature established the Commission to oversee election administration, while requiring the Office of Elections to provide staff support. An amicus brief from the Public Interest Legal Foundation argues that the Commission’s reliance on OE for administrative support does not grant OE authority to decide whether the Commission can assemble.
Cushnie emphasized, “Can the Office of Elections withhold the administrative support necessary for the Elections Commission to meet and perform its oversight responsibilities? The Commission cannot exercise its authority if it cannot assemble, and it cannot effectively function if commissioners are not even receiving correspondence addressed to the Commission.”
Oral arguments are set for Friday, October 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at Aliʻiōlani Hale in Honolulu.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
