Commission split 4-4 on motion to refer 14 complaints to Office of Elections; public urges investigations

The Hawaii Elections Commission deadlocked on a motion to refer 14 written complaints listed under “communications and correspondence” to the Office of Elections for written responses required by Hawaii Administrative Rule (HAR) 3‑170‑8.

Commissioner Krishni moved that the complaints on the commission agenda be forwarded to the Office of Elections for a written response required by the administrative rule. The motion sparked extended public testimony and commissioner debate about the commission’s authority, the scope of the administrative rule and whether the office is compelled to respond.

Speakers who asked the commission to require investigations and written responses included Andy Crossland, Blanca, Jennifer Hunt, Jamie Detwiler, Ohana Unity Party representatives, Carl Dix, Jamie Detwiler and Representative Garner Shimizu. Testifiers described the complaints as specific requests for investigation — not mere correspondence — and urged the commission to direct the Office of Elections to investigate and respond.

Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp and others said the administrative rules provide the Office of Elections an “opportunity” to respond but do not absolutely compel a written reply in all circumstances. Commissioner Dylan Andrian and others argued for compliance with administrative rules and for following the process the rules lay out.

Roll-call on the motion to refer the complaints (as captured during the meeting): Commissioner Dylan Andrian — Yes; Commissioner Krishni — Yes; Commissioner Lindsay Cam — Yes; Commissioner Claire McAdam — No; Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp — No; Commissioner Kaheolani Papalimu — Yes; Commissioner Peter Young — No; Chair Michael Curtis — No. Chair Curtis announced the motion does not pass.

Because the motion failed, commissioners did not formally instruct the Office of Elections to issue the written responses at that meeting. Several commissioners and public speakers said they expected the chief elections officer to respond in writing and to bring replies back to the commission for review, as described in the HAR provisions cited by testifiers.

The item highlighted a sharp divide between commissioners over process, legal interpretation of the administrative rules and whether the commission should take a more forceful oversight role. Representative Garner Shimizu and multiple public speakers said they will press for written answers and are prepared to seek additional remedies if the complaints are not addressed.

Ending

The split vote leaves the 14 complaints on the record but without a formal commission directive to the Office of Elections to respond in writing. The public and several commissioners urged follow-up at future meetings and asked for clearer processes so complainants receive responses.