Hawaii Elections Commission declines to approve March 19 minutes after hours of public objections

The Hawaii Elections Commission failed to approve written minutes from its March 19 meeting after more than two hours of public testimony and commissioner debate.

Public commenters called the draft minutes inaccurate or “fraudulent,” urged greater transparency and asked the commission not to accept the record as written. Speakers included representatives of the Ohana Unity Party, Jamie Detwiler, Tara Roxas, Jennifer Hunt, Carl Dix, Keoni Payton and others who said the minutes did not reflect testimony or previous promises made during meetings.

The minutes are the official record of commission action and discussion. Commissioners said they received extensive public comment and argued about whether the public should be invited to speak on draft minutes before the commission’s own discussion. After public testimony and commissioner comments, a motion to approve the minutes as circulated failed on a roll-call vote.

Commissioner Claire McAdam said she had not had time to review the minutes in the detail she preferred and announced she would vote against approval. Commissioner Ralph Kushni (also appearing in public testimony) said the draft minutes were "one-sided" and announced he would vote no. Several public speakers had urged the commission to reject the minutes and to require staff to circulate drafts earlier so commissioners could review them.

Roll-call on the motion to approve the written minutes (as stated during the meeting): Commissioner Dylan Andrian (recorded as Adrian) — Nay; Commissioner Ralph Kushni — No; Commissioner Lindsay Cam — No; Commissioner Claire McAdam — Aye; Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp — Yes; Commissioner Kaheolani Papalimu — No; Commissioner Peter Young — Yes; Chair Michael Curtis — Yes. The chair announced: “Motion fails. We have 4 ayes. Requires 5.”

The commission did not amend or approve the minutes at that meeting; commissioners and members of the public urged procedural changes including earlier distribution of drafts to allow more thorough review.

The item drew repeated public calls for written responses to outstanding complaints and for clearer records of how minutes are drafted and revised. Commissioners discussed asking staff to propose a schedule for producing draft minutes earlier after meetings so commissioners could verify accuracy before the next meeting.

The commission moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no further action on approving or amending the March 19 minutes was taken at that meeting.

Ending

The failure to approve the minutes increases pressure on the commission to tighten its minutes process and to provide clearer timelines for draft circulation. Several commissioners said they will press staff to propose a shorter turnaround for draft minutes ahead of future meetings.