Chief Election Officer says he lacks authority to change voting method; public presses for audits and chain-of-custody records

The Elections Commission heard from Chief Election Officer Scott Nago that he does not believe state law gives him authority to change Hawaii’s method of voting from the current vote-by-mail system to single-day, in-person voting with voter ID.

“...I do not believe I have that authority. The authority is in statute, which requires the method of voting,” Nago told commissioners. He said significant changes to the state’s voting method would require legislative action.

Public testimony that followed focused on audits, chain-of-custody questions for mail ballots and signature‑verification procedures. Several speakers described lengthy in-person voting lines at Kapolei Hale on Nov. 5 and urged a return to more robust same‑day options. Others — including official observers and volunteers — pressed the commission to obtain detailed chain-of-custody documentation from counties and the U.S. Postal Service and to require post-election manual audits of ballot envelopes and paper ballots.

Kauai discrepancy and auditing requests: Multiple speakers referenced a reported numerical discrepancy on Kauai. Testifier Ke Kilani Ho cited a 661‑ballot overage between state-reported mail‑in ballot envelopes (27,075) and the county-reported collected voted envelopes (26,414) presented in a lawsuit, and urged a physical recount of mail‑in ballot envelopes or ballots on all islands. Nolan Chang, speaking for the Hawaii Republican Party, said the party had submitted Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) requests seeking details about the post‑election pre‑certification audit (including how many ballots were audited and whether hand tallies were used) and asked the commission to compel county clerks to respond.

Observers and accessibility: Official election observers and volunteers described operations at signature‑verification centers and at voter service centers. An observer said they were asked to sign off on numbers of boxes, not the numbers of ballots inside boxes secured in locked cages. Several witnesses described periods when only two county workers and one state worker were present during late-night processing, raising concerns about staffing and chain-of‑custody safeguards. Accessibility advocates also testified that returning exclusively to one‑day in‑person voting would require careful planning to maintain access for voters with disabilities; the Elections Accessibility Advisory Committee members noted the vote-by‑mail statute and related accessibility provisions.

Requests and motions: Commissioners debated motions to request chain-of-custody documentation from counties and to request other records; some motions were placed, seconded and then failed for lack of a second or were not taken up. Several speakers said the post‑election pre‑certification audit required by law should include hand tallies of a random sample of at least 10% of precincts using electronic voting systems; Nolan Chang asked for documentation proving how many ballots were audited and how precincts were chosen. Testimony also described delays or incomplete responses to UIPA requests sent to county clerks and to the Office of Elections.

Why it matters: Questions about ballot security, signature verification, post‑election auditing and transparency of county operations directly affect public confidence in election outcomes. The chief election officer’s assertion that a statutory change would be required to alter the voting method places the onus for any major change with the Legislature; meanwhile, citizens and party representatives asked the commission to press counties for documentary transparency and to ensure statutory audits are fulfilled.

The commission did not adopt new statewide changes to voting methods during this meeting. Public testimony continues to emphasize audits, chain‑of‑custody records, and clearer, timely responses to information requests from county offices.