Election commission vote fails to compel 2024 records; members form review panel and add oversight items to next agenda

The Election Commission debated and rejected a motion to request documentation that would allow independent validation of the 2024 general election, then agreed to pursue a narrower set of oversight steps at the next meeting.

A motion read aloud by the secretary asked the commission to 'formally request that the chief election officer provide any and all documentation necessary to independently validate the results of the 2024 general election,' including chain-of-custody records, county-level logs, reconciliation forms and other materials, citing HRS 11-8.5. Commissioner Adrian, Commissioner Krishni and Commissioner Popolimu voted in favor; Commissioners Apano, Kam, Osterkamp, Sebas and Chair Curtis voted against the motion, and the motion did not pass.

Supporters said the records were necessary for the chief election officer to exercise oversight and to respond to long-standing requests. Dylan, a commissioner who spoke in favor, said he would 'vote yes on principle' because the chief election officer 'should have oversight over everything and provide the information that this commission has asked for for years.' Other commissioners voiced frustration that the counties and the Office of Elections had previously told the commission some records were kept only in electronic form and not accessible to the commission.

Opponents included commissioners who argued the motion, as drafted, was premature or duplicative of other work. After the vote failed, some commissioners recommended submitting three 'pig' reports to the legislature and incorporating those reports into the commission's statutorily required evaluation; the chair said that approach would be premature but said the commission could include pig information when the review is due.

Commissioners also agreed on several items to appear on the next meeting agenda. They confirmed that Jamie Detweiler's formal complaint, which seeks reevaluation of the chief election officer, will be placed on the next agenda because adding it now would conflict with sunshine-law notice requirements. Commissioners discussed forming a PIG (an informal review group) focused on signature verification for the next meeting; Commissioner Dylan said the PIG membership would include Commissioner Apano, himself and Commissioner Sebas, and that they may invite Jen Hunt and Junior Nacoa to participate. Commissioners asked staff to obtain the 2025 elections-by-mail report required under Act 136 (which Scott and Nago were expected to publish) and a pledge/legislative package the Office of Elections is pursuing with lawmakers.

A commissioner requested an update on 'Eric' and the cost associated with that engagement at the next meeting; staff said they could ask for the information. Dylan also raised concerns about appointment practices for Oahu seats and asked who could look into whether the appointment process ensured equal county representation; staff replied that the legislature could change the process.

The meeting concluded with adjournment and holiday greetings.

The commission did not adopt the motion to compel documentation; next steps identified by commissioners include placing a reevaluation of the chief election officer on the next agenda, forming a PIG on signature verification and requesting outstanding reports from the Office of Elections and staff.