Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit And Chain Of Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hawaii Elections Commission orders hand count of Hawaii County ballot return envelopes after public concern
Summary
After more than three hours of public testimony accusing the Office of Elections of chain-of-custody gaps and missing ballots, the Elections Commission voted to hand-count Hawaii County (Big Island) ballot return envelopes from the 2024 general election and appointed two commissioners to oversee the effort.
Get email alerts on the Audit And Chain Of Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Hawaii Elections Commission voted to hand-count ballot return envelopes held in custody for Hawaii County after extended public testimony alleging gaps in chain-of-custody records and unresolved ballot discrepancies from the 2024 general election. The motion — amended to sort envelopes into two piles (those returned through the mail and those without postal markings, presumed from drop boxes) — passed on a roll-call vote.
Supporters of the motion pointed to reports and permitted-interaction-group findings that raised questions about missing or unaccounted ballots on the Big Island. “Unverifiable election with unresolved custody and accountability failures is by definition a continuing security risk,” testified Doug Pasnick, urging commissioners to treat verifiability as an accountability obligation.
Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago defended the office's procedures in his status-of-operations report, saying “When your ballot comes into the clerk's office, it gets checked in, to make sure that you haven't voted already,” and describing sealed containers, serial-numbered seals and the retention of return envelopes for 22 months to permit later reconciliation.
Commissioners and testifiers disagreed about the source and documentation for an often-cited figure of roughly 19,000 ballots. Commissioner Ralph (Kushner) pressed repeatedly for daily logs and postal receipts; former postal employee and new Commissioner Barbara Dalton explained that business-reply mail does not always produce an individually itemized invoice and outlined how USPS handles business-reply accounts and invoicing.
The commission also appointed two commissioners to lead and oversee the hand count and audit logistics and discussed whether a court order would be required to unseal envelopes (the attorney general's office said it would research that question). Commissioners discussed volunteers, observers, video documentation and logistics; Scott Nago said state staff could provide access and supplies but expressed a preference for an independent audit if acceptance of the result was a goal.
Votes at the meeting: the amended hand-count motion (to count Hawaii County ballot return envelopes and sort them by mail-marked vs. non-mail-marked) passed; a separate motion to set a fixed 45-day deadline failed; a motion to appoint two commissioners to oversee the effort passed. A later motion to remove Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago failed to reach a majority.
The commission asked the appointed leads to report back on logistics and legal constraints and asked the attorney general to advise on any court-order requirements. The commission also asked the U.S. Postal Service to send a representative to a future meeting to explain business-reply mail procedures and what records are available to election officials.
What happens next: the two appointed commissioners are to coordinate the hand count logistics, coordinate volunteers and observers and report back to the full commission on timing and whether court action is needed to access sealed materials. The attorney general's office will research legal steps for unsealing envelopes under the 22-month retention rule.
Quote: “If ballots cannot be accounted for, it does not matter whether the cause is human error, administrative failure, or malicious intent,” testifier Doug Pasnick said during public comment.
Ending: The motion to hand-count Hawaii County envelopes was the most consequential formal step taken at the meeting; commissioners agreed the work should be done transparently and with independent oversight if possible.

