Elections Commission Acknowledges Sunshine Law Violation; Will Rehear Aug. 27 Actions

Honolulu — The Hawaii Elections Commission on Thursday voted to acknowledge that its Aug. 27 meeting failed to comply with the Sunshine Law after the agenda’s published Zoom link did not work, and commissioners agreed to readdress the motions from that meeting on a properly noticed agenda.

Deputy Attorney General Yi told the commission that the Office of Information Practices had sent a letter on Sept. 18 asking for a response to a complaint about the broken link and that the office had granted an extension to Nov. 14 to allow the commission to prepare its reply. Yi said the published agenda did not meet chapter 92’s requirements because it lacked a working link and that, as a legal matter, actions passed at the Aug. 27 meeting could be treated as void under HRS §92‑11; he recommended the commission either treat those motions as void or repass them at a later, properly noticed meeting so the record is cured.

The commission’s action came after more than two hours of public testimony in which dozens of speakers pressed for accountability. "Chair Mike Curtis must be removed from his position immediately," said Andy Crossland, one of the testifiers who said he would present video of the prior meeting. Kalina Campbell, another speaker, listed specific requests for written responses, including whether the chief election official can change voting methods and whether primary ballots were constitutional.

Chair Mike Curtis acknowledged a problem with the agenda link but characterized it as a clerical error and said the correct link was posted on the Office of Elections website. "I considered it a clerical error that the agenda link was wrong. It wasn't changed. It was incorrectly reported on the agenda. It was correct on the website," Curtis said during discussion.

Commissioner Papalimu proposed — and the body approved — an amendment to the original motion that removed a proposal to void the Aug. 27 meeting and instead directed the commission to acknowledge the Sunshine Law violation. After a roll-call vote, commissioners Aquino, Cushni, Papalimu, Young and Chair Curtis voted in favor; Commissioner Osterkamp opposed the amendment. The amended motion passed and the commission moved to the next procedural questions about how to respond to OIP’s information request.

Commissioners and public commenters urged quicker answers to several outstanding legal questions raised at earlier meetings, including whether the primary ballot complied with the state constitution, whether signature verification uses adequate transparency and whether counties maintain chain-of-custody records for Dropbox and USPS transfers. Deputy Attorney General Yi said his office would compile the requested materials and that OAG could prepare a formal response tied to the December meeting packet; he also said listing the Aug. 27 motions on the December agenda and repassing them would cure the defect in practice.

Several commissioners expressed frustration that legal answers could take until December. Commissioner Osterkamp warned that delaying responses would be seen as "buying the clock," and other commissioners said the public’s concerns — some of which included allegations about certification timing and ballot image integrity — are urgent. Members of the public and some commissioners urged the commission to call a special meeting before the general election; the chair said he would pursue compiling a December meeting packet now so materials are publicly available.

The Office of Information Practices’ letter, the commission was told, originally requested a response within 10 business days; the commission obtained an extension to November 14 to respond. Testimony during the meeting also cited a list of motions outstanding from February (testimony referenced "32 pending motions") and argued that actions taken at prior meetings should not be discarded without public opportunity to be heard.

The meeting concluded with the chair adjourning after the commission acknowledged the Sunshine Law violation and after legal staff agreed to list — and provide written materials for — the motions and questions OIP raised in the December packet. The commission did not immediately reinstate or repass the Aug. 27 motions; it directed staff and OAG to provide specifics and answers at the later meeting.

What’s next: The commission will publish an agenda packet for the December meeting that, the deputy attorney general said, will include a listing of the specific motions from Aug. 27 and the legal analysis OIP requested. Public commenters said they will monitor those materials and return to testify when the items are reheard.