This complaint contests the results of the November 4, 2014 election for a seat on the Honolulu City Council District 4. It alleges that 74 ballots that were counted as blank were actually votes for either candidate, and that miscounting these ballots could have changed the outcome of the election. It also alleges issues with the reporting of overvotes and undervotes in the district. The complaint seeks a recount of the ballots or a new election.

1. NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
An electronic filing was submitted in Case Number SCEC-14-0001317. You may review the filing through the Judiciary Electronic Filing System. Please monitor your email for
future notifications.
Case ID: SCEC-14-0001317
Title: THOMAS WATERS, a/k/a TOMMY WATERS, Petitioner, vs. SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections Officer; STATE OF
HAWAII OFFICE OF ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU, in her official capacity as the City Clerk of the City &
County of Honolulu, Respondents.
Filing Date / Time: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014 01:09:28 PM
Filing Parties: James Kawashima
Case Type: Election Contest
Lead Document(s): Complaint
Supporting Document(s):
If the filing noted above includes a document, this Notice of Electronic Filing is service of the document under the Hawai`i Electronic Filing and Service Rules.
This notification is being electronically mailed to:
James Kawashima ( jk@jkalc.com )
The following parties need to be conventionally served:
Bernice K.N. Mau
Scott Nago
Aaron Schulaner
This filing type incurs a fee of $165.00. You must pay by credit card or in person.
1 of 1
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-14-0001317
24-NOV-2014
01:09 PM

2. NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
WATERS
Petitioner,
VS
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMPLAINT
DECLARATION OF THOMAS WATERS
EXHIBITS 'fA" - "H"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ, #1145
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone No: (808) 275-0300
Facsimile No: (808) 275-0399
E-Mail Address: ik@jkalc.com
Attorney for Petitioner Thomas Waters
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-14-0001317
24-NOV-2014
01:09 PM

3. COMPLAINT
The petitioner, THOMAS WATERS, a/k/a/ TOMMY WATERS, by
his attorney James Kawashima, Esq., hereby complains and avers as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1, This is an original action by the petitioner before the Hawaii
Supreme Court to contest, for cause, the respondents' conducting of the
following general election, including the reported results of the November 4,2014
general election to determine who shall be the councilmember for the elective
office of City and County of Honolulu Council District 4 ("District 4 election"),
wherein the respondents erroneously reported said election's results to be that
candidate Trevor Ozawa prevailed over candidate Waters by 41 valid ballots
cast, when in fact respondents miscounted or misapplied more than 41 valid
ballots cast therein thereby causing a situation that could have caused a
difference in the election results.
2. ln summary, petitioner THOMAS WATERS ("Waters") avers that
said results should not be certified, and that either (1) a new general election be
conducted if there is an abnormality that is such that the correct result of election
cannot be ascertained, or (2) a particular candidate won the election if after
correcting the election abnormality that could have caused a difference in the
election results, a winner of the election can be ascertained.
3. Count I of the complaint avers that the respondents miscounted
74 ballots cast as being totally blank in regards to voting in the District 4 election,
2

4. when those 74 ballots had actually been validly cast for either candidate Waters
or candidate Ozawa, with said miscounting being a cause, within the meaning of
HRS, 51 1-172, that could cause a difference in the outcome of the District 4
election. The petitioner prays that the supreme court should order that the 4,455
allegedly totally blank ballots be manually counted in an honest and fair manner
by human beings to determine which of those 4,455 supposedly totally blank
ballots were actually the74 ballots which were validly cast in the District 4
election, re-tally the vote in the District 4 election based on the result of counting
these 74 validly cast ballots were first erroneously determined to be totally blank,
with the supreme court declaring who actually prevailed in the District 4 election
after construing this re{ally of votes.
4. Count ll of the complaint avers that the respondents mishandled
the 11 overages and 39 underages which existed in the District 4 election. This
mishandling of the overages and underages could have caused a difference in
the election outcome in the District 4 election. ln both manual and machine
elections, HRS, S1 1-153 defines an overage as a situation where there are more
ballots cast than the poll book indicates were issued. An overage occurs, rnfer
alia, in the "ballot stuffing" situation, i.e., when someone pilfers ballots, marks the
pilfered ballots and intermingles these pilfered ballots with ballots which have
been validly cast, An underage occurs, inter alia, in the "ballot destruction"
situation, i.e., when someone obtains and sees which candidate is voted for on a
validly cast ballot, dislikes that vote and then destroys the validly cast ballot.
J

5. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
5. Upon completion of the General Election on November4, 2014,
petitioner, through his counsel James Kawashima, caused to be sent by U.S.
Mail and by facsimile transmission to the Office of Elections a letter dated
November 10,2014 (See Declaration of Thomas Waters attached hereto),
requesting information including:
a. What the margin of error for the system utilized by the Office of
Elections;
b. That the "overage" and "underage" figures for each precinct in
our district be verified;
c. The 4,451 reported "blank" votes/ballots be investigated for
accuracy and validity;
d. The 16 "over votes" be reviewed in accord with operating
procedures by which you are governed; and
e. As there may be other tests and investigative processes that are
available to you that may be applied/utilized to verify the results, we were
not limiting our requests in any way by making the foregoing specific
requests.
6. As there was absolutely no response, even to acknowledge
receipt of our inquiry, on November 13, 2014, a second letter (see Declaration of
Thomas Waters) was transmitted to the same addressee by U.S. Mail and
facsimile transmission indicating :
4

6. a. Our concern that nothing had been heard from the office, even
the courtesy of an acknowledgement;
b. Our concern that the deadline by which action needed to be
taken was rapidly approaching;
c. A plea to be informed as to where the Office was in responding
to our requests;
d, A request that the Office agree to an extension of time, if
allowed by law, within which to file; and
e. An offer to meet personally to discuss these matters;
7. As there was again, absolutely no response to our repeated requests
for information, petitioner, on November 14,2014 caused to be sent by e-mail
transmission a THIRD plea for information (see Declaration of Thomas Waters).
8. Then, and only then, on that same afternoon, on November 14,2014
did the Office of Elections reply, with a terse reply devoid of any meaningful
information and further devoid of answers to almost all of the questions
previously posed (See declaration of Thomas Waters).
9. Thereafter, other correspondence was received from the Office of
Elections on: (See declaration of Thomas Waters)
a. An emailed letter dated November 19,2014, the Office of
Elections provided a copy of the Statewide Summary and a matrix of the
overages and underage for each precinct in Honolulu City Council District
lV. The state wide summary had not changed from what had been
5

7. reported the day following the General Election. The matrix indicated an
overage total of 13 and underage total of 39;
b. Later the same day, the Office of Elections emailed another
letter dated November 19,2014. The letter was identical to the previous
letter dated the same day, however, the statewide summary was different.
The number of votes had changed, with no explanation whatsoever.
Candidate Ozawa gained four votes to 16,374, Candidate Waters gained
nine votes to 16,333, the blank votes increased to 4,455 and the over
votes remained the same at 16. The race was now separated by 41
votes;
c. On November 20, 2014 the Office of Elections emailed a fourth
letter enclosing an updated version of the overages and underages for
the Honolulu City Council District lV race. The overage of two absentee
mail ballots in District/Precinct 22-02 has been reduced to zero ballots due
to two federal write-in absentee ballots that were counted but were not
initially recorded as received;
None of the foregoing letters responded to all of the information
requested and one even quoted INCORRECT figures between what was
contained in that letter and a cursory reference to the Final Survey of
Votes.
6

8. JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESSS
10. The above entitled court has jurisdiction over this matter under
HRS, SS1 1-172 and 11-174.5. Said statutory provisions provide, in pertinent
part, that, inter alia, a contest to the results to the instant general election shall be
for cause and shall be filed with the above entitled court not later than the
twentieth day following the general election being contested.
11. ln the present case, the general election being contested was
conducted on Tuesday, Novemb er 4, 2014.1 Under HRAP, Rule 26(a), statutory
deadline for filing is November 24. The instant complaint has been timely filed,
since it was filed on Monday, November 24,the twentieth day following the
foregoing general election, The above entitled court has originaljurisdiction over
this matter under HRS, SS 11 -172 and 11-174.5 because the instant cause of
action concerns the contesting, for cause, of the results of the foregoing general
election.
PARTIES
12. Petitioner Waters was a candidate in the foregoing general
election for the elective office of councilmember for District 4 of the City & County
of Honolulu Council, and resides within District 4.
13. Respondents Scott Nago, in his capacity as the Chief Election
Officer of the State of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii Office of Elections are,
pursuant to HRS, Chapter 11, responsible for the conducting of all State of
t Hereinafter, unless otherwise noted, all dates shall refer to ihe year 2014,
7

9. Hawaii elections for all elective governmental offices for all State of Hawaii
(State). ln addition, said respondents are responsible to and/or have in practice
or pursuant to an agreement materially aided the municipal and county
governments in the State of Hawaii conduct their elections for elective offices in
their respective governments, including but not limited to tallying the ballots cast
in said municipal and/or county elections and reporting the election results
thereof. Said respondents reside in and have their principal place of business in
the State.
COUNT I
14. On or about November 4, respondents chief elections officer
Nago, office of elections and city clerk Mau conducted a general election to
determine , inter alia, who shall be elected as the councilmember for District 4.
Petitioner Waters and Mr. Trevor Ozawa were candidates in said general election
contest for District 4.
15. Said respondents tabulated the ballots cast and reported in the
latest "final" tally of ballots cast given to petitioner on November 19, (as
demonstrated infra, this latest "final" tally conflicts with the respondents'first
"final" tally by 16 ballots) that the result of that District 4 election was allegedly
that:
(a) 16,374 valid ballots were cast for candidate Ozawa;
(b) 16,333 valid ballots were cast for candidate/petitioner Waters;
(c) 4,455 totally blank ballots were cast;
8

10. (d) 16 ballots were cast where the voter cast a vote for both
candidates Ozawa and Waters;
(e) An HRS, 511-153 overage of 11 ballots/votes existed; and
(0 An HRS, S11-153 underage of 39 ballots/votes existed.
16. ln actuality ,74 of the ballots that were cast which the
respondents claimed were totally blank were actually cast for either candidates
Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and Waters;
17. The foregoing fact that 74 of the so-called totally blank ballots
were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and
Waters, is buttressed by the State of Hawaii Legislative Auditor's 1999 "Report of
the Election Oversight Committee" (see declaration of Thomas Waters) wherein
the Legislative Auditor's fact finding concluded that:
"Blank votes occ ur when a voter does not select a candidate in a
race or mismarks a ballot. ES&S explained that the blank vote count
was higher on the lF central counters because thev fthe electronic
ballot countinq machinesl do oick uo lreadl maroinal marks
Report at p. 19
The report went on to give pictorial examples where such partially
marked ballots did not fully black out the oval on the ballot which is supposed to
be totally blacked out, Some of these examples showed that the box to be
blacked out had a check mark in it, an "X" mark in it (in prior Hawaii State
elections an "X" mark was required to be made in the box), or had a line through
the box next to the name of the candidate who was being voted for;
18, This Legislative Auditor's report made a factual finding that
0.2% of all voters "mismarked" their ballots in the manner stated above.
9

11. Respondents reported that 37,178 valid, "blank" and over vote (both candidates
were voted for) ballots were cast). Two tenths of a percent (0.2%) of said ballots
cast equals 74 ballots, Using the Legislative Auditor's foregoing finding of fact, it
is clear thal74 "blank" ballots were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa,
Waters or both Ozawa and Waters, but were counted as totally blank because
the electronic reading machines utilized in the foregoing election were not acute
enough to detect the ballots whose boxes were not totally blacked out but where
the voters' choices of candidates were clear;
19. The foregoing is also supported by the following circumstantial
evidence and legal inference. On or about November 10, petitioner's campaign
chairman and attorney, James Kawashima, inquired in writing to respondents
Nago and State Elections Office that they "investigate the 4,451 reported 'blank'
votes for accuracy and validity" and report the results of said investigation to Mr.
Kawashima. Said respondents have possession, dominion and control over the
"blank" ballots for the instant District 4 general election. As of the date of the
filing of this complaint, none of the respondents have, much less the foregoing
respondents who have possession, dominion and control over the "blank" ballots
for the instant District 4 general election, have responded to Mr. Kawashima's
foregoing request for information regarding a closer examination of the "blank"
ballots to discern whether said ballots were indeed cast for a candidate in the
District 4 election;
20. lt is a well established legal inference and conclusion from
circumstantial evidence that when a party who has possession, dominion or
10

12. control of crucial evidence fails to disclose that crucial evidence, it is legally
inferred and concluded in giyi! cases2 that the withheld evidence, if produced
would be adverse to the party in possession of the withheld evidence and would
materially support the case of the party requesting the evidence, e.9., lnterstate
Circuit v. U.5., 306 U.S. 208,226 (1939), ln applying this well established
inference, ín Anderson v. lJ.S., 185 F.2d 343 (Sth Cir. 1950) in applying this
inference against Anderson opined as follows: "The intent necessary in the case
may be inferred as a matter of circumstantial evidence from the facts (citations
omitted). The pertinent and controlling evidence was within his knowledge and it
was within his power to explain the circumstances connected with the
transaction, yet he declined to testify. "His silence may well count against him,
as against any other civil litigant.' (citation omitted);"
21. Thus in the instant case, the foregoing inference and
circumstantial evidence clearly supports the Legislative Auditor's finding of fact
that74 "blank" votes were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or
both Ozawa and Waters;
22. Further evidence of the respondents' misconduct or at the very
least negligence vis-â-vis the tallying of ballots cast is the switching or shifting
results of the election for District 4. lnitially, respondents' "final" tally of District 4
ballots was: Ozawa = 16,371; Waters = 16,324; Blank = 4,451; Over Votes = 16.
However, on November 19, respondent Office of Elections issued a letter to Mr.
Kawashima which attached to it what respondent Office of Elections described in
2 Of course in criminal cases, the constitutional right against self incrimination prevents such an inference
from being reached.
11

13. its letter as "a copy of the final Statewide Summary (new final tally)." ln the
November 19 new final tally: candidate Ozawa had gained 3 ballots cast;
candidate/petitioner Waters gained 9 ballots cast; "Blank" votes gained 4 ballots
cast; and Over votes remained the same at 16 ballots cast. This resulted in
narrowing the gap between candidates Ozawa and Waters down to 41 ballots
cast from 47 ballots cast. This new final tally added 4 new supposedly blank
ballots. This new final tally added 16 new ballots cast to the total amount of
ballots cast. This latest discrepancy, when added to the multitude of errors
committed by the respondent clearly warrants the factual finding that the at least
74 "blank" ballots which were actually cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters
or both Ozawa and Waters;
23. HRS, 511-172 provides that a petitioner successfully contests
the results of an election, such as the general election at bar, if the petitioner
demonstrates that the respondents engaged in improper conduct, the result of
which could cause a difference in the election results.
24. ln Akizaki v. Fong,51 Haw. 354 (1969), this court interpreted
and applied a more stringent criteria for overturning an election which existed in
the predecessor of HRS, S11-172 in a general election context and held that
where votes that were invalid because said votes were submitted in a tardy
manner were inextricably intermingled with votes that were valid because they
were timely submitted, with said invalid votes being in an amount that exceeded
the difference in the difference in votes between the candidate who had enough
t2

14. votes to win the election and the candidate who had the next less votes, a new
election shall be ordered.
25. By reason of the premises, the petitioner contends that the
criteria in HRS, 51 1-172 HAVE BEEN MET. The fact that there are 74 ballots
that were cast for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa and Waters
but were counted by the respondents as totally blank, definitely is cause that is
sufficient to find that said actions could have caused a difference in the election
results;
26. HRS, 51 1-174.5 provides that if the "mistake or fraud" of the
respondent which could have caused a difference in the election results is of
such a nature that "a correct result [of the election] cannot be ascertained," then
a new election shall be ordered. That statutory provision further provides that if
the mistake or fraud is of a nature that after it is corrected or remedied, "a certain
candidate or certain candidates received a majority or plurality of the votes cast
and were elected," than a judgment shall be served upon the chief election officer
or county clerk, who shall sign and deliver to the candidate or candidates
certificates of election,
27. ln the instant case, once the respondents mistake or fraud of
tallying 74 ballots casted for either candidates Ozawa, Waters or both Ozawa
and Waters as totally blank ballots is corrected by counting by hand all of what
the respondents deemed to be "blank" ballots, with witnesses from both
candidates being present to observe the hand counting of said "blank" ballots,
then the Supreme Court can readily discern which candidate received a majority
13

15. of the valid ballots cast. Thus, after the foregoing correction is made, the
supreme court should discern whether candidate Ozawa or candidate Waters
received a majority of the valid ballots cast, and thus was elected as
councilmember for District 4. After making such a determination, the Supreme
Court should issue a judgment to that effect and deliver the same to respondent
City Clerk with the order that she shall issue a certificate of election to the
candidate who was elected.
COUNT II
28. The averments set forth, supra, in paragraphs 1 through 27 are
re-alleged in this count ll of the complaint.
29. The respondents admitted that there were 11 overages within
the meaning of HRS, S11-153. Thus, 1 1 more ballots were issued and voted
than the amount of ballots that were supposed to have been issued and voted
according to the District 4 poll books.
30. The respondents admitted that there were 39 underages within
the meaning of HRS, S11-153. Thus, 39 ballots which were validly issued and
voted according the District 4 poll books "disappeared" and were not counted.
31. The foregoing indicates that 50 ballots that issued and voted
were intermingled with valid ballots that had been voted, and counted when they
were not supposed to have been counted, or were issued and voted and yet not
counted when they were supposed to have been counted.
t4

16. 32. Petitioner Waters contends that the criteria in HRS, 511-172
have been met, inasmuch as the foregoing fraud or mistakes of the respondents
in counting ballots 11 ballots that should not have been counted and not counting
39 ballots that should have been counted could have caused a difference in the
results of the District 4 election. This is especially so, since HRS, S1 1-172 and
S1 1-153 gives the specific examples of the counting of HRS, S1 1-153 overage
ballots and not counting HRS, S153 underage ballots as being causes for the
invalidation of election results. These frauds or mistakes are of such a nature
that the correct result of the election cannot be ascertained.
33. By reason of the premises, the Supreme Court should order
that a new election shall be conducted for the office of District 4 councilmember,
The Supreme Court should order that this new election shall be by mail-in ballot
only so as to economically remediate this already costly error of the respondents.
WHEREFORE, petitioner Waters prays that this court:
1. Order that a count of the so-called "blank" ballots cast in the District 4
election be hand counted to determine who was actually voted for on
these so-called "blank" ballots, and based on the results thereof,
determine who was elected as the District 4 councilmember, and issue an
order to respondent City Clerk ordering her to issue a certificate of
election to that elected person.
2. ln the alternative, petitioner Waters prays that a new general election be
conducted for District 4 via mail-in ballots only, with the respondents
15

17. being ordered to correctly tally said ballots and issue a certificate of
election to the winner thereof.
3. Petitioner Waters further prays that this court order that the respondents
herein be ordered to pay the petitioner all costs incurred in prosecuting
this matter, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees; and
order such further relief that this court deems just and proper, including,
but not limited to:
a. Ordering the Office of Elections to fully cooperate with petitioner in
answering the various questions posed in previous
correspondence;
b. Allowing petitioner to view various results of the election, including
any documents and/or instruments utilized in tallying the final
results; and
c. Allowing petitioner to complete a minimal amount of discovery over
a period of time not to exceed two calendar weeks, assuming the
Office of Elections cooperates with petitioner.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014.
/S/ JAMES KAWASHIMA
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ
Attorney for Petitioner
16

18. NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
WATERS
Petitioner,
VS.
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
Respondents
DECLARATION OF THOMAS WATERS
THOMAS WATERS, hereby states and declares as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter.
2. t make the declarations herein on personal knowledge.
3. Attached as Exhibit "4" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from James Kawashima to Scott Nago dated November 10,2014.
4. Attached as Exhibit r'8" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from James Kawashima to Scott Nago dated November 13,2014.
5. Attached as Exhibit r¡C" is a true and correct copy of an email
to Scott Nago dated November 14,2014.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19. 6. Attached as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 14,2014.
7. Attached as Exhibit"E" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 19,2014.
8. Attached as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Scott Nago to James Kawashima dated November 19,2014.
8. Attached as Exhibit rrc" is a true and correct copy of a letter
from Aaron Schulaner to James Kawashima dated November 20,2014.
9. Attached as Exhibit '¡H" is a true and correct copy of the
Report of the Election Oversight Gommittee on the Audit of the 1998 General
Election dated March 31, 1999.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014.
/S/ THOMAS WATERS
THOMAS WATERS

20. J,tUrcS I(,IWa.SIIIMA
ALC
TRIAL CONSULTANT Sender's Information:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mail: ik@jkalc.com
November 10, 2OL4
VTA FACSTMT & U.S. MATL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii 96182
Attention Mr- Scott Nago
Chief El-ections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Election f or
a and Count
Dear Mr. Nago
f am writing to you as Campaign Chair and Counsel for the
Tommy Waters Committee for Cit.y Council. We would be remiss in
noL extendíng our appreciation for the fine work of you and your
office in carrying out a difficult. election very welt. As you
have said in Lhe past.r /o1r were "just doing your job, " and t.hat
was accomplished very well under very trying circumst,ances.
fn the case of our race, the outcome was decided on a
report.ed 47 vole dif f erence between my opponent and myself . hlith
a total turnout of a reported 3'7,1-62 vot,ers casting bal1ots, we
woul-d think that difference t,o be well within the margin of error
of the system you utilize. May I ask what the margin of error is
wlth the system utilized?
!üe are t.herefore requesLing that t.he I'overag:e" and
Itunderagert figures for each precinct. in our district be verified
and investÍgated for possible errors. We also request that you
invest.igate the 4,457- report.ed "bfank'r votes for accuracy and
valídity. While perhaps not rel-evant Lo our inquiry, we also
request that the L6rrover vot.es'r be revj-ewed in accordance wít.h
t.he operating procedures by which you are governed.
UHIBff k
Topa Financial center, Fort street Tower .745 Fort street, su¡te 5oo . Honolulu, H-awa¡¡ 96813 . rEt 808.275.0300 . FAX 9oa.275.o3gg

21. Office of Electi-ons
November 10, 201"4
Page 2
I¡fe realize that there may be other test.s and investigat.ive
processes Lo be applied to verify the results and we are not
limiting our request in any way by making the above specific
requests. Please apply every test or process available to you in
making sure the result was accurate and valid.. I provide contact
information below should you wísh to d.iscuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request that you keep us informed. of
your progress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our rights and time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your time, patience and service to the people
of Hawaiti.
Very truly
k"-.
,JAMES KAhTASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign Committee, Chair
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
James Kawashima, Esq.
James Kawashima, ALC
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolu1u, Hawai-i 968l-3
(808) 275-0304
(808) 27s-0399 (rax)
j koj kalc. com
Thomas lVaters
1130 Nimítz Highway
Suite B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii 968L7
(808) 354-1-1-78
tommywatersl@me. com

22. J¿.rvlrcS l{aw,tsrrlrrtA
ALC
TR'IAL CONSULTANT Sender's Information:
Dlrect: (808) 275-0304
E-mail : jlgej-l<e.k-gog
November 13, 201-4
VIA FACSTMTLE S. U.S. MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl Cit.y, Hawaii 96'782
Attention Mr. Scot.t Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re: Results of 2Ol4 General Election for
City and County of Honolulu Dist.rict 4
Dear Mr. Nago:
On Monday, November 1-0, 2074 , I transmitted the attached
lett.er t.o your office by fax and regular mail but I have yet to
Lrear from you, even to merely acknowledge receipt of the letter.
I realize this is a very busy and difficult time for your office
because of deadlines yolr have, but, in our case, the 20 day
deadline to take legal action is approaching even more rapidly
than yours.
Is it possible to inform us of where you are in respondj-ng
to our inquiry? Also, ilây T assume that you will not object to
our seeking a lengthening of t.he deadline (assuming that is even
possible) if, by your actions or inaction, additional time is
needed to take 1ega1 action?
I stand ready Lo meet and discuss any and all issues at your
convenj-ence and at your office. Mahalo for your courtesies.
Very truly yours/
'JAMES KAIVASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign Committee, Chair
Att,achment
cc: Thomas R Waters
EX}IIBIT þ
- Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower '745 Fotl Street, Suite 5OO ' Honolulu, Hawaii g6Aß - TEL 8OB.Z75.O3O0 . rAX eOA.275.O3gg

23. J¿,rurcs l(ew¿'sFrrM¡'
ALC
TRiAL CONSULTANT Sender's Information:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mail : ik@-ikal-c. com
November 10, 20L4
VTA FACSTMTLE & Ü.S. MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii 96782
Attention Mr. Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Election for
Citw and Countw of Honolul-u District 4
Dear Mr. Nago:
f am writing to you as Campaign Chair and Counsel for the
Tommy hlaters committ,ee for city council. tüe would be remiss in
not extending'our appreciation for the fine work of you and your
office in carrying out, a difficult election very well. As you
have said in the pastr /o1r were rrjusL doing your job,,' and t.hat
was accomplished very well under very trying circumst.ances.
fn tlre case of our race, Lhe outcome was decided orl a
reported 47 voLe dífference between my opponent and myself. With
a total turnout. of a report.ed 3i,!62 voLers casting ballot,s, w€
would think that difference to be wel-l within the margin of error
of the syst.em you uti-lize. May f ask what the margin of error j-s
with the system utilized?
We are Lherefore requesting that. the "overager and
'runderag'e't figures for each preci-nct j-n our district be verified.
and investígat.ed for possible errors. we also reguest. t.hat. you
investigat.e t.he 4,457- reported "blank" voLes for accuracy and
validity. While perhaps not relevant to our i-nquiry, we also
request that the L6 trover votes" be reviewed in accordance wíth
the operati-ngi procedures by which you are governed.
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower '745 fort Street, Suite 5OO . Honolulu, Hawai¡ g6Aß --rEL BOB.Z75.O3OO . FAX BOg.Z7S.O3gg

24. Office of Electi-ons
November 10, 20L4
Page 2
tüe realize that there may be other tests and j-nvestigative
processes to be applied to verify the results and we are not
limiting our request in any way by making the above speci-fic
requests. Please apply every test or process available to you in
making sure the result was accurate and valid. I provide con¡act
information below should you wish t.o d.i-scuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request that you keep us informed of
your progress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our ríghts and time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your tíme, paLience and service to the people
of Hawai'i.
Very truly
*ä-
JAMES KAWASHTMA
Tommy !üaters Campai-gn Committee, Chair
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
lTames Kawashima, Esg.
.Tames Kawashima, Al,C
745 Fort Street, Sui_te
Hono1ulu, Hawaii g6BL3
(808) 27s-0304
(808) 275-0399 (rax)
-j k@i kalc. com
Thomas ?rlaters
1130 NimÍtz Highway
Suite B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii 968L7
(808) 3s4-1-L78
Lommvwatersl-@me. com
500

25. Chervl R. Kitazaki
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheryl R. Kitazaki
Friday, November 14,2014 10:54 AM
'elections@hawaii. gov'
James Kawashima
Results of 2014 General Election for City and County of Honolulu District 4
DOCOO9.PDF
Mr. Nago:
I assume you received the attached, but am sending the two letters faxed and mailed to you this week.
Thank you,
Cheryl Kitazaki
Legal Assistant
James Kawashima, ALC
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 27s-03s0
The information contained in this message or attached hereto is between attorney and client and, therefore privileged and confidential. The use of
thisinformationisintendedforthesoleuseoftheindividualand/orentitynamedastherecipientofthistransmittal, Copying,dissemination,or
distributionofthismessageoritsattachmentsisstrictlyprohibitedwithoutthepriorapproval ofthenamedrecipienthereunder. lfyouhave
received this communicat¡on in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (808)275-0300 or by return e-mail, and delete the original
message. Your cooperation is appreciated.
U}lIB¡T c
1

26. J¡.rwNS I{ew,tSI{IM¿.
ALC
TRIAL CONSULTANT Sender's InformatÍon:
Direct: (808) 275-0304
E-mai1: ik@ikalc.com
November 1-3 , 20L4
VÏA FACSTMTLE 6. U.S. MAIL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaii 96792
Attention Mr. Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re Result.s of 20L4 General Elect.ion for
City and Countv of Honolu1u District 4
Dear Mr. Nago:
On Monday, November l-0 , 2074, T t.ransmj_Lted the attached
lett.er to your offj-ce by fax and regular mail but r have yet. to
lrear from you, even to merely acknowledge receipt. of the letter.
I realj-ze this is a very busy and difficult. time for your office
because of deadlines yoLr have, but, in our case, the 2A day
deadline to take 1egal action is approaching even more rapidly
than yours.
Is it possible to j-nform us of where you are in respond.ing
Lo our inquíry? Also, may f assume that you will not object to
our seeking a lengtkrening of t.he deadline (assuming that is even
possible) íf , by your actions or inaction, add.itional t,ime is
need.ed to take legal act.ion?
I stand ready to meet and discuss any and all issues at your
convenience and at your office. Mahalo for your courtesies.
Very truly yours,
JAMES KAWASHTMA
Tommy lriaters Campaign CommitLee, Chair
Att,achment
cc: Thomas R Waters
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower'745 Fort Street, Suite 50O.Honolulu. Hawaii 96813.TEL 8O8.275.03OO.FAX e}e.ZTS-O3gg

27. J.ttrrns l{,twesrrrM¿'
ALC
lRIAL CONSULTANT Sender's Tnformation
Dj-rect: (808) 275-030,
E-mai1: jk@ikalc.co¡
November 10, 20L4
VÏA FACSTM 6. U.S. MATL
Office of Elections
820 Lehua Avenue
Pearl CiLy, Hawaii 96782
Attention Mr- Scott Nago
Chief Elections Officer
Re: Result.s of 201-4 General Elect.ion for
Ci-tw and Countw of Honolulu District 4
Dear Mr. Nago:
r am wrj-ting to you as campaign chair and counsel for the
Tommy Waters CommiLt.ee for City Council. I¡fe would be remiss in
not extendingf our appreciat.ion for the fine work of you and. your
office in carrying out. a difficult elect.ion very well. As you
have said i-n Lhe past, !ot r¡/ere "jusL doing your job, " and tkrat
¡/as accomplished verY well under very trying circumstances.
fn the case of our race, Lhe ouLcome was d.ecided on a
reported 47 vote difference between my opponent and myself. With
a t,otal turnout. of a reported 37,L62 voters castingf ballots, w€
would lhink that. difference to be well within the margin of error
of the system you utiLize. May I ask what. the margin of error is
wiL}- the sysLem utilized?
We are tlrerefore requesting that the t'overage" and
trunderage, figures for eackr precinct in our district be verified.
and investigated for possibl-e errors. tVe also reguest. that you
investigate the 4,45L reported .blank' votes for accuracy and.
validity. While perhaps not. relevanL to our inquiry, we also
request. that the L6trover voLes" be reviewed in accordance with
the operati-ng procedures by which you are governed.
Topa Financial center, Fort Street Tower '745 Fart street, suite 5oo . Honolulu, Hawaíi g6aß .fEL 9o8.275.Q300 . FAX 808.275.o39g

28. Office of Elections
Novemþer 10, 2OA4
Page 2
We realize that there may be ot.her tests and investigative
processes t.o be applied to verify the result.s and we are not.
limiting our request in any way by making the above specifíc
requests. Please apply every test or process available Lo you in
maki-ng sure the result was accurate and. val1d. f provide cõntact,
information below should you wish Lo d,iscuss any aspect of these
requests with us and further request thaL you keep us informed of
your prog:ress as allowed by law so that we can be sure to protect
our right.s and. time limits by other means if necessary.
Thank you for your time, patience and. service to the people
of Hawai ' i.
Very trul !1 fourS, <t^
JAMES KAI^IASHTMA
Tommy Waters Campaign Committee, Chair
CONTACT TNFORMATTON:
James Kawashíma, Esg.
'-Tames Kawashima, Ä&C
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 968L3
(808) 27s-0304
(808) 275-0399 (Fax)
i k@i lc - com
Thomas lrlaters
1130 Nimitz Hi-ghway
Sui-te B-299
Honolulu, Hawaii 968L7
(808) 354-La7s
t atersl- @me. com

29. James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hard copy to follow
Elections@hawaii.gov
Friday, November 14,2014 4:27 PM
James Kawashima
City and County of Honolulu, District 4
Letter to James Kawashima - November 14 2014.pdf
ENHIBIT D
1 -

30. SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
802 LEHUA AVENUE
PEARL CITY, HAWAII 96782
M.hawâiÌ. gov/€lections
November 14,2A14
James Kawashima, Esq.
745 Foft. Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
This is in response to your November 10, 2014 and November 19, zo14
letters
There are a variety of things that must be done after an election before we
can finalize the results. We are currently involved in that process. Upon the
conclusion of that process, we will issue a final summary report of the election
results and forward you a copy, along with the overage and underage related to
the precincts associated with yciur contest.
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Officer
STN:AHS;cr
oE-14-262

31. James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Attachments:
Elections@hawaii.gov
Wednesday, November 19,2014 2:03 PM
Response to James Kawashima 11110 and 11113114 Correspondence
oE-14-265.PDF
ilHIBI t
1

32. SCOTT T, NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
802 LEHUAAVENUE
PEART CITY, HAWAII 96782
www.hswåll.Bov/€lectlons
November 19,2014
Mr. James Kawashima
745 Forl Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Thank you for your letters dated November 10 and 13, 2014. Attached is a
copy of the final Statewide Summary.
Also attached is a matrix of the overages and underage for each precinct
in Honolulu City Council District lV. Please note that voters in district-precinct 26-
02 received an absentee ballot only, pursuant to Act 100, Session Laws of
Hawaii 2012.
lf you have any further questions, please contact'Auli'i Tenn, Counting
Center Operations, at 453-VOTE(8683).
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Otficer
STN:AT:cr
oE-14-265
Enclosures
c: TommyWaters
Trevor Azawa
Bernice Mau, City Clerk

33. GENERAL ELECT¡ON 2014 - Ståte of Hawall -Slatowldê
Novsmbor 4, 2014
SUMMARY REPORT
.FINAL SUMMARY RËPORT"
psge 1
Pr¡ntÊd on: f 1/0120'14 at 0'1:26:20 âm
U,S. Sanalot Vacancy
247 o1247
(O) SCHATZ, Brlãn
(R) CAVASSO, Csm
{L) KOKOSKI. Mlcha€l
246,770 86.Ayo
97.983 26.5%
8,936 2.4yo
Blank Votêsr
Ovgr Votes:
15,774 43%
0.0%
U.S. Represanlal¡ve, D¡sl I
113 of'113
(D) TAKAI, Mark
lR) DJOU. Chãrlos
93,360 51.2%
86,415 47,40/o
Blank Volss:
Ov€r Vol€s:
2,365 1.3./6
58 0.0%
U.S. Reprcsentatlve, Dist ll
134 of '134
(O) GABBARD, Tulsl
(R) CROWLEY, Kewlka
fLì KENI- Joá
141,998 75.8%
33,624 17.5%
4,592 2.5%
Elank Votes:
Ovôr Vol€6:
7,018 3,7./o
82 0,0%
Govanor and Llaulanant Govarnot
247 o'¡247
(D) rGE / TSUTSUT
(R) A|ONA / AHU
(I) HANNÊMANN / CHANG
tr } DAVIS / MARI IN
181.065 49.0%
135,742 3A.f%
42,525 11.1Vo
6.3S3 1.70/o
Blank Volosi
Ovêr Vologi
2,998 0.8vo
431 0.1tø
Slafa Senator, O/sl I
I ol9
(O) KAIIELE, Gllbsrl 11,838 78.S70
íl ì ARIANôFF Grêôôru lkôbâlrì '1.860 12.6%
BlankVotes:
Ov6r Vol6s:
1,247 8,50/0
0 0.0%
Slâle Sen¿fo/,.Dlsf 3
12 ol 12
(D) GREEN, Josh 8,896 76.17c
1.89t 16.2%
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Votag:
s08 l.aolo
1 0.00/0
State SenatoL Dlsl 4
12 ol 12
(D) INOUYE, Larrain€ Rode¡o
{L} SCHILLER. Alain
8,842 72,3Yo
2,536 20 .7o/o
8lånk Volos:
Over Vglesi
852 6.90/.
7 O.1o/o
Stal€ Senalo¿ Disl 5 Vacanay
11 ol 11
(D) KEIIH-AGA!ìAN, Gll S, Coloma I,Itg 64.r%
lRl KAMAI(A. Joâ 4,149 27.íVo
BlankVot€s:
Ov€r Vol€s:
1,172
t0
7.8%
0,1%
Slale Ser¿lo/', Oisf 6
g of 0
(O) BAKER, Ro¿
(R) DUBOIS, Jar€d P. (P¡ka)
7,210 56.80/.
2,916 23.0ô/o
f ì KAAHIll Êrôn.ôñ Kêkrhilñâ 1.196 9.4'/.
BlEnk Vot€s:
OvêrVoles:
1,349 't0.6yo
13 0,1%
Stãtê Senâlor, Ðlst 12
'10 of 10
(D) GALUTERIA, Srlokwood M. 6,426 53¡%
lRì I FTHFM Chíi 4,544 37.8o/.
BlankVotos:
OvârVoles:
1,046 6.lc/o
10 Õ.10h
SloÍ6 R6presentaliye, Dist I
7 oî7
(0) SOUKI, Joe
lRì KÀPOl Cr¡ñslôî Kâlâlslôhe
6,369 60.870
2.716 30.80/,
Elank Voles:
Ov€rVoles:
73ø 8.3%
5 0.1%
Slale Roprssenlat¡yo, Olst r0
5 of 5
(D) MCKELVEY, Angur L.
lRì MARTEN. Châhê M
3,522 ø't,5%
r.6ô6 20.1%
B¡ank Vot6s:
Ov6rVotÊs;
534 0.3%
6 0.1%
Slate Represanlatve, D¡sl 11
4 o:14
(O) lNG, Kani6la
ll I BROÔK P¡l
4,926 70.80/ò
1.362 19.6%
Blank Voles:
Ov€r Votss:
66t 9.5%
7 0,1%
StÊle Râprêsonlalive, Disl 12
6 016
(D) YAMASHITA, Kylo T
lRì POHLE. Riêherd H.
õ,639 0ö.0%
'1,950 20.0%
1,174 12,OY.
3 0.0%
Blånk Voles:
OvorVotos:
State Represênlal¡ve, D¡sl 14
5 of 5
(D) KAWAKAMI, D6rok S.K.
¿Rl HôôMANAWANUI- Jon8thEn K-
6,817 69.4%
1,736 21.4./.
738 5.10Ã
I 0.16/o
Blank Voteç:
Ov€rVotog:
Sfale Repressnlarve, Olsl ,5
5 of 5
(O) TOKIOKA, Jsmss Kunano
¿Rì YôDÉR SIêvå
5,367 67.3%
1,892 23.7%
Slank Votes:
Ova¡VolêE:
717 9.0%
1 0.07o
State Representative, D¡st 16
6 o16
(O) MORIKAWA, Dayn6tto (Dee)
lR| FRANKS. Vlctorlâ {Vlcklel
5,320 6€,8%
1,A12 22.70/.
10.570
0,0%
836
2
BlEnk Votes:
OvsrVoleÊ:
Stats Reprøsontallva, D¡st 17
4 al4
(R) WARO. Gsn€
lDl STtIMP Chr¡s
7,5?3 71.6%
2,665 24,30
412 4.1%
0.10h
6
6lank Voles;
Ov6rVotes:
State Represenlailve, Disl 18
4 ol4
6,884 62.0%
3.473 31.370
(D) HASHEM, Maû Jun
lRl HALVORSËN. Sussn Kehsulánl
738 6.6%
4 0.09/"
Blsnk Voles:
Over Volss:
Stale Rêpresanlatlva, D¡st 19
Ð ot3
(D) KOBAYASI'II, Bertrand (86rt)
(R) MATHIEU, Vlotorla Ellzaboth
ILì HIGA, AñIhonv
5,404
1,924
783
91.6%
21,7%
6.6%
713 6.0"to
I 0.t%
Bla¡k Volô8:
OvarVolgs:
Statø Sênalol Dlst 17
I of I
(D) NlSHllìARA, Clar€nc6 8,312 64.80lo
ll'ICtEMENIE Rôôâr 3.531 27.5ø/o
Blank Votes:
Ovgr Volos:
s73 7.6v.
2 0.oo/o
Sfatê Senator, Dlsl l8
I of 0
(DlKlOANl, M¡cholls
(R)KlM, Denn¡s C.H.
10,253 54.6%
7,345 39.1¡l.
lL) BANôA Râvñônd lll 389 2.1ro
Elank Vole6:
Ov€r Vot€s:
769 4.1ã/o
I 0.0%
Slslo Saralor, Oßl 2l
6 ol5
(D) SHIMABUKURO, Mallo S.L. 6,078 64.870
lRì kLJ Tercíâ L 2.868 30.6%
Blank Voles:
Over Vol€s:
433 4.8T.
6 0.'1%
Sfatd Sen¿lor Dist 23
I ol9
(o) RrvIERE, Gir
lR'l FALE. Rlchard L66
5.319 50.4%
4,854 46.0%
B¡ank Volesi
Owr Volês:
377 3.6Vo
10 0.10l"
Stata Sønator, DIst 24
11 ol 11
(o) foKUDA, J¡il N.
lRl DANNER. Kllomana Mlchsâl
13,814 /0.ö%
4,625 23.71ó
Blank Votô8:
Ov6rVolos:
1,073 5.50/6
4 0.0olo
Slsle Æepresental¡vg, O¡sf I
g of I
(D) NAKASHIMA, Mark M, 6þ14 f5.11o
lll WÊlNÊRl. Erlc Drâkê 1,452 17.4y.
Blank Volgs:
OwVoto6:
578
2
6.9%
0.ov.
Sfalo Repressnlal,vo, Dísf 3
f ol7
(D) ONlSHl, Rlchard H.K.
(R)olcKsoN. Bir¡
/l ì FôGF| Fr.d F
5,076 69.9olt
997 13.7%
all f .2õÀ
Blank Volos:
OvêrVotss:
371 5.1o/o
3 0.070
State Re precø ntallva, D i sl 4
4 ol4
(O) SANEUENAVENTURA, JOy A, 4.337 68.0%
lRì THOMAS. Câru '1,719 26.9%
Blank Volôs:
Ov6r Volos:
319
4
5,0%
0,10/c
Sfalê Rgprosontsf¡ye, Disl 5
'I ol8
(D) CREAG/N, R¡cherd P
(R) BATEMAN, Dave
fl ì I A¡ ANNF .lôñ A
3,712 55.9%
2,3E9 36.0%
253 3.Solo
Blank Vologl
OvorVotô8:
282 4.20/.
3 0.0%
5lâ16 Rapßs6nlallva, Olsl 6
5 of 5
(D) LOWEN, Nlcola 3,ø23 s0,t%
IRIVAIENZUEU. Kêllv 2,334 37.1vo
Blank Vol€i:
Ov€rVotes:
'f3s 2.20/.
3 0.0%
(L) . LIBÊRTARIAN (r) - TNoEPENoENT (R) - REPUBLICAN (G) . GREEN {N) - NONPARTISAN (D} = DËMOCFIATIC

34. GENERAL ÊLECTION 2014 . Stat6 ol Hawall - Stâtôw¡dê
Novomber 4, 2014
SUMMARY RÊPORT
.FINAL SUMI¡ARY REPORT"
Pâgø 2
Prlnlsd on: 11/05/2014 al 01:26:20 am
Slal6 Roprosorrál¡ve, Disl 20
4 ol4
{D) SAY, Calvln K,Y
(G) 8ONK, Kolko
lRlAl I FN .ftdla F
4,621 52.6%
2,047 2330À
1.791 20.40,/!
Blank Vot€s:
Ov€f Votês:
322 3.7"/o
3 0.070
Sfato ßeprosontalivô, O/st 21
4 o14
(D) Nlsl-llMoTo, Scott Y.
¿R) MAñUTAI. Larle Kuu¡ôl Lanol
4,128 74.1%
1,183 21.2r/o
BlankVot6s:
Ovêr Vole6:
2A2 4.7Vr
1 0.0!¡
Stale Reprcsaûtat¡ve, D¡st 22
3 of 3
(D) BROWER, Tom 2,623 54.4%
lRì GRACF .lanaf M 1-929 40.0%
Elank Volssi
Ov€rVole6r
265 5.5%
2 0.0%
slale Rapresantat¡va, Dist 24
4 ol4
(D) BELATTI, Oôlla Au 4,465 64.1%
¿Rl AMSfERDAM. C. Keui Jochâñân 1,7A4 25.6%
glank Volos;
Ovor Vol€sl
716 103%
2 0.o1/o
State Reprcsentativa, D¡sl 25
5 ofs
(D) LUKE, Sylvia
fRl l-AM. Ronald Y.K.
5.209 65.57o
2,324 25.2%
Elank Volosi
Ovor Votos:
423
1
5.3%
0.0%
Slate Rêpresantatlva, Dlsl 26
7 o17
(D) sAlKl, Scott K,
IR) MARSHALL. ETic B.
3,858 64.5%
1,788 29.6%
Blank Voles:
OverVol€s:
353 6.90/"
3 0.1%
State Representallva, Dlsl 27
6 of 5
(D) OHNO, Takashi 4,745 62.4%
lR) FOWLER, Mãx R 34,9%
",652
Blank Votss:
ÕvêrVobsl
206 2.7%
4 0.10/o
Slate Røpresental¡va, D¡sl 28
4 on4
(D) MlZUNo, John M.
f R) KA,APl.J. Câþle Kauhlwai
3,196 65.3%
1,536 31.4%
Blånk Votes:
Ovgr Votôsi
'160 3.3%
5 0.1%
Slale Represenlailve, Dlsl 31
6 of 6
(R) JOHANSoN, Aarcn Llng 3,698 68.0%
lDì SHARSH I êl 1.450 26.7%
Blank Vot6B:
Ov€rVol€ô:
288 53%
2 0.0%
Slate RepreÊentat¡ve, Disl 32
3 of3
(D) ICHIYAMA, Llnda E. 4,722 64,9%
lRrlÂêAVil I À Mâr.laAnn R 2,340 32,20h
Blânk Votes:
OvêrVot6s:
211 2.goh
2 o.ovo
Sfåfe Rep¡osorlalive, O6t 33
6 of 6
Slstê Raprasøntallvê, Dlsl 45
5 of 6
6,526 6s.87¡
2,346 23.7%
(O) KONG, Sam
lRl HELSHAM. Rob€rt C.. Sr
(R) CHEAPE MAISUMOTO, Laur€n
loì iTAGAOAY. Mlchå61 Yâdåo
3,06e 70,8%
1,175 27,1%
1,032 10.4%
I 0.1%
Blaôk Volèar
OvôfVotos:
91 2,1c/o
f 0.0Ye
Blank Vot68:
Ovaf Votes:
Sfãfê Reprês€ntaliye, Dßf 34
3 af 3
Slate Represanlâliy6, Disl 47
4 ol4
(D) TAKAYAMA, Grosg
IRIAGUSTIN Jacl
5'471 58.370
3,569 38.0%
(R) POUHA, Fskl
lÕl FôNôIMôANA. Kent K.
2,58ø 49.1%
2,818 48,10/ó
342
4
3.6%
0.00/o
Blank Volê8;
Over Volô6:
28s
6
Blank Vol€6:
OvffVolð¡i
4.7./õ
0,1%
Sfâfe Ropresont€l¡yg, Di.9f 35
6 of6
Stdlo Røpr'sentalivo, D¡d 4A
6 ofo
(o) TAKU[4], Roy M.
lRl POTI. LuAnn M.
3,578 ô0.9%
2,023 34,40/c
(D) KEOHOKALOLE, Jarotl K.
(R) KUKAHIKO, Eldo¿n L.
(L) TAKAYAMA, Kaimanu
lN) NAIPO. Kanã
5.443
3,670
199
t03
55.7Vo
37.6.h
2,00/4
1,1%
269 4,6%
4 0.1./.
Blank Vot6s:
Over Volos:
345 3.5%
0 0.t%
Blônk Voles:
Sfala R€presânlât v6, Dßl 36 Over Voles:
3 of 3
(R) FUKUMOTO CHANG, Bêlh
rDì I FE Mer¡lvñ B
5,E7E 64.57o
s.034 33.3%
Srsle Rep¡esgntåt'ye, D¡st 50
4 o'f 4
öþ42 14,2%
1,719 20.1%
{R) THIELEN, Cynlhia
lDl BROÀ4AN. HollvÀ.
Blank Volesì
Ov€rVolês:
'195 2.1%
6 0.10/o
483 5.7%
3 0.00/.
ElankVot€s:
Stale Reprcsenlat¡ve, Dlsl 37 Ovsr Volos:
4 ol4
(D) YAMANE, Ryan L
iRì SVRCIñ4. Emll
7,26'1 72,47o
2,254 22,5o/ô
State ReNasanlalive, Disl 51
I of 6
5,881 E4.2To
3,070 33,5%
(D) LEE, Chrls
lRì HlKlDA. Wâvnê I
474 4.70/o
2 0.0%
BlânkVolos:
Ovor Vol€8:
2,2%
0,070
203
0
Blanl Volos:
Stdte Reprcsântat¡ve, D¡st 40 Over Votôs:
4 o14
3.1ô1 80.0%
't,915 36.4%
(R) McDERMOTT, Bob
lDÌ MARTINEZ. Ros6
AI-Laea Truslâe
247 of247
't84 3.5%
7 0.1
Blânk Votss: Numb€rTo Volê For 3
Ovêr Votos:
Slale Representaf¡yo, D/sl 4l
4 ol4
wAlHEE, John O.
AKANA, Rowena M.N.
AHU lSA, L6l (Lslnahla)
TRASK, MllllãnlB.
AKINA, Ksll'i
McINERNY- Hâùêv
138,452
't23.860
r13.181
102,819
92,247
74,960
12.5%
11.2%
10.2%
9.301o
8.3%
6.8%
(D) LOPRESTI, Matlhew
(R) J€REMIAH, Bryan E.
2,441
2,178
s56
47.4Yc
34.86/o
18.20/"
Blank Votes:
OvårVolês:
462,807 4't.7%
't68 2,7%
5 0.t%
Blânk Votes: 102 0.0yc
Ovor VolôB:
Maui Røs¡dønl Trustaè
247 o¡U1 Slale Rapresentat¡va, O¡st 42
3 of 3
(D) HAR, Sharon E.
lR) MOgES. Suk
5,133 69.1%
2,073 27.9%
87
LINDSEY, Carmen Hulu
23.6%
Blank Votos:
Ov6rVolos:
154,966 41,9%
223 3.0% 10't 0.0% 'l 0.0%
Elank Vot6s:
Over Voles:
Counc¡lmember, D¡st 5
State Reprcsentat¡ve, Dist 43 3 ol3
5 ol5 2,319 50.270
2,628 58.1"/o
2,096 41.4% 259 3.6%
2,045 44.2%
PALEKA. Dan¡el K., Jr.
(R) IUPOLA, Andr¡a P. EDWAROS HUNI. Tifhnv
lDì AWANÂ. Kãr€n Leiñãñì
I 0.0%
Blank Votosr
111 2.2% Ov6a VolE€l
0,1Y0
Blånk Volesl
Ovêr Volos:
Counc¡lmomban Dist I
3 of 3 Stale Representatlvê, Dlst 44
2 of 2
W¡LLE, Margarol
GôN7Âl FS RôñÊld S
3,192 56.flo
(D) JORoAN. Jo 2,7n3
56.070
2.171 38.80/.
{c) GAIÊS, Codric Arueg.
1,025
22.0%
fll FRÊNZEL. Allen IALì
15.5%
266 1.7%
r 0.0%
Blânk Votos:
Over Volcr:
206 4.4%
4 0.1V6
Elank Votes:
Ovsr Vot€s: MayoL County of Mau¡
34 of34
ARÂK WA,AlanM.
PALTIN Tâñârâ fÎâml
25,435 55.3%
18,162 39.5%
6.2ô/,
0.0%
Blank Vol€B:
OvgrVotss:
2,372
14
(L). LIBERTARIAN (I). INDEPENOENT (R). REPUBLICAÑ (G). GREEN (N). NONPARIISAN (o) = oEMoctlATlC

35. GENERAL ELECTION 2014 - Strate olHawaii - Stelow¡do
Nov6mb6r 4, ?014
SUMI4ARY REPORT
"FINAL SUMMARY RÊPORT"
Pag6 3
Prlntod on: 11/06/20t4 åt 0l:26:20 an
Counc¡lmenbar (Easl Mau¡)
34 of34
CARROLL, 8ob 27,071 58.90/0
NlKHll ANANDA Nl.k 11.730 25.50/"
BlankVolos:
Over Volóâ:
7,162 15,6%
2D 0.0%
Co uncll rnoñbet (Wa sl M a u ¡)
34 of34
COCHRAN, Ëlls
BUENCONSÉJO. Ka'ala
22,124 48.1%
18,792 40,5%
BlânkVol6s:
Ovêr VotaBr
5,04f 11.00/o
20 0.0%
Cou nc¡lmêmber (Wa ¡lu ku-Wa¡ he s-Wal ka pu )
34 of34
VICTORINO, M¡cha€l (M¡ke) 25,28s 55.0%
BLACKAURN. Joseoh G.. ll 12,608 27.4%
Elank Votos:
Ov6r Vol6s:
8,060 17.5%
28 0.1%
Co u nc il mêm bê r (Kah u I u i)
34 of34
GUZMAN, Don S.
PONTANILLA. Joè
23,8s6 51.9%
15,719 34.20h
Blsnk Votos;
Over Votsa:
6,373 13.9%
29 o..loh
Coun al lmê mbe r (So uth Mau¡)
34 ol34
COUCH.oon
FÍ7PÂïRlCk .lôhñ M
24,990 54.3%
13.042 30.3%
Slank Votos:
Ovor Volos;
7,029 15.30/o
22 0.0%
Councl lmembe t ( Ma kaw ao-Ha lku- Pala)
34 of34
WHlfE, Mlko
MOLINA. MIKo J.
23,042 50.1t
16.398 35.770
Elank Vote9:
Ov€a Vol6a:
6,504 14.1Yo
39 0.1%
Coun cilma mb è r (U pco u ntry)
34 of34
BAISA, Glodys Coolho
BRUCH. Courtnðv A.
26,1 17 56.8%
12,819 27.90/o
Blãnk Votos:
Ovor Volosr
7,025 15,3%
22 0.0%
Qouncllmêmber (Lanal)
34 of34
HOKAMA RiKI 28.546 62,1%
BlankVot€3:
OvsrVoles¡
17,437 37.9%
0 0.07o
Councilmember (Molokai)
34 ol34
ôÞl/Fllô qlt^uHa¡ñ 24.250 41.40/"
glânk Volês:
Ov€r Volés:
17,733 38,8%
0 0.0%
Mayon County of Kaua¡
16 of 16
CARVALHO, Bsrnârd P., Jr
6ARCA- Duslin
14.öðB b1.17ô
8,1S5 34.1%
Elsnk VotE6:
Ovor Voles:
1. ts8
2
4.4%
0.o%
Councllñømber
Nqmbor To Volo For: 7
16 of 16
RAPOZO, MêI
KAGAWA, Ross K,
KANESHIRO, Arry¡
KUÀLll, KipuKal L.P.
YUKIMURA, JoAnn A.
CHOCK, Mason K., S[
HOOSER, Gary L.
FURFARO, Jay
SRUN, Mhu.
PERRY, Dâry¡ 0.
COW0ÊN, Fellcla
gYNUM, Tim
D€COSTA,8¡lly
I ARANIO Tlâña k
13.147
12,357
1 1,97'l
9,985
8,941
ô,730
ø,267
8,165
8, t20
8,076
1,917
7,502
7,243
5.885
7.4%
7.40h
7.10Á
5.9%
5.3%
5.2o/o
4,gflo
4s%
4.8%
4,4%
4.7v6
4.5%
43%
3.4.4
Blånk Vôtê8:
OverVolô€:
42,048 25,00/o
7 0.00/6
Couna¡lmembaL Dlsl lV
17 of 17
OZAWA, Tr€vor
WATERS. Tommv
16,371 44.1%
16,324 43,9%
Blank Voles:
OverVgtes:
4,451
16
12.0%
0.0%
Counc¡lmember, D¡st Vl
21 ol21
FUKIJNAGA, Carol
AIONA. Sam
17,C79 54.7o/o
11,541 38.3%
Blank Volos:
Ovq Vot6s:
2,U2
16
8.9%
D,1YO
CON AMEND: Relat¡ng to D¡salosura of
Jud¡cial Noñlneês 247 01247
YES
NÔ
302,953 öZ.U7o
41,308 1120/o
Blank Vot6s:
OvêrVôlô6:
25,177 6.8%
116 0.0%
CON AMEND: Rolallng to Agilcuftural
€rlorpnbos 247 01247
YES
NÔ
rü5,531 50,2%
152,222 412Yo
Blânk Vot€s:
OverVolês:
31,543
258
8.5%
o.1%
CON AMENÐ: Rêlat¡ng lo Sl€ro Jusl¡cas
and Judges 247 of247
YES
Nô
81,408 Z2.O%
288.858 72.8ø/o
Blank Volos:
Over Votss:
18,884 5.1./.
306 0.1%
CON AMEND: RÊlatlng to Eaily Childhæd
Education 247 01247
YES
NÔ
160,238 43.4./o
192,247 52.OVo
Blank Votos:
Over Votes;
'I 6.802
2Êf
4.5Yo
0.1./.
CON AMEND: RalatÌng to Dams and
Res€ryo/¡s 247 ol24'l
YES
Nô
234,0',t6 63.3%
106,377 28.80/o
Elank Vol€s;
OvorVolog:
28,984 7,8./o
177 0.07o
HAWAI'I: Tam of Appo¡ntñênt for the
County Cle* 43 of43
34,973 ö9.7%
11,148 22.20tþ
YES
NO
BIank Volesi
Ov6rVolô8:
4,025 8.0%
12 0.0ø/o
MAUI: Councll: Atfordable Hous¡ng Fund
34 of34
YES
NO
30,532 60,4%
r1,507 25.0ó¿
Blank Votes:
Ov€rVoto6:
3,915
29
8.5%
0.1%
MAU I : Cou ncll : Pe n alti€ s
34 ol 34
YES
NO
17,689 38.5%
21,355 46.4%
Blank VoteGi
Over Votes:
6,901 15,0%
38 0.11/þ
MAUI: Vote r ln¡t¡at¡ve: Genetically
Eng¡neered Oryan¡sñs 34 of 34
YES
NO
23,062 N,Zrh
22,005 47,9%
Blánk Vole6:
OvgrVotE6:
872 1.9%
24 0,,1.h
KAUAI: Relatlng to the Dêpa¡lmont of
Persarngl Sg¡v,ces 16 of 16
YES
13,825 57.50/6
NO
6,038 25.1%
glônk
Ov6r
Vol€s; 4,174 |f.4Vo
Votes: I 0.0%
KAUAI: Ralal¡ng lo Chatler Amdndment
16 of 16
YES
NÕ
17,691 73.6'h
2,f75 11.5%
Elank Voles:
Ov6rVolês:
3,569 14.8% g 0.00¿
KAUAI: Relat¡ng to Recâll Ballots
16 ol16
YES
NÔ
11,747 73,0o/o
2,156 9.0%
Blånk Vol€s:
OvêrVotss:
4,138 't7.2.to
4 0.00/õ
REGISTRAÍION ANO TURNOUT
GENÉRAL
TOTAL REGISTRATION
TOTAL TURNOUT
PR€CINCT TURNOUT
AESENTEE TURNOUT
708,830
369,554
180,507
189,047
52.30/o
25,so/o
28.7.h
OVERSEAS BALLOTS CAST
OVERSEAS TURNOUÍ
Ovêrsse8 I
Ovêrsoa8 2
61
39
0.0%
{L). LIBERTARIAN (l) - INOEPENDENT (R) - RÊPUBLICAN (G) . GREÉN (N) " NONPARTISAN (D). DEMOCFIATIC

36. 'õ
c)
0) Èc
o)
U'
-o
o
ct) ñ
0) Ì) c f
r o O r o o O cl () o o o o o o
(.)
o)
(õ
Lo
o
O c) o o O o o O O O O o o C¡ o o¡ a
:
õ
=c) oc
q)
Øo
q)
o)
(ü
c) Ec
f,
O o o o o O O O o O o o r r o
c)
c',
(U
L
(.)
O
o o o o o o O o O C) o o o o r
C) c 'õ
o
0-
o
C')
(ú
L
0) E
C :)
c) c) o o o c{ C ro CI o CÐ o Ct co C) f,
C) c 'õ
oL
fL
oxoo
fL
c) (')
CU
Lo
o
O O c) o O o O () o r o o o Õ CI o
oI
l'-
C
OI
l'-
r
co
OIN
r
tOI
l*
OI
00
r
C oI
co
r
g) ()
Iæ
r
sf
OI
co
r
oI
o)
r
CI oI
O) r
cf) oI
o)
r
t
O¡
o)
r
r
OI
()
RI
oI
N
roI
CI c
C.1 OI
ot
CI
C¡
OI
(o
CJ
+. oc
ooL
+> +otË
tt -= ØØ
¡5õ
àE
-c of
EDO Eo>()
Ëõ
Ð= îr=
(trË
øoO-ctì
(g
L
G)
o
U) .-oc
gË
ftr
bo
o9ì
(d!F
Øo

37. James Kawashima
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Attachments:
Elections@hawaii.gov
Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:52 PM
Fw: Response to James Kawashima 11110 and 11113114 Correspondence
oe-14-265001.pdf
Attached please find response with updated Statewide Summary
-----Forwarded by Elections/DAGS/StateHiUS on tL/ 19 / 2OL4 O2:47PM -----
From : Elections/DAGS/StateH iUS
Date: ILl L9/2OL4 OZ:O2PM
Subject: Response to James Kawashima Lt/LO and 11/13/14 Correspondence
(See attached file: OE-14-265. PDF)
HffiIBIT ç
1

38. SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ETECTIONS
802 LEHUA AVENUE
PEARL CITY, HAWAII 96782
www.håwa¡i, gov/elections
November 19,2014
Mr. James Kawashima
745 Fort Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Thank you for your letters dated November 10 and '13, 2014. Attached is a
copy of the final Statewide Summary.
Also attached is a matrix of the overages and underage for each precinct
in Honolulu City Council District lV. Please note that voters in district-precinct 26-
02 received an absentee ballot only, pursuant to Act 100, Session Laws of
Hawaii 2012.
lf yOu have any further queStiOns, please contact 'Auli'i Tenn, Counting
Center Operations, at 453-VOTE(8683).
Very truly yours,
SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Officer
STN:AT:cr
oE-14-26s
Enclosures
c: Tommy Waters
Trevor Ozawa
Bernice Mau, City Clerk

39. cENERAL ELECïlON 2014 - Slate ol Hawai¡ - Statew¡de
Nov€mbêr4.2O14
SUMMARY REPORT
-FINAL SUI!4MARY REPORT''
Page 1
Pr¡nted on: 1 1/18/2014 âl 0511 1:19 pú
U.S. Sonator Vacancy
247 ol 247
(D) SCHATZ, Br¡ân
(R) CAVASSO, Cam
rLì KÕKOSKl. M¡chael
246,827 B6.B%
98.006 26.s%
8,941 2.4%
Blank Volesi
OvêrVotes:
15,77-t
'152
4.3%
0.00/"
U,S. Reprssental¡ve, Dist I
113 ofIf3
(o) TAKAI, [rârk s3.390 51.2%
lRì D.lôtl Chârlês 86.454 47.4%
Blank Vol€s:
Over Votss:
2,366 1.3o/o
58 o.oo/o
U.S. Represanlalivq, Disl ll
134 ol 134
{D) GABBARD, Tulsi
(R) CRoWLEY, Kaw¡ka
ILI KENT Joe
142,010 75,8o/o
33,630 17.9%
4,693 2.5%
BIank Voles:
Over Votes:
7,020
82
3.7o/o
0.0%
Governor and L¡eutenan( Govarnor
247 ot247
{o) tGE / TSUISUI
(R) ATONA / AHU
(I) HANNE¡/lANN i CHANG
íI INAVIS/MARLIN
18't,106 49.00¿
135.775 36.70/o
42,934 11.60/o
6,395 1.70/o
Blânk Votesi
Ovêr Voles:
3,001 0.8y"
431 0.1o/o
Stalo Senalo4 Dßf I
I ol9
(D) KAI-IELE. G¡lbs¡t
lLì ARIANOFF. Greoory (Kobala)
1 1,638 78.9oi6
1,850 12.60l¡
Blank Volêsl
Ovèr Volos:
1,247
6
8.50/o
0.0ôlo
Statê Sônalo¡, Ðisl 3
12 ol 12
(D) GREEN. Josh 8,896 76.1%
/l I I AST M¡châêl L 1,891 18.20À
Elank Vol€s;
Over Volesi
908 7.8ø/o
1 A.A"/o
State Sonalot, Disl 4
12 oÍ 12
(D) INOUYE. LorâinB Rodoro 8.882 72.3%
ll ì SCHII IFR Alâin 2,536 20.76/o
Blânk Votes:
Ovêr Voles;
852 6.90/6
7 O.1þ/o
Sfafo Sona¿o., D¡81 5 Vacancy
11 of 11
(D) KEITH-AGARAN, Gil S. Coloma 9,770 44.7./o
(R) KAMAKA, Joe 4,149 27.51o
Blank Votes;
Over Votesl
1,172
10
7.8ø/o
o.'to,/¡
Sfalo Serator, D¡sf 6
I ôf I
(O) BAKER, Roz
(R) DUBOIS, Jared P. (Pikâ)
7,21o 56.81o
2,916 23.0ô/o
/l ì KAAHIn Rronson KÊkâhúna 1,196 9.40/o
Blank Vol€6i
Ovor Votes:
f,349 10.6%
13 0.10/0
Slale Sanalor, Dlst 1 2
10 of 10
(D) GALUTER,A, Br¡ckwood Nl.
IRI LETHEM, ChTIs
6,428 53.41o
4,545 37.8o/o
Blãñk Vot€sl
Over Voles:
1,046
10
8.71o
0.1"/o
Slafo Senâlo¿ Olsf I Z
E of 8
(D) NISHIHARA, Cla.onco 8,316 64.00/o
ll Cl F[.,lENlË. Rôôêr 3,531 27.50ó
Blank Votesl
Over Votesl
973 7.6o/.
2 0.00/0
Slafe Senâ/o4 D,sl l8
I ol8
(D) KlDANl, Michello
(R) KlM, Dênô¡e C.H.
lLÌ BANDA. Ravmond. lll
10,257 54.60/6
7,348 39.1%
389 2.1ó/D
Blânk Voles:
Ovê. Voles:
769 4.1o/o
9 0.00,6
Sla¿e SeDsfor Oisl 2t
5 of 5
(D) SHIIVIABUKURO, Mailo S.L. 6,079 ô4,8oÁ
lRì KU ferciâ L 2,870 30.60¿
Blânk Voles:
Ovef Votes:
433 4.6o/ô
6 0.1%
Stare S6na¿o/: Dlsl 23
I ol9
(D) RIVIERE, G¡I
TRIFALË RichsrdL€ê
5,320 50.4%
4,8s7 4ô.0V0
Blank Votes:
Over Voles: 10
3.6%
0.10/o
Slalo Senator, Þ¡st 24
11 of 11
(D) TOKUOA, Jill N.
{R} oANNER. Kilomana Michael
13,817 70.80/"
4,626 23.'toto
Bl¿nk Vôlesl
Over Volesl
1,073 5.50ó
4 0.0%
Slalo Represontat¡ve, Dist 1
I ol9
(D) NAKASHIMA, Mark lV, 6,314 15.1"/o
ll ì WÊ|NÊRT Erìc Drák€ 1,452 17.40h
tslank Votes:
Over Vot€s:
578
2
6.9%
0.0%
Stata Representat¡vo, Dist 3
7 ol7
(D) ONlSHl, Richard H.K.
(R) DICKSON, B¡II
ll ì FoGFL Frâd F
5,075 ts9.g'lo
997 13.70h
All 11 2o/o
Blenk Votes:
Over Voleg;
371 5.10¿
3 0.00/o
Slate Reprcsenlat¡ve, D¡st 4
4 ol4
(o) SANBUENAVÊNTURA, Joy A,
¿Rl THOMAS. GaN
4,337 68.0%
1,715 26.9%
Blank Voles:
Ovêr Vol€B:
319 5.00¿
4 0.10/.
Slate Represonlat¡ve, Dist 5
I of I
(D) CRËAGAN. Richard P.
(R) BATEMAN, Dave
lll LALANNË. Jon A.
3,712 55.goh
2.389 36.0%
253 3.8%
Blãnk Voles:
Õver Voles:
282 4.2.h
3 0.0vo
Slale Represônfaflve, Dlsl 6
5 of 5
(O) LOWEN, N¡cole 3,423 60.1%
lRl VAI FNTtlFl ¡, Kellv 2 ,334 37 .1o/o
Blank Votes:
Over Voles:
't39
3
2.20/o
0,0%
State Ropresental¡ve, Dlst I
7 ofl
(D) SOUKI, Joe
lR) KAPOI. Cranston Kaleialoha
5,359 60.8%
2,715 30.8%
Blank Votesi
Ovsr Volos:
736 8.3%
5 0.1ôlo
sfâte Represen¡€l¿ve, Dist 10
5 of 5
(D) MCKELVEY, Angus L,
¿Rl MARTEN. Ch¿vnê M.
3,522 61.{t%
1,ô66 29.1%
Elank Volog:
Over Votes:
534 9.3!o
6 0.1%
State Ropresentatlve, D¡st 11
4 ol4
(O) lNG, Kaniela
lll BROCK, Pal
4,926 70.8%
1,362 19.6%
Blank Votos:
Over Voles:
861
7
9.5%
0.f%
Slalo RopraÊentat¡ve, D¡st 12
6 016
(D) YAMASHITA. Kt/IE T
lR) POHLE. Richard H.
6,639 68,070
1,950 20.0%
Blank Vot€s:
Over Votes:
1,174 12.0o/o
3 0.0%
Slate Reprêsontalive, Disl 14
5 of 5
(D) KAWAKAT,i1, Derêk S.K.
{RI HOOMANAWANUI, Joñathan K,
5,617 69.4%
1,73â 21.40h
Blank Votes:
ôver Vôlês:
738 4.1%
6 0 1ol"
Stalo Representative, D¡st 15
5 of 5
(O) TOKIOKA, Jam6s Kunane 5,367 67.3%
/RYônFR StÊvê 1,892 23.7'/o
Blank Vol€s:
Over Votesl
717 9.07o
1 O.0'/o
Stato Represental¡ve, D¡st 16
6 of 6
(D) MORIKAWA, Daynotle (Dee) 5.320 66,8%
lRl FRANKS Mclôr¡â lvickìel 1,812 22.1vo
Blsnk Vol€s;
Over Votos:
835 10.5%
2 0.0"h
Slale. Represenlal¡va, D¡sl 17
4 ol4
(R) WARD, Gone
lDl STLJMP. Chris
7,535 71.6Yo
2,555 24.3o/o
Blank Votss:
Ovê¡ Votss:
432 4.1o/o
6 0.1%
Statê Representat¡ve, Dist 18
4 ol4
(D) HASHEM, Mark Jun
lRl HALVORSEN. Susan Kehaulan¡
6,888 62.0%
3,474 31.3%
Blank VoleÊl
Over Votes:
739
4
6,'I%
0.0%
Stata Represenlal¡vo, D¡s¡ 19
5 of 5
(O) KOBAYASHI, Berlrand (Bort)
(R) MATHIEU, V¡clor¡s Elìzâb€lh
¡l I HIGA Añlhôñv
5,466 61.67o
1,925 21.70/.
763 8.6%
Blank Votesì
Ovêr Volss:
7t3
8
8.070
0.1%
(t) - L¡BÊRIARIAN (D . INDEPENDËNT (R) . REPUBLICAN (G) - 6REEN (N) - NONPARTISAN (D) = DEMOCRATIC

40. cENERAL ELÊCflON 2014 - Stat€ of Hewaii - slelêwidê
November 4, 2014
SUI4MARY REPORT
..FINAL SU¡/MARY REPORT'
Page 2
Prìntod on; 1 1/18/2014 al 05:1'l:'l9 pm
Slata Raprèsentalive, Dist 20
4 o¡4
(D) SAY. Calv¡n K.Y
(c) BONK, Keiko
lRì ALLEN .hrliâ Ê
4,624 52,60h
2.047 23.3óh
1,795 20.4o/o
Elank Volas:
Ovêr Volss:
322 3.7"/.
3 0.00/0
State Representalivs, D¡sl 21
4 ôf 4
(D) NISHIMOTO, Scott Y.
lR) MANUTAI. Lârìo Kuulei Lånqi
4,129 74.Ooh
1.1a5 21.2o/o
Bl€nk Vol€s:
Over Votes:
262 4.7'/o
0,0%
State Represenlat¡va, Díst 22
3 of 3
(O) BROWER, Tom
(R) GRACÊ. Janot M.
2.626 54,5%
1,929 40.0%
Blank Vot€s:
Ovêr Volesl
265
2
5.5%
0.oo/.
Stale Represenlalive, Disl 24
4 ol4
(D) BELATTI, oel¡a Au
IR) AMSTERDAM. C, KaU¡ Jochanan
4,465 64.'tvo
1,784 25.6Vo
Blânk VotêÊl
Over Votes:
716 10.30/o
2 0,OYo
Slale Reprosonlaliva, Dist 25
5 of 5
(o) LUKE, Sylv¡a
(R) LAM. Ronald Y.K.
5,215 65.57o
2,328 29.20/o
Blank Votes;
Ov€r Votos:
423
I
5.3%
O.Oo/¡
Stale Ropresontative, D¡st 26
7 oî7
(D) SAlKl, Scolt K. 3.858 64.5%
IR} MARSHALL. ETic B. 1.768 29.6%
Blank Voles:
Over Volesl
354
3
5.9õh
O.1o/o
State Roprcsenlative, D¡st 27
5 of 5
(D) OHNO, Takashi
lRl FOmER. Max R
4,746 62.4Yo
2,654 34.9%
Blsnk Volos:
Over Votes:
208 2.70/o
0.10/o
Slala Ropresantat¡ve, Dist 28
4 otA
(D) MIZUNO, John M. 3,'197 65.21/o
tRì KMFU CÐrol€ Keuhlwãi 1,54O 31.4'/o
Blank Vole6l
Ovor Vol€s:
160
5
3.30/o
O.1o/o
Slata Rapresental¡va, Dist 31
5 of 5
(R) JOHANSON, Asron L¡ng
(D) SHARSH, Lo¡
3,698 68.00/o
1,452 26.7%
Blank Vote6:
Ovor Voles:
289
2
5.3o/o
0.00/o
State Represenlal¡ve, Dlst 32
3 of 3
(D) ICHIYAMA, L¡nda Ê. 4,724 64.9%
lR) TAGAVILLA, lrârcia Ann R. 2,340 32.2Vô
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Vot€sl
211 2.Soh
2 0,0%
Slale Reprêsênlalive, Disl 33
6 of 6
(D) KONG, Sam
(Rl HEISHAM. Robert C,. Sr
6,527 65.8%
2,347 23,70Á
Blank Volesl
Ov€r Vol€B:
1,032 10.470
B 0.10,6
Stale Represenlat¡ve, D¡sl 34
3 of 3
(D) TAKAYAI,IA, Gress 5,473 58.3%
lRl AGUSTIN .iâ¿i 3.569 38,0%
Blank Votes:
Over Votes;
342
4
3.60¿
0.0ólo
Sla¿a Roprosenlál¡vo, Сsl 35
6 of6
(D) TAKUi¡I, Roy M.
lRì POTI. LúAnn M
3.57E 00,9%
2,023 34.40k
Blank Votesl
Over Votes:
269 4.6o/o
4 0,10h
S|ate Rapresental¡vo, D¡st 36
3 of 3
(R) FUKU¡¡OTO CHANG, Beth 5,880 64.5%
lDì I FF Merilvn I 3,034 33.3%
Blank Votesl
Over Voles:
195 2.1o/o
5 O.1o/o
State Represenlat¡ve, Disl 37
4 ol4
(D) YAMANE, Ryan l. 1,264 72.4%
lRl SVRCINA. Emll 2,294 22.9Yo
8lânk Volês:
Over Vot€s:
474 4.7o/.
2 O.o,to
Slâle Raprsssnfålivo, O¡sl 40
4 ô14
(R) MCDERMOTT, Bob
(D) MARÍINÊ2. Ross
3,'t6t 60.0%
1,915 38.4%
Elank Votô8:
ôvêr Volês:
184 3.âo/o
7 0.1%
Slalê RepreEenlatlve, Dßl 41
4 ol4
(Þ) LoPRESTI, Mailhew
(R) JEREMIAH, Bryân E.
ll ì BFRG Tôñ
2,983 4l,4Yo
2,17a 34 .6o/o
956 '15.2%
Blank Votes:
Over Voles:
168 2.7Vo
0.1%
Slale Representat¡ve, Dis( 42
3 of 3
(D) HAR, Shâron E. 5,134 69.1%
2,073 2?.90h
Slank Vot€s:
OverVofos:
,1
3.00/o
0.0olo
Slate Representat¡ve, Dísl 43
5 of 5
(R) TUPoLA, Andriâ P 2,829 5ti.1qlo
IDì AWANA. Kârêñ Lêinâni 2,096 41.60/ô
Blank Votes:
OvBrVoles:
11'l 2.2o/o
3 0.1%
State Rapresentat¡ve, D¡st 44
2 of 2
(D) JORDAN, JO
(c) GATES, C€dr¡c A6uÊgâ
lll FRENZEL. Allen IAL)
2,703 58.0%
1,025 22.00Â
722 15.5o/o
Blenk Vôlês:
Over Vot6s:
20ô
4
4.40/o
0.10Á
Stafê Represenfaf¡ve, Dßl 45
5 of 5
(R) CHEAPE MATSUI¡¡IOTO, Lauren
/Dl MAGAôAY Micheel Yâdso
3,070 70.8%
1,1'16 27.1%
Blsnk Voles:
Over Votês:
s1
1
2,10/o
0.00/o
State Represenlallve, Dlst 47
4 o¡4
(R) POUHA, Fek¡
(Dì FONOIMOANA. Kont K.
2.999 40.1%
2,816 46.1Vo
Blank Vot6s:
Over VoteÊl
200 4.70/o
6 0.1%
Slalo Reprøsentat¡ve, Dist 48
6 of 6
(D) KEOHOKALOLE, Jarell K.
(R) KUKAHIKO, Eldean L.
(L) TAKAYAMA, Kaim€nu
lñ) NAIPO Kenã
5,444 55,7o/o
3,677 37.60/o
199 2.00/o
103 1.1ô
Blank Votos:
Ovêr Vot€8:
346 3.5%
I 0.lo¿
Slale Rapresanlat¡ve, Dist 50
4 ol4
(R) THI€LEN, Cynlh¡a 6,346 74.2o/o
lDl BRôMAN Hôllv A 1.719 20.1%
Blank Vole6:
Ovêr VoteÊ:
483 5.6010
3 0.0%
State Reprssentat¡ve, Dist 51
6 olô
(D) LEE, Chr¡s
{R} HlKlDA. WâvnÊ T.
5,E84 64.2%
3,071 33.5%
Bl€nk Voles:
Over VoteEi
203 2.2o/o
0 0.0%
At-Large Truslee
247 01247
Number To Vote For: 3
WAIHEE, John D.
AKANA, Rowena M.N.
AHU lSA, Lei (Le¡na'ala)
TRASK, Mililan¡ B.
AKINA, Kêll'l
McINERNY. HaNev
134,474 12.5%
123,891 11.20Ã
113,202 10.20/0
102.ô33 C.30
92,261 8.3Vo
74,s71 6.8%
Blank Vole6:
Ov€r Volês:
462,938
182
41.7%
0,0%
Maui Resident Trusteo
247 oÍ247
LINDSEY, Carmen Hulu
WFñDT M,harl¡ni
127,288 U.40k
87,248 23.6To
Blsnk Voles:
Over Voto6:
155,005 41.9%
101 0.00/o
Councilmembêr, Dist 5
3 of 3
PALEKA, Oan¡Bl K., Jr.
EDWARDS HUNT. Tifanv
2,319 50.20/.
2,045 44.2%
Blenk Vole6:
Over Volês:
259 5.6%
1 0.0%
Counc¡lnêmbar, D¡sl9
3 of 3
WILLE, Margar€t 3,'t92 56.7%
GôN7AI FS RnnÂld S 2,171 38.60/0
Blêñk Votêe:
OverVotes:
266 4.7%
1 0.0%
Mayor, Counly of Maui
34 of34
ARAKAWA, Alan M.
PALllN. lamârâ lTâm)
25,435 55.3%
18.1ô2 39.5%
Blenk Vol6s:
Over Volosl
2,372
'14
5.20/o
o.00/6
(L) . LIBERÍARIAN (I) . INDÊPÊNDENT (R) - REPUBLICAN (G) - GREEN (N). NONPARTISAN (D) = DE[,IOCRATIC

41. GENERAL ELECIION 2014 - Stalê ôf Hawai¡ - Statewide
November 4, 2014
SUMMARY REPORI
..FINAL SUMMARY RÊPORT"
Pagê 3
Print€d onr 1 1,/18,/2014 ât 05:11:10 pm
Counc¡lmamber (Easl Maui)
34 of 34
CARROLL, Bob 27 ,O7 1 58 ,90h
NIKHILANANDA N¡ck 1 1,730 25.5ólo
Blank Voles:
OvorVoles:
7,162
20
1 5.60lo
0.0%
Counc¡lmembor (West Maui)
34 ol 34
cocHRqN, Elre
BUÊNCONSEJO. Ka'ala
22,124 48.IYo
18,792 40.9o/o
Blank Votes;
Ov€r Votss:
5,047 11.Oo/ô
20 0.00/6
Qou n ci I me nb ê t (Wê ¡l u ku -Wa i ho e -Wâ ¡ ka p u )
34 of 34
VICTORINO. Michael (M¡ke) 25.289 55.0%
RIACKBIIRN .lôsêôhG ll 12,606 27.40/o
Blank Votes:
Ovor VoteE;
8.060 f7.5oi6
28 0.1ô/¡
Counc¡hnëmbor (Kaltulu¡)
34 of 34
GUZMAN. Don S. 23.898 51.9o/o
PôNTAN|| I A .lôê 15,719 34.2o/o
Blank Votes:
over Votês:
6,379 13.9%
29 o.1o/ò
Cou nc¡lmotnbar (Soul h Maui)
34 of 34
COUCH. Don
FITZPATRICK. John N4.
24,590 54.3%
13.942 30.3%
Blank Voles:
Ovor Votos:
7.029
22
1 5.3%
0.0%
Cou n c ihne m be r ( M akaw ao- H a ¡ku- P ai a)
34 of34
WHITE. Mike 23,042 50.1'/o
MÕl INA Mike J 16,398 35.70lo
BIsnk Votesl
Ovgr Voles:
6,504 14.10/o
3S O.10/õ
Cou n c ¡hnetnbe r ( U pco u n lry )
34 of34
BAISA, Gladys Coelho
8RL,CH. Courtnev A.
26,111 56.4%
12,A19 27.g%
Blank VotoÊ:
Ov6r Votesl
7,O25 15.30/.
22 0.0%
Aouncilmomber (Lanai)
34 ol34
HÔKAMA. RiK¡ 28,546 62.10/.
Blank Votes:
Over Votes:
17,437 3't.9û/o
0 0.0%
Councilmember (Moloka¡)
34 of34
CRIVELLÔ Slâcv H€lm 28,250 61.41"
Blank VotBs:
Ovgr Votes;
17.733 38,6%
0 000¿
Mayor, Counly oÍ Kaua¡
16 of 16
CARVALHO, Bernârd P., Jr 14,688 61.170
BARCA Dusllñ 8.195 34.1%
Blank Vot€s:
Ovêr VotÊÊ:
1,.158
2
4.8%
0.0%
Caunc¡lmember
Numbêr To Votê For: 7
16 ol 16
RAPOZO, ivlsl
KAGAWA, Ro66 K.
KANESHIRO, Arryl
KUALll. K¡puKai L.P.
YUKIMIIRA. JoAnn A.
cHoCK, Mason K,, Sr.
HOOSÊR, Gary L.
FURFARO, Jay
BRUN, Arthur
PERRY, Darryl D.
COWDEN, Fsllcla
BYNUM. T¡m
DoCOSTA, Billy
IARANIÔ Tiânâ K
13,147
12,387
'11,971
9,985
8,041
8,730
6,257
8.165
8,120
8,076
1,917
7,602
7,243
5.665
7.8o/o
7.4'/o
7.1o/o
5.9olo
5,3%
5.2olo
4.9o/o
4.9!o
4.A%
4.8%
4.7%
4.5o/o
4.30h
3.41ø
glank Vot€s:
Ov€r Vol6si
42,046 25.0Yø
7 0.09/.
CouncilmembeL Dist lV
17 0t 1-l
OZAWA, Trevor
WAÌÉRS. fommv
16,374 44.O%
16,s33 43.90¿
Blânk Votês:
Ov6r Vol6s:
4,455 12.00h
1B 0.00,6
Counc¡lmembeL D¡st Vl
21 ol21
FUKUNAGA, Carol
AIONA. Sam
1t,342 54,tVo
1 f,549 36.30/0
Blqnk Votes:
OverVolos:
2,844 8.9%
16 o.1%
coN AMEND: Relal¡ng to D¡sclosuro ol
Jud¡c¡âl Nom¡nees 247 01247
YES
303,022 82.0%
NO
41,315 11 .2%
Blank Votes:
Ov6r Voles;
25,189
110
6.80/ô
0.0%
CON AMEND: R'lating lo Agricultural
Enterpr¡sos 247 01247
YES
NO
185,576 s0.2%
152.247 41.20/r
Blank Volos:
Over Votes;
31,561 8.50/6
258 O.1o/o
QQN AMEND: R6/âlng lo Slale Jus¿¡ces
and Judges 247 01247
YES
41,428 22.0.h
NO
265,012 72.Ao/o
Blank Votesi
Ov€r Vol€s:
18,806 5.1%
306 0.10k
CON AMEND: R1lating Io Early Childhood
Educalion 247 01247
YES 160,271 43.40/0
NO 192,285 52.Oo/þ
Blank Vot6si
Õve¡Vôlês:
16.814
268
4.5o/o
o.'tvo
CON AMEND: Relal¡ng to Dams and
Resorvoirs 247 o1247
Y€S
ñô
234.063 63.3ólo
106,403 2E.E%
Blank Votes:
Ov€r Voles:
28,999
177
7.80/o
0.0%
HAWAI'L Term of Appo¡ntmanl for the
Counly Clork 43 of 43
Y€S
34,973 69.70/o
NO
11,148 22.2ê/ú
Blank Votesl
Over Vole6:
4,025
12
E.0o/o
0.oolo
MAUI: Council: Affordable Housing Fund
34 of34
YES
NO
30,532 69.4%
1 1 ,507 25.Oo/a
Blank Votês;
Ovêr Votesl
3.915 8.50/.
29 0.10/o
MAUI: counc¡l: Penall¡øs
34 ol 34
YES
NO
17,689 38.5%
21,355 46.4y0
Blank Vote6l
ôverVot€s:
6,901 15.0%
38 0.1./o
M AU I : Vole r hit¡ative: Ge nol¡cally
Eng¡neered Organ¡sms 34 of34
YES
NO
23,042 50.2%
22,005 47,90/0
Blank Votes:
Over Votos:
872
24
1.9o/o
0.1.Â
I<AUAI: Rèlathtg lo lhe Ðepa¡lment ol
P6rsonn6/ Sâruicos 16 of16
YES 13,825 57,50/o
NO 6,0s8 25.t%
Blsnk Voles:
OverVotes:
4,174 17¡%
6 0.00/0
KAUA¡: Ralating to Chañer Amendmenl
'16 ôf 16
YES
NO
17,691 73.670
2,775 11.'Vo
Blenk Votêe:
Over Volesl
3.569 14.8%
I 00%
KAUAI: Relal¡ns to Racall Ballols
16 of16
YES
NO
17,747 73.80/o
2.156 9.0%
Elank Volos:
Over Vot€61
4,136 17,20/o
4 O.OYo
REGISTRATION AND TURNOUT
GENERAL
TOTAL REGISTRATION
TOTAL TURNOUT
PRECINCT TURNOUT
ABSÊNTEE TI.JRNOUT
706,890
365,642 52.30/0
180,535 25.5olo
'189,107 26.8%
OVERSEAS BALLOTS CAST
OVERSEAS TURNOUT
overseas 1
Overseas 2
61 0.0%
{L) - LIBERTARIAN (I) . INDEPENDENT (R). REPUBLICAN (G). GREEN (N) - NONPARTSAN (o) = DE[4OCRAllC

42. =(ú
o
0)
Fco
tt)
_o
0) (t)
(õ
L
0) oc
:l
r r o O r c) O () cI O O O r o O o O
o(t)
(ú
o
o
O O O O o o O C) C) O O o O c! o C O
l<
(ú
=c) oPcq)
Ø
-o
c)
o)
(U
Looç
:
O O r C) O o r O () O O o o C) r r O
o(t)
(d
L
C)
o
O r O O o O O O o o o C) O c) O
()
c 'õ
c)
L
fL
c)
o)
(ú
Lo
Eg
:f
co c) O () () c! CJ |f, cl O cf) O cl cl,) C) sl-
O
'õ
oL
fL
o
ll()
o
fL
0)
o)
(g
Lo
o
o O cl.) o () o o O o r O O O O cl o
r
OI
l-r
c
OI
l-r
c)
OI
l-r
$oI
t-r
roIær
c! oIær
CÐOI
co
r
<.
OI
co
r
r
OI
o)
-
CI
OI
o)
r
cf)
OI
o)
r
$O¡
O) r
r()
IO
nt
roI
cl
OI
cv
C
(I
OI
c{
c
cI
OI
(o
C¡
oc
o
0)
b+>
.9õ
q,Ø.i=
i5õ
õ8
o= cDo
oE>(J
Eõ
:)f
1J=
(EË
Uo,-O
cD
cl
o
o
Øc
.-o
(dfi
f=rõ
bb
"õeF8
Øo

43. SCOTT T. NAGO
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ELECTIONS
802 LEHUAAVENUE
PÊAFL CITY, HAWAII 96782
ww, hâwaii. gov/€lgctions
November 20,2014
James Kawashima, Esq.
745 ForI Street, Suite 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Kawashima:
Enclosed is an updated version of the overages and underages for the
districtiprecincts associated with your contest. The overage of two absentee mail
ballots in DistrictiPrecinct 22-02 has been reduced to zero ballots. This is the
result of two federal write-in absentee ballots that were counted but were not
initially recorded as received.
Very truly yours,
AARON H. SCHULANER
General Counsel
AHS:AHS:as
oE-14-266
Enclosure
Tommy Waters
Trevor Azawa
Bernice Mau, Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu
E)(}lIBIT d
cc

44. =(d
0)
0)
P
e)
(t)
-o
o) (t)
(ú
0)
1ã c
:f
c) o r c) o o cl o o o r o O O o
o
CT)
(d
L
0)
o
O O o o O O O O O o O o O CJ o O o
l<
õ3
0)
#a) c
0)
Ø
.o
o
o)
(û
-0tf)
c l
O () o o O o O O O o O O r o
o(f)
(ü
c)
o
o o O o o O O O o O C) O o C)
C) c 'õ
c) L
tu
o(f)
(d
c)
rõc
)
cr) cÐ o () O c cI tr) c! O c) c) CN cr) o $
()
'tõr
oL
fL
Po
l¿oo
fL
o(:t)
(ú
oo
O C) cf) O O O () O o O o O O N O
r
OI
It*
r
CN OIN
a) oI
¡-
r
t'
c)
I f-o
I@
CI
OI
co
CÐOIæ
v()
I €r
C)
I
O)
r
c! oI
o)
cf)
OI
OJ
rt
c)
I
o)
OIO
c{
oI
cl
O¡
c{
c{
CT OI
C{
c!
o¡ oI
(o
CN
þ.oc
C' oL
+> {(r, tx
at u) i5 i5
.cl !¡¿- coD5o go
o)>
Eõ 3=
!t=
FE
raD)Ïo (t)
GI
l-o
o
Øc
'.õ-oç
Bõ fr
bb
o9ì
fq iE (no

45. Report of the
Election Oversight Committee
on the Audit of the
1998 General Election
March 31, 1999
Published by:
The Auditor
State of Hawaii
EX}IIBIT I+

46. Election Ovetsight Committee Membors
M¡rlon Higa, Ghairperaon
State Auditor. State of Hawaii
Ms, Higa was appointed as State Auditor by the 1992 State Legielature for
an eight-yaar term. The Auditor is a constitutiona[ position with broad
pow€rs. Shs leads a staff of 30 whose mission ís to aasure the
accountability of governmenl agencies for thsir policies, prograrne. and
expenditurae of public funds. The offico conducts a large variety of audits
and studie¡ al ths requo$t of the Legislaturo and at its own initiativø. The
office contracts w'tth csrtified public accounting lirms for solectsd financial
audits and conducts all audite under generally accepted government auditing
standards. Tha oflice ropoils ite findings and recomm¿ndations to the
gov€rnor and the Legislature to gíve policy makers timely, accurate, and
objective information for docision making,
Panelope Bonsåll
Director. Olfico of Election Administration
U.S. Fedoral Êlection Commission.
Tha Office ol Election Administration is responsible for the lull realnr ol
olootion activities including acc€ss to the ballot, votðr registration and
educat¡on, ballot tabulation, computer security, canvassing. recounts, and
legislation. As direstor, Ms, Boneall promotes effective election practices
throughout the couhlry through rese¿rch, educational programc. and advice
to stato and local administrators. Sho managed the multi-year national
program to davelop standards to improve ths eccuracy, integrity, and
reliability of computer-based voting syst€rns. Sha guided national
implementation of the National Voter Ragistration Act ol 1993 and
promulgated regulations ånd stâtê reporting requirements. Before joining tho
Fedoral Efeetioo Commission, she waa tho Supervisor of Elactions for
Alaske's South-csntral Region and Director of Planning and Rosaarch for the
Alaeka court system, She has also worked as an election adminietration
consultant in 1 5 states and as tha Eaet Coast managef of an election
sy6tom6 vondor. Ms. Bonsall holds undergraduate and graduate degrees
f rom Gøorge Washingtoo Univorsity.
Mr. R. Doug Lewir
Director, The Election Centsr
Since 1994, Mr. Lewis has directedthe Election Csntsr, a national nonprofit
organìzation thât supports ths elections and voter ragistration professions.
Ths Centar ie tho principal organization ln America lor training and
continuing education of voter registration and slection officials, Under his
direction. lhe Center has est¿blished the Profeesìonal Education Program and
the first Code of Eìhics for administrators. He manages th€ C6ntor'e
resealch and consulting services on voter registration, regulations,
legislatiorr, and slsctions administration aa wsll as conferancas and
workshops to improva methods of oparation and officiancy of elections. Ho
dirocts the Center's Voting Systems Program for the National Associatlon of
State Election Dirsctors that qualifies voting systems hardware and software,
through thair volunta¡y testing by nationally recognized indspendant testing
laboratorios. as meøting or axceeding the faderal Voting Systems Standards,
Mr. Lewis hae also had ¿xteneive oxperietrce in the political arena. He has
managed etate campaigns for Congross, U.S. Senato, govarnor, and U.S.
prasidency; ssrved as oxecutive directo¡ of a political party in two different
states; and was responsible ao an elaction official for two etatewida
primaríes, ln addition, he has had moré t hân 1 5 years of oxporience ae a
manãgêmgnt consultant.

47. Th¡ Audltor State ol H¡waíi
Executive Summary
Report of the Electíon Oversíght Commíttee
March 1999
Aûer both the 1998 primary and genøal elections, candidaüEs raised questions
about irregularities in voting and discrepancies in the resuks. A court-ordered
rnanualvotecountrwealedthatsevenprecinctscanningmachineshadmalfi¡nctioned.
The resulting controversy, combined with the change to a new electronic voting
syster4 led to srupiciurs of fraud or incompetence, In order to restore vot€r
conñdence, thelegislatr:rein SenateConrurentResolutionNo.3l, S,D. I ordEred
the chiefeleçtion ofücer to conduct a complete audit oftlre 1998 genetal election
results. Tlrevendo¡ ofthe electrorrie voting sysûem, Electronic Systøns & Softwa¡e
@SeS) agreed to underwrite the oost of the audit. To cnhancs lhe credibility of
the audit, the Legislatu¡e established an Election Oversþht Committe¿ composed
of a rcpresenfative of the Federal Election Commissio4 a representative of the
Houston-based Election Center, and the State Auditor. This report from the
Election Oversight Cfinüúttee preseirts its findings and recommendations on the
objectivity and accuracy ofthe audit andthe electronic vote counfing process.
Findings The Committeefoundthattheauclitdemonstratedthattheresults ofthe 1998 general
elections were accuiate and trusq¡,orthy. The audit was conducted professionally
and with integrity in accordance with ostablished procedures. These procedutes
conform with frrndamentat princþles of vote counting in a dcmocracy. Thc
Committee also found thæ improvements can be rnade in state €lection law and to
strengthenthe Office of Blections.
The audit indicatesthat disorepancies inthe 1998 goneral election were confinedto
swen malfunctioning precinct sçanners. The overall re.rults wçre accurate and the
audit reveals no change in the ouücome of any race. The I 998 general electim has
now been counted at least three times: in Novsmber 1998, in the 1999 audit using
high speed inftared central counters and fhen using high speed visible ligtrt central
counters. Finalty, manual audits were done in selected races and precincts. The
results from all the counts were very similar, varying from each ofher, forthe most
pârt, by less than I percent. 'rlYe
believe the ES&S has satisfied its obligation to the
State to resolve probloms raised by its equipment during the 1998 elecúons.
The audit was conducted with integrity. Priorûotle audif tlre Office of Elections
issued a manual of procedures that would be iruplemorted for the audit. Thesc
procedures were adaptations ofones used duringthe 1998 general eleotion, The
manual identifiedteamsthat would be responsible for various aspects of.the audit,
theirrole andresponsibilities, andtheptocsdures theyhadtofollow. Wefoundthat
the tearns operated as instructed by the manual. Open participation, witnessing of
the process, and moniûoring rvere maintained th'roughout by a tearrr of oñcial
)

48. Th! Audltor Stata of Hawail
obsewers. The offioial obssrvers arç reprcsentatives of politioal parties and
organizations liketho League ofWomenVoters and the rnedia. Many oftho official
observors a¡e enpericnced in elections and in computer operations . TheAssociation
of Clerks and Ele¿tion Office¡s of tlawaii made up of county clorks and registars
from each ofthe counties also monitored closely all operations. Watchers and other
interested individuals were allowed to view the operations from behind a rail.
To improve the State's electoral process, we believe that the Legislature should
establishataskforce toconductacomprehensive studyofthe State's electionlaws.
Manyarepredicatedonapunchcardsystemthatisnolongerviable. Newprovisions
a¡e also needed in a¡eas relating to recounts and votirrg systems. ln addition, nerv
rules are neetled to implerxrem the lan, properly. A reviwv of state election laws
should include the question of tlre placement of the chief election officer and tlre
Office ofElections. Currørtly, no one maintains oversightof or is accourt¿ble for
thechiefelectionofficer, AnElectionAppointnentPanelhasonlythopowertohire
and fire the chief election officcr. We believe that an elected official should appoint
theohiefeleotionofficor. lnmostotlrerstatçs,thisisthesecreüaryofstatewhohas
functions simila¡ to those of Ha$raii's lieutenant govemor. To maintain the
continuity ofthe Office of Elections, certain technical positions in the office should
be made civil service positions.
To further strengt}eir the Office of Elections, we believe that the State's ele,ction
officers should be given opportunities for continuing professÍonal education.
Worlahops, seminars, and cont¿ct with fsllow election administraúors on the
mainland would do much to holp tlrem become more familiar with technological
adrrances, fcderal rcquirements, system requirements, and potential problems posed
byvarious types of voting eqnipnrent.
Recommendations 'We
recommend that the Legislature:
l. Est¿blish aaskforceto conduct a comprehensive studyoftho St¿te's election
laws. Tlre t¿sk force should be composed of the chairs of Senate and House
Corn¡nittees onlhe Judiciary, the chiefeiection officer, rtpresentatives fromthe
Association of Clorks and Election Ofñcers of Havvaü, the Blection Advisory
Committee, the political parties, aûd other organizations active in tlre electoral
process liketle L,eagrre of WomenVoters.
2. Thelegislature should ¿lsoconsiderwaystopromoteproÈssional deveþment
oflhe State's election staff.
Marion M. Hlga
State Aud¡tor
Stats of Hawail
Office of the Auditor
465 South King Street, Room 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(8081 587-0800
FAX {808} 587-0830

49. Report of the
Election Oversight Cornmittee
Published by
THE AUDITOR
STATE OF HAWAII

50. STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
465 S. King Street, Room 500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2917
Eleotion Oversight Committee
Offrce of Eloction
Election Commission
R. Lewis,
MARION M. HIGA
Slate Audltor
(808) 587-0800
FAX: (808)587.0830
Ma¡oh 31, 1999
The Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
President ofthe Senate
State Capitol, Room 003
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
The Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol, Room 431
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:
We are pleased to transmit to you our report on the audit of the November 1998 general election
as requested in Senate Concwrent Resolution No, 31, S.D. l.
We appreciate having been given the opportunity to serve the State in resolving the important
question ofthe integrity of the State's electoral process.
Sincerely,
ù.,2,*.h, hrl/r*
Marion M. Higa, State Alditor
The Election Center

51. Foreword
This extraordinary assignment afforded us the opporhrnity not only to
particþate in what we hope will be a rare and one-time e¡penence, but
also an opporhmþ to interact r+'ith a number of dedicated citizens and
ofiñcials. We wishto elpress our appreciation forthe cooperation
extcnded to us by the chief elestron otficer andhis staffatthe Offrce of
Elections, the Official Observers, theva¡ious county election offrcials,
Eleotion Systems and Soffnr¿re rqrresentatives, and the many otlrer
individuals who gave us their pøspectives on the State's electoral process.
'We
would also like to acknow'ledge the contribution of Ms. Diana M.
Chang, retired Deputy Statc Audiør, who assisted us in research,
analysis, andreport writing. We couldnothave carried outtlús
assignment withouther skills and, and more importantlg her total
commiûnsrt to our responsibilities under Senate Concu¡rent
ResolutionNo. 31, Sen¿te Þaft l.
The Election Oversight Committec

52. Table of Gontents
Report of the Election Oversight Cornmittee
Bacþorurd
Frndings and Recommendation¡¡ ..............
I
8
Summary
Recommelrdations.......
22
23
Manual,{udit of the 1998 General Election Results ......6
Steps Taken By tlo Electiør Oversight Cornmiüee ........9
GerreraUotlA Election, Statewide Summary Report.... ll
Comparison of General Election RÊ,sults with Manual
Audit Results l3
Exhibits
Exhibit I
Exûibit2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Examples of Ballot Markings
List of Officiat Observers
t5
t7
vil

53. Report of the Election Oversight Committee
March 1999
In 1998, the State's Election Office implurrented a new electronic voting
system for the prfunary and general elections. Afte¡ both the primary and
general elections, candidates raised concerns about voting irregularities
and discrepancios, These charges, combined with the change to a new
voting systan and high public interest in closely contested racÊs, øeated
considerable colrttoærsy and suspicions of fraud or incompetênce. Â
manual vote count ordered by the State Supreme Court fheir revealed that
seven scanning machines used in the precincts had malfi¡nctioned,
Newspaper polls showed that many voters had lost confidence in the
electoral process.
In orderto restore voter confidence, the Legislatnre, in Surate Concurrent
Resolution No. 31, Senate Draft l, otdered the chief elsction officerto
conduct a complete ard duly supeivised audit of tire 1998 gsneral election
results. Since the deadline for cor$esting the general eleotion had passed"
the attorncy general opined thatthe results of the audit would have no
bearing on fhe previously certified election results. Nwertheless, the
Iægislature hoped that an audit would est¿blish whetler the 1998 general
electionhâd int¿gnty and tnrstworthy results. Election Systems ancl
Sofuxare (ES&S), the vendor ofthe new elect¡onic voting systerr¡ agreed
to undernrite the cost of the audit.
To ensure the objeotivþ ofthe audit and to cnhance ie crcdibility, tfu
Legislature established an Election Oversight Committee comprised of a
reptesentative ofthe Fcderal Election Connnission (FEC), a represeirtative
of the Houstonôased Election Center, a¡d the State Auditor. This report
preselrts the Election Oversiglrt Comnri$ee's assessflrcnt of the audit
conducted by the chief election officer.
The objectives of the Eleotiou Ovorsight Committee were to:
l. Observe, review, assess, and report onthe objectivity and accuracy of
the audit process, and
2. Report findings and recomme¡rdations onthe objectivity and accuracy
ofthe audit process and the elechonic votc counting process.
To give some perspective to our ñndings and recommendations, the
Ëlection Oversiglrt Comrnittce offers some bacþround on relevant Hawaii
election law, voting systems and their operation in lhc 1998 general
election, the conduct of the audit by the chief election officer, and the
basis for the assessrne¡rt by the Committee.
1
Background

54. of thc El.otlon ov¡r¡lght commlttee
State law Article IV, Section 3, ofthe State Constitutionprovides for a chief
election officer who slull supervise statc elcctions, mærimizevoter
registration, and maintain data m voters, elections, apportionment and
districting. Cbapær 11, Flawaii Revised Sî¿tutes (FIRS), sets forth the
State's election process in grealer detâit. ft allows the chief election
officer 1o delegate responsibilþ for sate elections on tåe Neighbor
Islands to the county clerks of the respeøive counties. Other relevant
provisions are contained in Chapter 12, HRS, on Primary Elections,
Chapter 15, [IRS, orrAbsentee Voting, and Chapter 16, HRS, on Voting
Systems.
ïhe Office of Elections
For many years, tlre chief election officer was the lieutenant govemor. [n
1995, the Legislature amended the lawto est¿blish a five-member
Blec,tions Appointment Panel with tfie powerûo appoint a chiof election
of;Ecer for a tsrm of four years. The governor appoints one menrber and
one each from liss submittcd by lhe president oftlre Senate, the speaker
of the Housg me,mbers of the Senate belonging to a party differeut from
that ofthe presidelt urd members of a party different from that of the
speaker. Panel mffù€rs serve aterm offour years and amaximum of
two terms. Tlre panel only has power to select ând remove the chisf
election officer. The Legislature also established an Office of Elections to
provide supportto the chief election offtcer. Borhthe panel and the chief
election of,Ecer axe attached to the Office of tlte Lieuts¡mt Governot for
aùninistrative pulposes.
Precinct oflicials and w¡tchers
The law reçires each preoinct to have aÎ least three precinct officials of
which one is thc chairperson. The chairperson shall be ofthe same
political party as the govemor. The officials are sslect€d from names
submittcd by all qualified political parties no later thzur 60 days prior to
the close of filing for any election. Should the n¿mes submittsd be
insufficient, the chief election offtcer rnay desipate additional precinct
officials. Precinct officials mustundergo a coursç of instruction
conduoted by tho ohiofekrction officer and be certified by an instructor.
Eaoh political party is also ontitled to appoint watchcrs in each precinct
and polling place.
Ballots
PaTtVIII of Chapter I l, HRS, specifies the ccmtents, arrangement of
rla¡nes, ballot formats, ærd the priuting of tle ballots. It details how the
nnmes are to be arranged and the side ofthe ballot on rvhich votcrs are to
desþate their choice of candidates.
2

55. Rrport of lho Electlon ovcrclght Commlltoe
Vote disposition
Statc law provides for how votes are to be counted, and what to do wherr
the¡e are mo¡e or fewer ballots than indicated by the poll books. Precùrct
officials and the chief election officer are responsible for the proper
handling, disposition, and securityofrecords. The results ofthe election
aro csrtified by the chief election officer.
Recount provisions
Sestion 11-172, FIRS, providas that any candidate or qualified political
party or any 30 voters may contpst an election by filing a cornplaint in the
state Supreme Court. The coutest must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on
the sixth day after a prima¡y or no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 20th day
following the general election. Thc ohallenger must firmish evidence of
fraud or vote overages or undorages that could cause a difference in
eleotion results.
VotÍng systems
Chapær 16 FIRS, definestwotypes of voting systems-a paperballot
system aud an electronic voting system. It mandaæs such speciûcs as
requiring officials to record the number ofblank or questionable ballots in
a paper ballot system and to reject votes cast by a voter when the number
of votes exceeds the numbçr of candidates to be elected in an elecbonic
voting system.
Voting systems and
opefat¡ons
To assist election officials with assessingthe performance of iacreasingly
comple4 votingtechnology systffrs, Congress arthorized the FEC to
issuo national standards for computer-based s1'stems. In lanuary 1990,
the FEC approved performance and æsting proceduros forpunchcard,
markseirse (OMR), and direct electronic (DRE) r,oting systems, a plan for
their implementation, and a process for evaluating independent test
autl¡orities to tcst the systems. The standârds set parâmsters for I'oting
systems desþ aud a rang€ for performance. Currmtly, 27 staæs have
udopfnd these FEC Vottng System Standards.t Pdor to purchasing or
leasing systøn hardware or software, thsse states require thc vcting
equipment to have been subject to qualification tests by an independent
testing authorþ. The qualification tests selectively e><amine fhe software
in depth; inspect and evaluatç system documentation; testtlr€ hardrvare by
simulating sûorage, operatioq transportations and maintørance; and
operate the system to test performanc,e undçr normal and abnormal
circumstarices.
The Election Center, locaterl in Houston, Texa^s, is the secret¿riat for the
National Association of State Election Diresüors (NASED) for çaliSing
voting those systems that meet the FEC Voting Sjstem Standards. Íl
3

56. Feport ol thc Eleotion Ovarcight Qornmitlee
Conduct of the audit
managos the qualifications testing and approval of voting equipmert
through nationally recognized independent testing laboratorics. Those
voting systenrs that meet the FEC Voting S)tstem Standards are designated
asNASED qualified.
The voting sysûeÌr¡s lurdwa¡e and soûs,arc used inthe Hawaii 1998
primary and generai olections are NÂSED qualified. TIre State lEased a
systøn from ES&S that counted pre ctnct bal[ots using a Model 100
visible light (VL) scarurer and absentee bøIlots using a Model 550
infrared (IF) central counter. The Model l00s were used in all precincts
statewide; the Model 550s were used at each counting center on the
Neighbor Islands and at the St¿te Capiticl inthe case of tho City and
County ofHonolulu. The results fromthe precinct and absentee ballots
were accumulated by ES&S's eleotionreporting system (ERS) to a¡rive at
summary vote results. Tho Modcl I 00 precinct scarmÊr, the Model 550 IF
cental counter, andthe ERS are alt NASED qualified.
For the audit, ES&S firnished tvvo types of high speed central counting
machines: (I) Model550 central countêrs using infraretl 0F) Iight source
for scaruring and (2) Model 550 central counters using visible light (VL)
liglrt source for scaming. The Model 100 precinø scruüxers rvere not
used.
The Model 550 IF cenftal counters use tlp satne type of light source as
was used to co:uunrt absentee ballots at fhe counting ceuters during the
1998 ge,neral elections. They read ballots marked with carbon based
instruments, such as pencils. They areNASEÐ qualiñed.
The Model 550 VL central counters ars new machires t¡at use the same
light source for scaruring ballots as was used bythe Model 100 preoinct
machines during tho general election. They read ballots marked by a
wider range of marking instruments including pencils, pens, and otlter
markers. ES&S recommendedusingttre Model550 VL csntral counters
for the audit since they would read the prccinct ballots in a manner similar
to thE Model I00s. However, the newer VL central counteis îÍe nat
NASED qualified and were not used during the i998 gencral election.
Prior to the stari ofthe audi! the ohiefelection offrcer decided that the
official audit court would be based on results ftom the Model 550 IF
central counters for tluee leasorui: (l) they wete used during the
November 1998 general elecúo¡rs for counting absentee ballots, (2)
SCR 31, S,D. 1 speciñcally requested ttrat the audit begin $,ilh central
count€rs using infrared ligbt, and (3) the Model 550 IF is NÀSED
qualified. Ho$'erer, the chief election offtcer gave ES &S the option of
also running all ballots on the Model 550 VL central counlers.
4

57. Raport ol thô Elâollon Ovsrelghl Commiltc.
Mnnual nudits
As a fu¡thff clreck on the accuracy of the general election results, rnanual
audits were o¡dered. The chief election officer decide4 and the Blection
Oversiglt Committee cørcurred, that manual audits qtould be performed
on:
Six precincts that had previously been identified as having had
very close races-the vote spread betvtreenthe winning candidate
and losing candiclate had been I percant or less.
a
Any contests where tlÉ vari¿mce was I percent or greâter betweur
votes ca,st for candidates in the November 1998 general election
and votes tallied by the IF central counters.
Requests for audits from county clerks or official observers.
Requests for audi* fromthç Election Oversight Committee.
a
Exhibit I shows the complete list of rnanual audits that was selected by
the Election Oversþht Committee, the Office of Electiorx, and the
chairman of the ofiÉcial observ'ers.
Alagether a total of 16 contests and 72 precincts were manually audited.
Three rsndoñi batches ofabsontee ballots from the City and County of
Honolulu were also manually audited. ln addition, because coucerns had
been expressed fhat the numbor ofblank votes forúre governor's race was
abnormally low, tåe Eleotion Oversight Committee requested that a
sample of four Maui precincts be audited for btank votes in the governor's
race. This rvas done by running the blank votes through the VL central
counter and veriSing the results.
To monitor the audit, the Legislahue sought to fashion a committee with
recognized credibility. National expertrse was provided by representatives
fromtlre FEC and Tlre Election Center. Both Parelope Bonsall oftüc
FEC's Office of Election Adrninisl¡ation and R. Doug Lewis of fte
Elçction CEnter are knowledgeable about prevailing clection practices and
procedures nationwide. Local expertiss r1'¿ls furnished by MarionHiga,
ttre State Auditor. To lead its oversight effort, the members ofthe
commitüee sele¿ted Ms. Higa as its chairperson.
Penelope Bonsall has been the Director of the federal Office of Election
Â.&ninistration for alnrost 20 years. [orking with election ofñcials,
private vendors, and public interest groups, she managed the national
progr4mto develop standards to improve the accuracy, integrity, and
reliability of computor-based voting s)'stems. Her office servcs as a
The Electîon Avercight
Committeø
5

58. ol th. Êl€cr¡on Ovrrelght Commlttes
Exhlblt 1
Manual Audit of 1998 General Elections Results
Source: Office of ElectÍone, March 14. 1999.
'Total of 72 precincts manually audíted.
I rThasc contastc do not includs absentce re¡ults lo¡ the disrriot/precincts lístsd'
'*.The ballotg from these precinct¡ wero procesaad through the visible light cenrral counlor to verify lho blank votas ln thc
Govef nor/Lt. Govsrnor Gonlest.
6
Conteet/Candidstes DIstr¡ctrPrsc¡ncte+ Reason/Salected Bv
state Rep, Dlstr¡ct 27
Ahu lsa / Chino
27: 1-7 Selected by Election Oversight Committee and OÍfice of
Elections - contost decided bv lo/¡ or less dílference.
Kauai Councllmombor
Raoozo / Swain
1?0û to 14-10 Selected by Election Oversight Committso and Office of
Elections - conte.st decided bv 1% or less difference,
State Senate Dlstrlct 23
Nakata / Pickard
45-06; 46: 1-4; 47: 1-3t
48-01
Selected by El€ction Oversíght Committee and Oflice of
Elections - contest decided by I % or less difference.
State Rep. District 44
Auwae / Jones
44: 1-3 Selected by Election Oversight Committes and Office of
Elections - contest decided bv 1o/o or less difference.
State Rep. Dlstrlot 6
Rath / Tarnas
06: 1-7 Selected by Election Oversight Committee and Office ot
Elections - contest decided bv 1oá or less difference.
lrfad¡fi¡on lnlt¡at¡ve.
County of Hawaii
Yes Votes / No Votes
01-02; 01-05; 02-03; 03-
05; 03-08; 04-07; 04-09;
0$O3; 05-08; & 0ô-05
Selected by Election Overslght Committee and Office of
Ëfections - contest decided by 1% or less difference.
The Oversight Committee decided to audit 10 prec¡ncts
selected bv the Official Observers.
Office of Hawall¿n Affalrs
Maui Trustees and Oahu
Trustees
27"Q2 and 44-Q1 Selected Þy Officíal Observers.
State Bep. Dlstrict 47
Catalani / Díou
47t 1-4 Selected by Election Oversight Committee
Maul Councilmember
Britton / Nishiki
09-07 and 12-01 Selected by Election Oversight Comm¡ttee.
Govelnor/Lt. Governor**
Cayetano / Hirono
Lingle / Koki
Peabodv / Bartlev
07-03; 10-01; 16-02; 28-
O4t a2-08; & 60-03
Selected by Office of Elections as orre of eight
additional prec¡nctsto be manually audited.
stato sonato D¡slfict 4* +
Buen / Corboy
o7-03 Selectêd by Office ol Élections as one of eight
additional orecinctsto be rnanually audited.
State Rep. Dlstrlct 1O++
Evert / Morihara
10-01 Selected by Office of Elections as one of eight
additional Drôcinctsto be manually audited.
State Rep, Dlstdct 26+r
Dawson / Luke
26-04 Selected by Office of Elections as ono of sight
additional orecincts to be manuallv audited.
State Rep. Distdct 42"
Moses / Timson
42-OB Selected by Olfice of Elections as one of eight
additional orecincts to be manuallv audited.
City Council D¡strict 2*'
Aduia lHolmes
5GO3 Selected by office of Electìons to be manually audited
because of reports that Council District 2 candidates
were incorrectly printed next to David Murakami's name
{când¡datê for State Rep}. No ballots found to
substant¡at€ reoorts.
City Council Distrlct 5i*
{Francis / Mirikitanil
Blank Votes
21-01 and 25-O2 Selected by Oflice of Elections as one of eight
additional precincts to be manually audited.
Ståtswids Contesls 3 random batches of
Absentee Ballots from the
City & County of Honolulu
(1 absentee walk and 2
absentee mâil),
Selected by Bussell Mokulehua, Official Observers
chairperson.
Gove¡nor/Lt. Govomot* *'
Blank votes
07-06; 09'05; 08-03; &
1 1-04
Selected by the Election Oversight Committee to verify
the blank vote counts.

59. Rspon of the Elcotion Ovcrsight Committo€
cenfral cxchar¡ge for rosearch and infonnation on all mattors r€lating to
election administration. Prior to joinirg the FEC, she was a state slection
ofitcer in Alaska.
R. Doug Lewis is the Directo¡ of the Election Center based in Houston.
The Election Center is the secretari¿t for NASED ín çaliSing voting
systems tlr¿tmeet federal Vottng Slstem SYandards. The Election Cerüer
is the only nonprofit organization with a ftll-time staffthat specializes in
voter registration and elections administration^ It providos consulting
servicos, continuing professional education, researcþ and workshops to
member governrnents and elestior ofrcials. Mr. Iæwis also has extensive
erçerience in manqglrrg state and national campaips for Congress,
govemor, and the U.S. preside,ncy.
Marion Higa, the Staæ Auditor, provides her recogpized experience in
auditing and oversight, her knowledge of auditiog principles, and proper
nranagement of govemment programs^
Criteria used
In carrying out its oversight ârnctioq the Comnúttee based its findings
a¡rd recommendations on prerrailing electisn st¿ndards nationwide and
those criteria that would satisfy roasonable people that the audit was
conducted with integrþ and would producc rosults that are reliable, Both
Mr. Lewis and Ms. Bonsall have expert knowledge of the limitations of
voting s''stens and acceptable standards of election administration. Their
knowledge of prevailing and acceptable practices guided the comnúttee's
findings and recommendations. They emphasize lhat no perfect election
has eve¡ been conduøed and that no perfcct voting system eústs. By their
natlre, elections are participatory oarrying withthem all thc hazards and
ine,fficiencios that exist in a democracy. Thousands of paid volunteers are
marshaled to ürork ortremeþ long hours under intense pressufe, const¿rt
scrutiny, media attention, and timeconsttaints. Mistakes will occur.
The Conrmittee was also guided by rvhat election experts endorse as
funda¡nental principles of vote counting in a democracy. Amorlg the most
important principles are the following:2
Accuracy - esablishing clear procedures and manuals, adequate
søfftraining, clear audit tails of ballots and checking and
rechecking methods.
Transparency - encouraging openparticþation and witress of the
procoss andthe results ofthe counting process.
Prafesstonalism - having thoroughly trained, nonpartisan, and
committed eleclion ofticials,
7

60. of thc Elcqllon Committre
I Securtty - ensuring the secudty ofballots through numbering
systerns, tamper proof seals, and other methods.
Åccountabiliry - establishing clear responsibilities for each stage
ofthe process and procedures for complaints.
. &luity - ensuring llrat the counting is fair and proper.
Steps taken
To cnsurethatthe audit undertaken bythe Office of Elections mst
prevailing standards, the Election Ovøsight Committee reviewed
i¡rformation on the background ofthe audit and monitored the audit from
the initial brieñng by tüo chief election officer to the conclusion of tlre
manual audits. The Committee tookthe stqrs listed in Bxhibit 2.
Findings and
Recomrnendations
The general election
Íesults wete accurate
The Election Oversight Commitee found that:
L The audit dononsEated that the results of the 1998 general elections
were accurato and trustworthy.
2. The audit was conducted professionally and with inûegnty in
accordance with established procedures.
3. Some irnprovements can be made in state election law and to
strengthenthe operations of the Elections Office.
We concluded that tlre audit conducted by tlre chief election offrcer
dsmonstrated that the general election results were accurate and reliable
The audit was tlre first of its kind in llawaü and, as far as we know, the
most extensive inthe history ofthe United States. The 1998 general
election has now been counted at least three times:
. Firsq in Nol'ember 1998.
. Second, in March 1999 on high speed IF central counters.
. Thir{ in March 1999 on high spced VL cental counters.
. Fourth, a numbcr of races and precincts lsve had oüe or morþ
ma¡rual lecounts.
Each ofthe above counts produced results that either exactly or vsry
closely matohed the other counts.
I

61. of thô Comm¡ttoe
Exhibit 2
Steps Takcn By the Electlon Oversight Comm¡ttss
1. Reviewed all complaint letters relating to the 1998 etections
2.
a
4.
5
f¡
7.
8.
Reviewed testimony and other relevant documents and llterature
lnvestigated areas of potential vulnorabilities in audit mothods or practices.
Listened to concerned citizens, legislators, observer groups, official watchers, elections
officials, representatives o{ ES&S and the news media.
Utilized knowledge of recount procedures, and questions that. occuned in recount situations
in other jurisdìctions to assess procedures established for the ¡udit.
Ouestioned elections officials and observers about procedures followed in the 1998
elections and administrative safeguards implemented for the audit.
Observed operations and special tests performed on equipment,
Performed testlng and situation anatysis of precinct level, district level, county and
statsw¡do lsvels.
Ordered manual counts to examine a variety of conditions including geographical
representat¡on and level of races in both general and OHA €lect¡ons.
I
10. Examined ballots first hand to determine how voters marked ballots and to assure ourselves
that ballots wðre counted conectly.
11. Selected samples of precincts as surprise audits as recommended by the official observers,
12. Met w¡th county clerks, election officials and official observers to ass€ss election
procedures and practices.
13. Used comparison team data compiled by the independent account¡ng firm of Arthur
Anderson to compare and assess the accuracy and reliability of the 1998 general election,
14. Directed election staff and vendors to resolve and verify any questionable data.
9

62. Report of tha Elocrlon Commltt¡a
Stntewide summñrT reporh
ES&S aclnowledged that seven of its prcinct count€rs rnalfirnctioned on
election day. The audit indicates that disorepucies in tlre 1998 general
election were confined to sevflt malfrrnctioning Model 100 precinct
scanners. The results ofthe November general election were accurate anil
the audit reveats no change in the outpome of any contest.
To determine the accuracy oftlre gareral election tenfts, ES&S retained
tho independentpublic accounting firm ofArthur Anderson to develop
tables comparing the 1998 general election resnlts with rcsults from the IF
anct VL central coufrers. In developing tle comparison tables, Arthur
Anderson performed agreed-upon proceduros in accorda¡rce with
standards established by the American Instituæ of Certified Public
Accou¡rtants. The comparison reported statewide and countywide results
for each contesl bythe total votps cast, including absentee ballots and
handcounted damaged ballots that could not be proçessed on the central
countsrs. These t¿bles and other more de{ailed data can be found at the
Ofücc of Elections.
In this report, we illustate the accuracy of the results in Exhibit 3, which
is a copy of the first page of the Statewide Summary Report we received
frorn Arthur Á,nderson.
Exhibit 3 compares the originatly reported results from the November 3'
1998 general electiou (Seøtion A) with the results from the IF cenüal
countets (Section B) and the results from the VL csntral cÆunters
(Section C). The data show tlrc nunrber of votes by rvhichthe three
counts varied and the percentages by which they varied. Column I of
Section B shows the Maroh tally from the IF central counters' Column 2
is the tally for manually counted ballots that could not be processed
through the cefitral counters because they wore damaged or impropedy
ma¡ked. Column 3 shows thc totals from columns I a¡rd 2' Column 4 is
ths difference bstween the Novenrber 3, 1998 count and the March audit
count. Column 5 is tho differencc between the two above counts
expressed as ¿ pffcentage (colunrn 4 divided by tlte November voto).
Section C presents similar information for counts resulting from the VL
central counters. (Manual counts vi,€re not included in tlæ VL tallies;
instead, damaged or unprocessible ballots were added to the IF manual
counts.) Giveir the nature of marking devices used m election day, ES&S
believes that the VL results are more accurats-
E:ùibit 3 shows th¿t thc percsntag€ va¡iance between tlre three counts is
very small except for the blank votes and overvotes. In the race for U.S'
Senator, for example, the Novembor general election rcsults for Senator
Lrouye were 937 more votss than the IF tally or a variance of 3/l0ths of
I percørÇ they were only 14 votes less thanthe VL count or a variance of
'lVe
0 percent.
found only tluee instances inthe Statervide Summary
10

63. Report of tho Ehctlon Ov.rslúht Coñm¡n.c
Exhlb¡t 3
Ocnc¡al/OHA Eloction
Sütôwld. gummary ßepori
g..don A
316292
?09A4
6Sû06
g.oüon ¡ s.cdon O
gilì.to r
lO! lNOtryE. D¡nlôl K,
lll MAttAN, Lloyd lJofll
(Rl YouN€. cryrt.l
BlañI Vot
Ovâr Votr
U.S. Rrt. . OI¿r. 1
fOI ABERCROMBIE. Ndt
lÌ'$l BÊOWORTH, Nlêholæ
lRl WARO, G.n.
Elmk Volc
Ovlr Vota
3t3076
11420
707ø.
t60t¡t
2g
f30e3
6026'
l.l¡lEEn
0t41
108
7227
s237
oaz
4
72AA
s282
ôgt
4
o.1
1 r8ô62
3ø72
õt900
6323
ro0
s37
40
s5
.r?lE
0¡10
40
r45
80
4
z?e
t0
lzo
42
I
34
rol
31r
ô3
l4
66
367
.7o2
1â2
3 53.
25
55
"93
3
27
1
-36
.1
3t4316
1'1960
70€70
1E1q'
288
315284
t 1007
7oss4
I 3s69
33ô
3t528ô
I 1007
70984
13089
24e 33ô
321
18
1i7
.491
3l
501
313
-2
-1t24
225
0.t
-0.Ër
o.609.
0.1
o,r3*
-o,06
-3t
15.7tS
-13,0
o.30s
o-o.
1
0.25
0,
13201
7o147
r 4432û
g33e
r96
I 4810
! 061
135',|
a
-14
1
-30
107
241
3t
I
5
-35
21
.7
-21
-72
.3¡l
1€5
43
-0
.0
3ô
68
3
0
.8
1
-2
.l
.2
0
.22
-,1
23
0
o
-2
-3
?
E
g
2
't
-2
't
s
.6
2
o
-'l
4
t
0.o0s
o.01*
.o.o¡¡*
.0,?79{
37.1?*
0.039ú
0.o3t6
o,ot*
-0.eôx
f6.r5tó
-o.oûtå
.o,06tú
'0.009{
.o.379¿
a5.?1 t6
t tol4r
39{7
6A86t
a737
sa
I l63Be
39õ7
t8?8A
6TrS
te
r t8882
ast2
6åeoo
Þ323
t09
8.P. . Dlet. ¿
lll cl{Ull, l{or.on Lôllôh¡r
{ßl DOUOLASS. Cgol J.
lÞ¡ MINR. Prby Tâlmotô
Blant Vot.
ovrt votc
Oov.
t88e62
Sonalor - Dþt. f
lßl C,{BRO¡.L, John L IXæ¡{l
lDt INOUYE' Lorr¡lm Rod¡¡o
Slnl Votc
oYôr Vota
Son.ro¡ - Dht. 2
lDl MAT8UUSÀ, Orvid
[ßl WALK€R' Denis
Blek VÖtc
Ov.r Vôtc
S.n¿tor . OÈt. 4
lDl BUEN, J0 tY.gi¡
lRl coÈBoY. Jóhn M.
Blül Vo1.
Ovâr votà
Stât' Srñ¡tor. Dbt. t
lDl CHUMBI,ÉY, Avcry I
IU ÞYEñ, MÌGfiIôI M
lÂl LAPONO, Rioùüd
8lilt Vot¡
Ov.r Vot
3èna¡ôr . Dbt. 7
lÞl CHUal. Joñðlh.n J.
fñl MEASÊL. Robon, Jr.
8lüt Votô
Ovar Vola
ftlro Srn.tor - ohr, 10
lll GAffON€lqt. D¡rrol Þ,
l0l lllAñ4, Lcr, Jr.
Blãl Vct!
Ov¡r Votc
9t.tà sËnltôr - Dl¡t, 13
lnl nASMUSSEN. Clndy
(Dl T M, Rod
8l¡r*, Vot
Ovc¡ Vcl.
6S17
r912Q
totô8
f¡1.:18O7
1000¡l
l0s
1 320r
6A44?
1 ¡t4326
9338
ls0
1
lsl
(01 CAYEf^No¡HtRoNo
(F} LINGLÊ'KOKI
IU PEABOÞY/SARTLEY
Bbìk Vgts
Ovu Votc
2Gtt83
1lÐ.247
4387
4¡t0
I t87
46.2
s62
13
80
t4
2ô:1615
ts803Ð
r{,JÛ
4668
1201
204163
t0t9E0
4,104
3474
1?70
2O¡1163
1S8tô8
4404
3871
r2?o
-l
1
0.o296
o.o0t6
-0.14f
-3,04ri
10.0¡19ú
l408ft
lgilô
1422
3
t476t
l¡6¡t
1a2A
3
14016
1981
t36l
I
o.o4*
0.06s
,1.32tí
r4.e99É
-o.o1{
"o.oó*
-o.29'l
o,oo96
-o-2t?ß
-o.o0'6
3.3Ð*
o,oos
o.00s
.o.rela
'o.oô96
o.tt96
4É,a5t6
0.06ró
0.10*
.o,62X
-33.3396
-0.o,rÍ
0,oe*
-0.329i
22.22fi
31
45
I
0
t4
4
4
0
72aO
933',l
t10
e
?280
8331
018
I
tEs86
1888
792
3
16880
t 8e2
?6ô
3
o.17s
o.o5*
I 6t00
18S4
122
2
I 690e
î894
722
2
e6¡3
¡l69l
721
l6
32
t1
.46
.t
t76,1
¡fôO7
6ö6
l1
976â
acoT
661
r4
17
to
3
o
6
0889
l4s4
6f62
tdro
6
9830
t4ga
5t73
I 588
0
0930
l¡lto
61 79
't68t
ô
0700
46e2
724
1E
.6,7A
'7.14
980t
lj¡98
6r€1
'tt34
¡
72
I
a
4
0
08
e
0
o
s
11
11
o
fl
2l
I
0
2g
2
0
-44
ô
74
g
-8¡t
3
2800
9¿09
1É17
a
2808
9220
!68t
6
5
2t
.31
3
2¿14
9233
I 682
7
?814
9233
'1662
I
6880
4623
795
l3
6900
8548
74?
t3
69f 7
0609
ds8
fô
o.ooÉ
-o.ot *
0.5?$
8.88*
6û17
ô5ft0
ôtt8
t0
17
22
.41
4
Urbt
f 4 6 , a e
llov.3. 0[t 16 M.roh lll.il.l 0ttf. 96
gourc!: Orfa6 ot gl.ctldr, M¡rch 19, 1t99,
11

64. orl of thô Elöotlon Commiltec
Rçort wlrere a candidate's vote count under the IF central coruü€'rs
ditrersd by more than I percent from that in tho general election. Our use
of the I percent or grÊater yariance lv¿rs for audit targeting purposes, so
we could verify the aocuracy of the November 1998 gørreral election and
the March 1999 audit. In "official" re¿ount elections, variances of
anyttring more than 3 or 4 votes per precinct would need to be reconciled
to the lorvcst possible number. We opted for tlre I percent variance in
order to speed tho process along and to assure the public that any outcome
which could have charrged the winners of any contest would be thoroughly
examined. In ¡no of tlre instances, the variance tlropp"d below I pet'oent
lvhenthe results were compared withlhose from the VL centrãl counters.
In the third instance, the variance v¡as due to the eadier November 1998
miscount by a malñ¡nøioning precinct scanner.
Porcentago r¡ariances for blank votes rrcre higlrer. Blark votes occur
whon a voter does not solect ¿ candidate in a race or misma¡ks a ballot,
ES&S explained thatthe blankvote count was higher on the IF cenbal
counters because they do not pick up marginal marks as well as the
precinct VL scanners used during the 1998 elections. Bla¡lk vote and
otlrcr results frorn the VL cer¡tral counters were much closer to the
November 3, 1998 results because they use ürc same liglt soutce to scan
ballots.
The percentage varizurce for tlre orrcrvotes, or votçs disqualifred because
the voter voted for more candidates tt¡an are to be slectpd, was also ltigh.
This was mainly because the total number of overvotes in each race was
small. Since tbe base is small, a small varjanco in numbers rcsults in a
large percentage variance. For example, in the racc for U.S. Senator, a
difference of 249 fewer oven'otes in the audit from the number of
overvotes in the Novernber 1998 general election resulted in a variance of
46.37 percent (the higher number of overvotes in the November general
election was most likeþ due to the ssvcn malfunctioning machines that
counted lons occlusions as overvotes.) In all cases, the variance in the
numùer of blank votes and overvotcs h¿d no impact on the outcome of any
taß,e.
Manaal audit¡. Exhibit 4 compares lhe results ofthe tnanual audits witlt
tlre general election results. The dat¿ tpínforrce our conclusìon about tlre
accufaoy ofthe general olecticnr results. lVhere varia¡rces occurred, they
wero very small, In four of the manual audits, tho results matched the
general olection rssults o:iaotly. Six ofthe manual audits differed from
the general election results by ole vote. The remaining six msnual audits
varied from the general elections by tftree to tm votes.
12

65. Roport ol th. Efrctlon overcight commltt.c
Exhiblt 4
Comparlson of Ganelal Election Results with Manud At¡dit Results
Contests
AHU ISAT
CHING
RAPOZOT
SWAIN
NAKATA*
PICKARD
AUWAET
JONES
RATH*
TARNAS
YEST
NO
CAMPOS
HAO
KAHO'OHANAHANA
HEE
KAMALII
CATAI.AN¡
DJOU
BRITTON
NISHIKI
CAYÊTANO
LINGLE
BUEN
CORBOY
EVERT
MOBIHARA
DAWSON
LUKE
MOSES
TIMSON
ADUJA
HOLMES
Dlstrict/Precincts
State Representativo
District 27
Kauai Council
I 2;06-14:10
Stato Senate
Da$tr¡cÎ23
State Representative
Distrlct 44
State Representative
District 6
lrradiation
Sampled 10 Precincts
OHA-Maui
Absentess + Sampled 2 Precincts
OHA-Oahu
Absentees + 2 Precincts
State Representative
District 47
Maui Councìl
Abssntes + 2 Precincts
Gove¡nor
ô Precincts
State Senate
District 4-1 Preoinct
Stats Rêpresont6tive
Dist¡ict 1Sl Precinct
Stote Representativê
D¡str¡ct 26-1 Precinct
State Representative
Distr¡ct 42-1 Precinct
City Council
50-03
4399
4209
3'r1
314
311
315
Results
11/3/98
3703
3684
8832
9083
7309
7263
Manud Audit
3/99
3702
3683
88+2
90s0
7304
7262
2670
2634
4336
4254
6533
701 B
293
450
4393
4202
2249
3686
235
537
641
610
Dlfference
10
-3
-5
-1
2680* r
2640) |
4337
4265
6629
701 3
-10
-6
-1
-1
208
293
241
209
240
354
4
5
1
0
.1
0
-1
-6
-7
0
1
0
-2
0
0
0
o
0
1
o
o
0
0
450
355
2249
3688
476
471
476
471
239
537
641
ô09
514
248
248
371
514
248
Sourc6: Office of Elections, March '1999
'Contosts docldcd by 19å or less.
r rTotal adlustad for overvoto¡ dua to machine malfunction in Preolnct 44-01 '
248
371
13

66. Ropo¡t of rhe Elgctlon Ovcrdght Commlttee
The audit was
conducted wíth
professÍonalism and
Íntegrìty
The first six contests in Exhibit 4 are those that had been decided by I
percent or less, These had been selected for manual audits by both the
Eleotion Orærsight Committeo and the chief election officer. The results
showed that tlro maaual counts va¡ied from the general election results by
fewer tlra¡r l0 voûes. In all iusknces, the outcomes remainedthe same.
Ths Election Oversigk Committee also requested a manual audit of blânk
votes inthe governor's race because of concems that the number of blank
votes ïvas unusually low. We selected a sample of fourprecincts on
Maui. In three of the procincts, we found no difference in the number of
blankvotes between tho general ele¿fion results and manual audit rezults.
The remaining precinct had a one vote diffe¡ence.
We then physically examined all tlre blank ballots for the four precincts.
'We veriñed that all the blank vdes were legitinrateþ blank. Votors had
failedto vote for any candidate, misrua¡ked their ballots, or made
rnarginal marks. Exhibit 5 is a test ballottl¡at illustrates some ofthe
markings we saeu. Only item 1 is coreotly marked. It would have been
counted as a vote. Items 6, 7, and I are marginal ma¡ks that may have
been counted as votes. The remaining nra¡la would not have b€en
counted as votps. For example, onc vcÍer circled tho oval instead of filling
it iry another missed the oval; others put check marks or lines in tlre oval,
Still others just left parts ofthe b¿llot blank.
Despite charges thatthe new voting systÊm was difficult fof somo voters,
the audit showe.d that 99.8 percent ofthe voters had voted correctly. Only
0.2 percent of the total ballots cotmted were dâmâged or mismarkcd.
As a final noto, the accuracy and security ofthe 1998 general election is
further verified by comparing the ûotal number of ballots cast in the
general election with tlnse processed during the audit. The nunber of
ballots cast on electiorr night was 412,52t. The number lallied in March
was 412,521, a diftrence of only one ballot.
The audit was conducted at the Hospitality Room at Aloha Stadium,
Prior to the audi! tho Office of Elections had issued amanual of
procedures tur-Rør,lew of the 1998 General Election Results. The
procedures were adaptations of ones the Offrce of Elections inrplenrented
during the 1998 elestions. Viie found they embodied the necessary
principles oftansparency, professionalisrn, securit¿ accountabilþ, and
equify.
Inttn Reviøw, the Office of Elections presented an ovewiew ofthe audiq
tlre schedule of events; grridelines for tlre geireral public, the media, the
Election Oversight Commitee, and oftcial observers; and instrustions for
the operations of various teams. Te¿rns for the audit included the official
observers t¡am, ballot storage team, ballot preparation team, cornputer
14

67. R.poí ôf thc Eleclion Ovcrs¡ght Com]rütÎôr
Exhibit 5
Examples of Ballot Marklngs
OFFICIAL EALLOI
ûENEâAL ELECfÌON
TUESDÀY, NOYEilAER 3, 1 994
GENEBAL ELECTIOH Äl{D SPECIAL ELËenoNlslvoltNc |NETR cïloNs
r v0x Ì t:, ltlhr
xOlG ÙÉuûa{d.û¡ErynaróÉøhtuOlloütianú¡ñÁ!6 t¡h¡ qþêl Ê¡ær aÉÉûrei'n3i¡
pd. 9¿¡tö rs'd tÈ tæE Êce¡' F rsú. Fú s c|r¡ ffi
2 votr g ø Fg.a N !* @. C at*¡útffi rd ûarôsra{
ÈørÊr f F¡ Ea fu æa ðti, øsñ*lt ¡M ¡H. ¡ diL.YÛ4 ff¡t, þt Þt æ d ól F 4d
1W È r.@r.**ñå0 r¡ d l-D þÈ dlñd yanô¡at.
a. D¿ø rnT r¡#{r¡ ts Èrt hn c | ,ffi| drd.
1998 OFFICIAL GENEñAL ELECTION BALLOT O
alrEilDllfff3mñÊ
sr rE coilsÍfi¡no[
PBOPOSÊD BVIIIC
UNElEðlnII¡GIS!^TU¡E
6 Pû¡¡ bf ¡ Îü.|¡ù l.ñ
*t
4
år Pofrs chnt *¡È ¡jlsl
MhÍioor t, th! Pc¡ø
Cdña¡læ,
AllʡrDtlafiSm
IHE CIIAFÍER OFITÊ
Gffl AilD COUI{TT Of
H{[{otulu PnotosED EY
ilr cBÀRlER Co$tilEt¡toll
It¡
bs ¡û.ËqarÊËÞt
tú5cFarffi#ùfh
*rúlærFú'!ÉÐ
f,kù¡¡tlÈlt-a
I Sun r tu 'wtr ør¡frO
ã bt ltrdul Lrt læ y..[
ìf, ioÍô¡d ot aKry tú t¡rB.
1* r.r¡n¡ ¡D h |s,2@?
il------:.-e--.:-
Co.iuil üra DÞüûm of
B
Ptâ0nh[ úd Dâp€ffil cf
P¡¿nniI lnd Plmühe lnlo
fl
@drpâm.
iY rls a
,r:È=:=--::l'
Hl ¡o
þ <:)
7: Etrnd 6lr d rhþh
Cûíd m!t 9t$
md lHít¡iÉ Düi8.1
ilncr l@ l¡¡y 31
ùD li
YE3
n0
$0
Shdl rlr. Coishilon ol lha
lffi
þa rrlsu.rlll þæ
I Sl.9!r ldN d dly d$ttl
nFìôa.!,
É Õ IB
r¡
Dffi ol Cu¡tqftr
t¡üß-arìd
0cÞ¡*
PROPoSEo 001{SilUn0il L
glx ùtt ba ¡ Êût.dbr þ
Ddrto th. Cd.lutun?
d rtxr rrcøptiø ot
aM ¡atulol Ptei¡¡ont
.::
è
:..1
.::
''.!
c0r{ìrÊtrl¡l0lt
o
Ytå
Yt8
prqt€a r ç¡irisgl grr4ú
--=6 ö
roO
5 .t-*
tora3 ot
ö
Cor!û.¡t@ Carñsl
tla CDríd l0{ 9st-rcarÊt¡
l¡ôtæ
ta
'i
iü
:i1
.'{t
t
Ì
I
..J
'rl
,JorE 8tîfi sþEs (ovER)
15

68. ôf thô Hôêtlôn Gommltt¡c
operations team, and manual auditteam. e Review inskucted each
team on its purpose and specific procedures to be followed. For examplg
it outlined the purpose of the offfici¿l observers team, its composition and
roþ supewision ovor tho team, and tlre varìous tÉsts that it would conduct
ùo verifr the inægrity, logig and acouracy of the ballot oounting program.
During the audit, we obsen¡ed as the various tpams carried out seal
certiûc¿tions, opened the ballot boxes, prepared the ballots for scanning,
processed the ballots, tallied and prqpared comparison tables, and
performed rnanual audiß. We found thatúese tasks rt'ere done in
accordance with the procedures est¿blished for the audit.
Transparenqt The openness of elections is particularly importântto
eirsure their integrity and to build publio confidence in fhe process. Wb
found tlnt numerous adminisüative safcguards were in place to e¡rsure the
opcnnsss of the audit. Numerous outsideparticipants and witnesses were
on siæ.
Ms. Bonsall and Mr. Lewis were particularþ impressed by the role played
by Hawaii's Election Advisory Committee (EAC) who form tlp co¡e of
the official obsen¡ers. The EAC seryes â8 the "eyes and ears" oftlre
general public to ensure the security and irfngrity ofthe ballot processing
and t¿bulation system. It is composod of representatives of political
parties, and organizatiorts such as tbe League ofWomen Voters, the State
Bar Association, and the Information Systems Audit and Control
Association (ISACA). Traditionall¡ the chairperson ofthe EAC is also
the chairperson of tlre official observers.
Section I 645, HRS, authorizes the chief election officer and the county
clerks to designate official observers to be preselrt at the counting cÆnters'
They are to include at least one observer dosigrated by each political
parfy and one from the nelvs media, They are rcsponsible for conducting
logic and aßcuracytÊsts on the ballot counting program, conducting
manual audits, and monitoring the activities of the counting center team to
ensure that prescribed rules and procedures are followed precisely'
During the audit, represenüatives of the Leaguo, the llawaii Nervspaper
Agency, State Bar Association, Demoçratic Parfy, Republicarr Party, and
ISACA sen ed as official observers. The list of official observers is
shown in Exhibit 6.
Obssrvers art private citizens who have no direct connection with state
govemment. Many of them have had expericnce in past elections. They
know r¡'hat ûo watch for and what tests are needed. Some official
observers are vôry knowledgeable about computer operations' For
example, the curre¡t EAC chairperson, Mr. Russell Mokulellra, is a
private consultalrt who specializes in computer auditing.
16

69. Reporr ol th. Elocllon Overcloht Commltlc¡
Exhibit 6
L¡st of Official observers
The Official Observer team is composed of members of the Election Advisory Council
(EAC) including reprssentatives from the various political parties and the news media. Other
interested pêrsons or groups may be included pursuant to HRS 516-45(31 "Additionalofficial
observers as space and facilities permit designated by the chief election officer in state
elections and the clerk in county elections."
Below is a list of observers who offered their time to participate in the audit.
9itv and County of Honolç¡lu
Russefl Mokulehua
Dave Harris
Alice Kealoha
Forence Loebel
Robert Chung
Bixby Ho
Luree Hays
Dennis Kam
Al Katagihara
Hugh Jones
Aulani Apoliona
Countv of Maui
Selberio Menor
Harriet Santos
Countv of. Kauai
Melinda Nesti
Wilfiam Scamahorn
Edward Coll
Countv of Hawaii
Marcella DeWeese
Hobert Duerr, Jr.
lnformation Systerns Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
Republican Party of Hawaii
Republican Party of Hawaii
Republican Party of Hawaii
Repubfican Party of Hawaii
Democratic Party of Hawaii
Laague of Women Voters
Hawaii Newspaper Agency
Office of the Legislative Auditor
Hawaii State Bar Association
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Kauai Republican Party Chair
Nonpartisan
Hawaii Green Party
HGEA
Parants Against lrradiation
Souroo: Office of Elections, March 1999.
17

70. Reporl ol thc Elactlon Ovarsisht êommlttoo
The Election Oversiglrt Committee found thc otrcial observersto be
diligent and dedicated. They clearly uderstood their lesponsibilities.
Prior to tåe audit they conducted "logic and aceuracy tests" using test
ballots to see ifttre machines were counting accurately. They observed
and monitored all operations to determine rvhether they met ïvith
prcscribed procedures.
Ms. Bonsall and Mr. I¡wis ranarked on the exte¡¡t of authority exercised
bythe official observers. They say that h no other jurisdictionhadthey
seen observers given so much latitude. Observers could stop the cpntral
countels and run rarrdom tests at any time to makc sure the machines lvere
counting ¡¡ctutately and that sofüpare wæ not breached. They also asked
periodically for such safeguards as listings of directories inthe conrputer
programto vorifr the integfþ ofthe sofrware systems. Tbroughout the
audil ttrey were able to discuss problems or complaints immediaæly with
tlre ohief slection officer or his staff.
For example, the chair of tlre EAC notedthatt[e audit hadgone very
snoodtly, but he also voiced concem that tho system documentation logs
generated by the central counters had been discarded. Thesc logs are
printouts from the centr¿l counters that doonnent such events as when the
maohines sta¡ted and stopped, whenthe hoppers were empf, and whe¡t
thers wsre feed jams. They are important as an audit trail for election
results, They verifr which batches ofballots we¡e read and rvhstl¡er there
has becn unwamantcd acocss to the system. Thç fedetal lhtíng Slttem
Standards require an audit trail ofsystern activity related Ûo vote t¿llying
fromtbe time vote counting begins until itis completed. Fede¡al law
requires electíon officials to preserve all recorrls and ¡iapers relating to the
voting for 22 months.3 While this lapse was not important for the
pr¡rposes ofthis audit, it woukl be signiñcant in any futrrre election.
In additionto the official observers, the ,{ssociation of Clerks and
Election Officers of Hawaii watched every step of the procoss' The
association is made up of county clerkS and elcction officials ftonr the
Neighbor Islands and Honolulu. Theywatched as thc ballotboxcs wcre
unsealed, oversaw the ballots being prepared for processing on the
maohines, watched the IF and VL central counters to veri$ that balloæ
n'ere fed and processed correctlg watched the processed ballot cont¿iners
being tra¡sfered to the storage areq and rnonitored the malrual audits.
Finally, watcho¡s u¡ho are menrbers oftho general public were allowed
rnto the counting center to view the operations from bshind a rarl' Many
carne. Some school æachers saw the autlit as an opportunity to educate
their students about the election process and brought their classes in to
view the oporation.
18
¡

71. Some suggestions to
Ímprove future
electians
n of tho Elecdon Commltt€ô
Proþssianahsm, security, accoantabillty, and equity. The Election
Oversight Cornnittee was reassured to obsen¡e tlre professional behavior
of sate and county election staff. ftey each knerv tlreir respective
responsibilities for tlre audit and carried them out effectively. We
observed that they responded equally respeotfully to inquiries from
individuals of differsnt parties and interests. Elections office staffalso
ensured the security ofthe audit by posting security guards at the entrance
to the Stadium Hospitality Room, Each particþant or visitor was asked
to sþ in and was required to wear a badge. Also, video cameras were
inst¿lled to provide 24-hour surveillance ofthe counting center and to
ensure that ballots wers not tampered rvith.
The audit demsnstrated that the ES&S machines used in the general
election resulæd in accurate and reli¡ble votÊ counts, It also affirms tlre
competency and integrity of Hawaii's elsction officials and oitizen
participants. Certain ohanges are needed, ncvertheless, to keep up with
changingtimes andtechnologies: (l) the $tate's olection stafutes should
be amerrded to remove obsolete or rleficient provisions; new rules are also
needed; (z)ltß Office of Elections needs to be strenghenedto reducethe
lùelihood of firture problems.
The Iægislature should consider establishing a task force to studytle
changes needed. Such a task fo¡ce was estnblished in Maryland. The
fask force could be composed of mo¡nbers of the Legislahrre such as tlre
chairs ofths Senate and House Committees onthe Judiciary the chief
election officar, representatives from the Association of Clerks and
Election Officers of Hawaii, the Elections Advisory Committee, the
political parties, and othor organizations active in the electoral proeess
such as tho læague ofWome,nVoters.
Amend state law
Many state statutes and rules a¡e obsolete or overþ specific. They are
geared to a punchcard system. They sink to a level of detail tlut
conshains attempts to use new election technology. For example, fhe
provision relating to ballots speci$ing that votes are to be marked on the
right sidc of a candidats's name should be rcmove.d. ES&S had to desþ
special ballots and programs for Harvaii because in most other states
votes are marked to the left of oandidatæ' narnes.
The provisions for recounts are inadequate. They place candidates in an
untenable position whera they have to produce evideeice offraud or
difforeiroes in votes cast that would cause a difference in election results
whenthey h¿ve no access to the ballots that would produce the evidence.
ln many jurisdictrons, cont€sts are automatically recormted when tlre
difference between winning and losing candidates is I percent or less.
19

72. Rcport of tha El¡clion Ovuaight Gommlttaa
In additic¡r to amending the statutes, new nrles are need€d. ln response to
a request from the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the Department of the
Afùomey General not€d that ¿dministrative rules are needed ø properly
implanent Sectisn I l-97, HRS, that rvould prescribe wheir election
records a¡e available for inspection. The rules also need to be updated to
reflest advances in election lechnology. Currcnt rules are predicated on
using a punchcard systom and may be inapplicable or restrictive. The
Lqgislature could reçestthat the task forco conduot a comprehensive
study ofîhese and other questionable stiate laws that should be amended.
Strengthen the Oflice of Elections
We believe that the State would benefit if the Office of Blections were
reorganized, given greater suppo¡t, and its staffwere given opporhrnities
for professional development.
A snrdy of state election laws bythe taskforce should include an
cxâmination ofthc placernent ofthe Oñce of Elections. Currently the
offrce is only adminisrratively attached to the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor. It has lost many of the former advantages it had when it rvas
part ofthe lieutenant governor's office. These advantages included
periodic research and analytic support great€r l¿titude in budget
execution, and higher credibility. In most other states, the elections office
is under the direction of tle secrotary of statq an eleoted position wilh
functions simila¡ to those of }I¿waü's lieutcnant governor. In Utah and
Alaska, elections are under the lieutenant govønor.
We believe tlat Hawdi's Oftìc¡ of Elections would benefit if it were an
inægral part of the Office ofthc Licutenant ftvemor and subject to the
supervision of an elosted official. The chiefelection officer could be
appointed by the lieutenant govemor as a deputy in charge ofelections.
Currently the chief election ofñcor is appointed by au Elections
Appoinûnent Panel that has no authoriþ except to hire and firc the chief
election officer. The chief election offrcer is givenno continuing oversiglrt
by someone who can be held accountable, The public cannot hold the
appointmørt panel account¿ble for its actions whereas the public could
hold the lieuts¡rant govemor responsiblc forthe integrrty of elections,
Tlre ofüce would also benefit ifit were given a certain number of civil
seffice positions for technioal and clerioal staff, This would maintain
continuity in elections. Ms. Bonsall and M¡. Lewis warn that chaos has
resulted in certain eleotions offices when newly elected officials
terminated all ofthe elections staff.
We noæ that the budget for rhe Office of Electisns has decreased a total
af 21.4 porcent since the 1993-1995 fiscal bianium, To acc,ommodate
this decrease, the office had to cut its own staff as well as its hiring of
precinct offrcials during slections. Rururing an election is a relatively
20

73. Rrport of rhe Electlon Ovarrlght Commltt..
invisible function until something goes wrong. But the declining level of
support is jeopardizing the integrity of this basic dernocratic function. It
should be noted that the number of precincts has inoreased br¡t the number
of precinct officials has had to be cut. Ttæ number ofprecûrcts inc¡eased
from 325 in 1994 to 32E in 1996 to 334 in 1998. At the same time, the
number ofprecinct officials hadtobe cut from 3,578 in 1994 to 3,260 in
I 996 to 2,922 m 1998. hr 1998 ths offic.e also dela¡'ed hiring 5
warshouso seasonal staffand releæed 6 clerical/warehouse seasonal s,$ff
earlier than scheduled. This means that the precincts ilete covered nrfre
thinly and had to operate with less supervision.
^A,lso, while budgets were being cut, the trumbe¡ of citizens ¿nd voters to
be served was growing. The implenretrtation of the Nationål Voter
Rsgistration Act (NVRA) began in January of 1995 whidr fostered
significant increases inthe voter registration roles. The NVRA also
added significant administrative costs to comply with the act. Combined
with aprosidential election in 1996 (the most expensive of election years
in the four-year budget cycle of elections), the impact of budget roductions
had a sigrificant advsrse impact on the Office of Election's abilþto
administer its fr¡nctions. Elections may be one of the few places in
govemment that ought to be exempted from budgetary reductions unless it
can be demonshated thatthere are equivalent reductions in citizens to be
served.
Smallerbudgets madethe rnoye away fromthe old punchcard system
unavoidable. The former systern was labor intensive and time consuming.
The Offrce of Elections could no longer afford staffto run it. ln additiorl
tlrc office could no longer reþ on support frorn the State's Inform¿tion
and Communication Services Division (ICSD) which had suffered budgel
cuts of its own. In past elections, ICSD had provided 60 staff during
elections to preparc the punchcaril voling s¡'stem, proof ballots, and test
machinss. ICSD also supplied the Office of Elections with four full-time
stafff¡om April until the end of elections. Without technical support from
ICSD, ths Officc of Elections had ao alternative but to look for another
systenç one that it could afford.
lffe believe tbat the Office of Elections m¿de a reasonable choice in
leasing equipmeirt åonr ES&S. The cost for leasing eçipment $1.58
müion, was less than the estirnated cost for printing ballots for the
punchcard system aloræ, $ 1,88 million. ES&S had the only NASBD
qualified equipnront that could couut both precinot and absentse ballots.
The Offioe of Elections estimatedthat it saved S1.27 million using ES&S
equipnrent. We discussed the use of scanning equipment with tlre county
clerks. They unanimously supported its use and say that they would like
to continue rvith this or a similar system.
2t

74. Fcport of thc Elcctlon Overulght Commlttee
Finally, wo believe that st¿ts eleotion staffars handicapped bytlreir laok
ofacccss to continuing professional education and contact with other
election adminisfiators on the mainland. Ihe State would be well served
by encouraging their professional development tluough continuing
professional education. Iffunds wers available fot elections stâffto
atend workshops and semin¿rs, they could become more familiar with
teclrnologioal advances, system requirements, potÊntial problems posed by
tlIe various types of voting equipment, and perhaps they could have
anticipated beüer some of tlre problems tlnt occurred with the leased
equiprnent. Staffcould also be enoouragedto obt¿in and maintain
national professional ccrtification as election professionals.
Most of the State's election officials h¿ve lud exporience only with tlie
former puachcard system. They had become well versed with ie
operation. Implementing a nçw systcmcreated a new and different set of
probloms. Acoordiug to Ms, Bonsall and Mr, [æwis, glitches aro
inevitable an¡ime a change is mado to a neñ¡ voting systern. There is a
lEanring curve. Experiønce withthe systemis the moslimportânt element
in rmning a smoothelection.
Summary Themembers ofthe Election Oversight Commitoee considored it a
privilege to have had the opportunity to rnonitor the audit of the 1998
general elections. rffe concluded that the voting equipment used inthe
1998 elections is accurate and counted cont€sts conectly. ES&S has fully
met its sùated obligations to work rviththe Stats to resolve problerns
created by its equipment.
We found no o¡edible evidEnc€ of any fraud. We einphasize the
dernocraoy is too important to all ofus to allow unfounded or unproved
allegations to undermine our confidsnce in eleøions,
There are no easy solutioot tôrt{,u't problems in administering elections-the
process is too complcxto tiìrker with. Any clrange to aflew voting
systsm is likely to result in mistakos and some initial conñ¡sion.
Nevertheloss, the audit found that 99.8 pcrcenf. of Harvaii's voters had
marksd their ballots correotly. ilhile it takss stafftime to leam what the
significant procedures are with a new system, we found that state and
local level election staffare cornpetentpeople who arc very
knowledgeabls aboutthe process. They are committcdto making sure
that electio¡rs accurateþ reflect the will of the voting public'
I
22
-

75. ôl lhô Gommittee
RgcommgndatiOnS The Elections Oversight Committæ recommends that:
l. The lægrslaturo establish atask force composed of the chairs of the
Senato and House CommitJees on ttre Judiciary, tlre chief elestion
officer, and represe,lrtatives of the Assooiation of Clerks and Election
Offico¡s of Flawaii, the Election Advisory Committee, thepolitical
parties, and other organizations active inthe electoral process such as
the læague of Women Voærs. The task force should conduct a
comprehensive study ofthe Sf¿te's election laws including tlre
placement of the chief electionofficer and the Office of Elsctions.
2. The Legislature should consider ilays to encourage the professional
developmeut of Office of Elections' staff.
23

76. Notes
1' Federal Election commission, voting $tstem slandards,National
Clearinghouse on Election AdminisFation, 1990.
2. Dominique-Christine Trønblay and Ron Gould, 'Yote Counting," in
ACE Project, International Foundation for Election Systerns, October
1998.
3. See U.S. Codg Sections l9?4through 1974e.
25

77. NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
THOMAS WATERS, alkla TOMMY
WATERS
Petitioner,
VS
SCOTT NAGO, Chief Elections
Officer; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
ELECTIONS; and BERNICE K.N. MAU,
in her official capacity as the City Clerk of
the City & County of Honolulu
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was duly served by mailing the same, postage prepaid to the following:
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782
SCOTT NAGO
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782
AARON H. SCHULANER, ESQ
State of Hawaii
Office of Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, Hawaä 96782

78. BERNICE K,N. MAU
City Clerk
City and County of Honolulu
Office of the City Clerk
530 S. King Street, Room 100
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24,2014
/S/ JAMES KAWASHIMA
JAMES KAWASHIMA, ESQ
Attorney for Petitioner