When I think of the value of tradition, I think of things like hula. Making a fine ukulele, or a hand-made timepiece. Perhaps small batch whiskey, where the buyer is promised traditional incredients made in the traditional style. Here, it’s fine to say, “we’ve always done it this way,” and the buyer will likely appreciate the difference.

Operating a well run modern election system is not one of those areas where tradition should reign, especially where those past practices are contrary to existing law. That’s the main takeway I can see from yesterday’s unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court ruling invalidating the recent runoff election in the Honolulu City Council’s District 4 race, where Trevor Ozawa held a very narrow 22-vote margin after the votes were counted. A new election will now have to be held within the next few months.

The Supreme Court decision overruled state election officials, who repeatedly hid behind the “but we’ve always done it this way” defense.

Justices keyed repeatedly during oral arguments on the issue of handling last-minute ballots delivered by mail, which were required to be “received” by election officials by the 6 p.m. deadline set by law. Waters, in his legal challenge, argued that a sweep of these ballots at the post office well after that deadline should not have been allowed, and the ballots should not have been counted.

Justices at several points directly questioned attorneys representing election officials about why their “past practice” explanation should be accepted when the late pickup was contrary to the plain language of the election law. They apparently found the answers unpersuasive.

That issue of the handling of that small batch of ballots became the basis for a narrow court ruling. However, in the process of working through the issues in this case, the justices–aided by the questions highlighted by Waters and the voters who joined the election challenge–managed to touch on other areas where election law and practice need to be more carefully reviewed by those who are not insiders in the current system.

For example, absentee ballots accounted for 56% of all ballots cast statewide in the 2018 general election. Election officials presented data showing nearly 5% of all absentee ballots were discarded because of problems validating voter’s signatures. Voters were never notified that their ballots had been invalidated or given an opportunity to confirm their identification and votes. That seems to be an issue waiting to blow up in the next tight election campaign.

It was noted during oral arguments that election officials made use of the Department of Motor Vehicles signature database, while election law and administrative rules say the only valid comparison is to the voter’s absentee ballot affidavit or voter registration. Another apparently conflict between law and practice.

Is it time for a more robust evaluation of election administration practices along with an overall review of the state’s election laws in light of recent experience?