Category Archives: Elections

Kirk Caldwell on campaign finance reform (and other topics) in 2004

1 Reply

It often happens like this. You’re searching for something in particular, but during the search you run across really interesting things that you had long since forgotten.

That happened to me this morning. I was digging through files on an ancient hard drive looking for one particular thing, and kept finding gems worth sharing.

Here’s a good one–a long set of notes from an interview I did with Kirk Caldwell in June 2004.

At that time, Caldwell was a freshman state representative and had just wrapped up the second legislative session of his first 2-year term in elected office. I must have recorded the interview and later transcribed it.

We covered a lot of ground, and Caldwell was quite candid. We talked about the negative influence of money and elections, paths to reform, the internal dynamics of the legislature, and a range of related topics. Caldwell was, at that point in his career, a supporter of campaign finance reform. At issue was a bill to expand public financing of state and local elections, and Caldwell talked with me about the bill, the politics, and the need for reform.

My notes run on for 11 typewritten pages, but I think you’ll find them interesting reading.

Here’s one small excerpt.

I was able to track down the story that resulted from this and other interviews. Here’s a link to the story. It appeared in the July 21-27, 2004 edition of Honolulu Weekly (“Will elections ever be ‘clean’?“).

A new disconnect in the Aloha Aina Party

2 Replies

There’s been more maneuvering behind the scenes of the Aloha Aina Party, the first Hawaiian political party in modern state history.

Earlier posts here commented on the unusual status of the party, which was created as a limited liability corporation rather than as a nonprofit organization similar to most other political parties.

Now three documents have been filed with the state’s Business Registration Division, all on Friday, October 30. As a result of these moves, the former Aloha Aina Party LLC is no more, and has now been converted into a new nonprofit organization, Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii.

The first document to be prepared was “Articles of Conversion,” which authorized the former Aloha Aina Party LLC to morph into the new Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii, a nonprofit corporation. It was signed by Daniel B. Decker IV as the authorized member of the LLC on October 21, 2020, but was not filed with the state Business Registration Division until October 30, after the next document–the “Articles of Incorporation” for the new nonprofit entity, had also been filed. The “Articles of Conversion” indicates Decker was the only authorized member eligible to vote for the conversion.

I think the next step was to create the Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii as a nonprofit organization by filing its “Articles of Incorporation.” The Articles of Incorporation identify Herbert “Pua” Ishibashi of Hilo as the organization’s registered agent. Ishibashi was one of the original founders of the party as an LLC, ran unsuccessfully for Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Hawaii Island trustee, and then rejoined the LLC after his campaign was over. The Articles of Incorporation are signed by Daniel B Decker IV as the sole incorporator. The document was signed and dated on October 29, 2020, and filed with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the following day. A copy was then attached and filed with “Articles of Conversion” on October 30.

Finally, the third form, filed with the Business Registration Division at 5 p.m. on October 30, updated the officers of the newly created Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii. Landis W. Ornellas, Jr. is identified holding positions of president, director, chairman of the board, and CEO. Decker is listed as secretary, treasurer, and director. And Carmen Medina is listed as a director.

The form includes this statement: “I certify under the penalties of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that I am authorized to make this change for the entity and the statements herein are true and correct in all material respects.”

It was signed by Decker on October 30.

However, despite these legal changes, the Aloha Aina Party LLC still appears to be the only entity registered with the Campaign Spending Commission and the Office of Elections, even though it now appears the LLC no longer legally exists. Both agencies still list Donald Kaulia as the party chair, but that is a carry over from an earlier slate of officials. Kaulia is no longer among those authorized to act on behalf of the new nonprofit party.

Sorting out this messy situation is going to be a challenge for those who would like to see this political party have a future.

And it does not appear the party garnered sufficient votes in the General Election to remain on the ballot in future elections.

See:

“Aloha Aina Party facing questions as election approaches,” October 19, 2020.

“Go ask your CIA operatives,” said the Aloha Aina Party chair, October 20, 2020.

“It’s an LLC…It’s a political party…It’s two things in one!” October 21, 2020.

Unsuccessful congressional candidate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

4 Replies

Brian Evans is apparently one of those candidates for public office who just doesn’t know when to stop.

Evans ran against Tulsi Gabbard as a Republican in the 2018 2nd Congressional District race. Gabbard easily won with 74% of the vote, while Evans got just 21.7%.

This year, Evans morphed himself into a self-described progressive Democrat and ran for the same 2nd Congressional District seat against Kai Kehele and two others in the August Democratic primary. Kahele drew 100,841 votes or 65.8% of the total. Evans came in a distant second with 12,337 or 8.1% of the votes.

On August 11, just three days after the primary election, Evans–without benefit of an attorney–filed a self-styled “COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO THE PRIMARY RESULTS FOR CANDIDATE KAI KAHELE FOR US CONGRESS” directly with the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Despite his own poor showing in the primary, Evans asked the court to strike Kalehe from the ballot because he had not been available for several scheduled debates after being called to active duty with the Hawaii Air National Guard as part of its Covid-19 response. As a result, the debates were cancelled.

On September 25, 2020, attorneys representing the state Office of Elections filed a motion to dismiss Evans’ complaint. Then, on October 2, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its own findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgement, which closely followed the arguments made on behalf of the elections office.

First, the court summarized Evans’ position.

Plaintiff contends Kahele purposely availed himself of active duty with the assistance of co-conspirators within his campaign in an effort to avoid a full and fair campaign process and deprive all other candidates of their right to a fair race and public knowledge of the candidates. He further states that this was done to avoid debates with opponents in his own party and to deprive other candidates of their fair opportunities to appear in the media. Thus, he contends the court should strike Kahele as a candidate for the office and order an investigation into this matter.

Then it addressed the legal requirements needed to successfully challenge an election. Those requirements are set out in Section 11-172 HRS.

§11-172 Contests for cause; generally. With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly interested, or any thirty voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the supreme court. The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes, such as but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in the election results. The complaint shall also set forth any reasons for reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the precinct officials or the officials at a counting center in an election using the electronic voting system. A copy of the complaint shall be delivered to the chief election officer or the clerk in the case of county elections.

The court’s conclusions walked through the legal requirements.

“A complaint challenging the results of an election pursuant to HRS § 11-172 fails to state a claim unless the plaintiff demonstrates errors that would change the outcome of the election,” according to the court’s ruling.

[T]he [plaintiff] must show that he or she has actual information of mistakes or errors sufficient to change the result. The [plaintiff] has the burden of demonstrating that the specific acts and conduct of which [he or she] complain[s] would have had the effect of changing the results. In the absence of facts showing that irregularities exceed the reported margin between the candidates, the complaint is legally insufficient because, even if its truth were assumed, the result of the election would not be affected.
.. .
It is not sufficient that the [plaintiff] points to a poorly run and inadequately supervised election process that evinces room for abuse or possibilities of fraud. An election contest cannot be based upon mere belief or indefinite information.

Evans’ complaint failed to present specific evidence of such “mistakes or errors.”

“Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to him, it is evident he has presented no set of facts that would entitle him to the requested relief,” the court found. “He does not present specific acts or actual information of mistake or error sufficient to change the election results.”

Further, the court found Evans had not presented any evidence that Kahele (or any candidate) had a legal obligation to participate in debates or even to campaign. Absent such an obligation, “the refusal to debate was not an error, mistake or irregularity that would change the result of the election.”

Finally, the court noted that striking Kahele as a candidate and launching an investigation, as requested by Evans, are remedies not authorized by statute, and therefore beyond the reach of the court even if Evans had made a more substantial case.

Evans responded with a series of motions asking the court to reconsider. All were rejected.

Then on October 3, the day immediately following the court’s ruling, Evans filed a writ of certiorari seeking permission to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a subsequent tweet, Evans claimed: “In a rare move, the US Supreme Court is requiring Kai Kahele to Answer candidates Appeal to them after the #Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case without even requiring Kahele to Answer the duly served Complaint.”

Actually, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a standard procedural notice to Kahele that a writ had been filed, noting filing requirements for a response, if Kahele chooses to file one. The court did not order Kahele to answer Evans’ complaint.

Editorial note: It would have been much smarter for Evans to have accepted the lesson in state election law provided by the Office of Elections and the Hawaii Supreme Court, and accept the court’s decision. Instead, he’s wasting the time and public money required to process an unsustainable appeal. Perhaps he believes all makes him look like a strong candidate standing up for his rights. In my opinion, his repeatedly ignoring the actual law governing Hawaii elections makes him look like just another kook misusing the legal process in an attempt to blame someone else for his poor results where it counts, in the votes cast.