Is The Hawaii Elections Commission Being Prevented from Electing Its Own Chair?

Is The Hawaii Elections Commission Being Prevented from Electing Its Own Chair

Honolulu, Hawaii — The Hawaii Elections Commission was scheduled to meet on June 24, 2026, to elect either a permanent chair or a temporary chair to facilitate the election of a permanent chair. At the Commission’s June 10 meeting, Deputy Attorney General Jordan Ching advised that if the Commission elected a temporary chair, it should be solely for the purpose of electing a permanent chair.

Before that meeting could occur, Chair Michael Curtis cancelled the June 24 meeting, stating that the Commission was unlikely to obtain the six votes necessary to elect his successor and that new appointments effective July 1 would change the Commission’s composition.

Mr. Curtis also stated that the new chair would be “appointed/elected as prescribed by law.”

Following the cancellation, several commissioners requested that a meeting be convened on July 1 so the newly appointed commissioners could exercise their statutory authority to elect a chair. No meeting was called.

Deputy Attorney General Ching subsequently issued a legal opinion concluding that if the Commission does not elect a chair within fifteen days, the Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court would fill the vacancy.

Some commissioners disagree with that interpretation, noting that HRS §11-7(a)(5) provides that the chair “shall be selected by the members of the elections commission” and that HRS §11-7(d) authorizes the Commission to act by majority vote and establish its own procedures. They argue the Commission must first be given a meaningful opportunity to meet and vote before any role by the Chief Justice is considered.

The Commission cannot elect a chair if the Commission is not permitted to meet.

The Commission’s own history demonstrates that there is another path. When the Elections Commission was first established in 2004, it was unable to immediately elect a permanent chair. Rather than turning to the Chief Justice, the Commission elected temporary chairs to conduct its meetings while continuing to work toward selecting a permanent chair. The Commission operated under two different temporary chairs before ultimately electing a permanent chair during its third year.

That history demonstrates that the Commission has previously relied on temporary leadership to preserve its ability to function while respecting the Legislature’s directive that the chair be selected by the commissioners themselves. The current dispute is not about who should serve as chair. It is about whether the Elections Commission will be allowed to exercise the authority that HRS §11-7 assigns to it.