Background
Travis A. Liggett, an unsuccessful candidate in Maui County’s August 8, 2026 first special election for mayor, finished sixth. Under the Maui County Charter, the two highest vote-getters advance to the second special election.
Liggett alleged that errors or irregularities in government publications and communications materially misstated his public-policy record and could have adversely affected voters’ comparisons among mayoral candidates. He acknowledged that he trailed the second-place candidate by more than 11,000 votes, but argued that corrected information could have caused enough voters to choose differently.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in a primary-election contest. Although HRS § 11-172 requires an election-contest complaint to allege causes that could cause a difference in the result, the court explained that the alleged causes must support relief authorized by HRS § 11-173.5(b): deciding which candidate was nominated to proceed.
Liggett’s allegations required speculation that the claimed publication and communication errors would have erased his substantial vote deficit and made him the second-place candidate. He provided no evidence, beyond speculation, that correcting the asserted errors before the election would have yielded the additional votes necessary to change which candidates advanced. The court also denied as moot a motion filed on August 24, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An election challenge cannot rest on generalized possibilities or speculation about changed voter behavior.
- A primary-election contestant must connect alleged errors to a plausible change in which candidate was nominated or elected.
- A substantial vote margin, without evidence that the alleged conduct could overcome it, defeats an election-contest claim.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that Hawaiʻi election-contest pleadings require more than an allegation that irregularities were theoretically capable of affecting an election. A challenger must provide a non-speculative basis to conclude that the specific complained-of conduct could alter the actual result for which relief is available.