Background
Petitioners Ralph S. Cushnie, Tara Malia Gregory, and Douglas W. Pasnik filed an original petition for writ of mandamus in the Hawaii Supreme Court against Scott T. Nago, Chief Election Officer of the State of Hawaiʻi, and the Hawaiʻi Elections Commission. The petition sought prospective enforcement and prospective relief directed at future election cycles, including the 2026 election, and requested expedited consideration of the legal questions presented.
The court denied the petition by order dated June 17, 2026. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration on June 25, 2026, arguing — contrary to the framing of their original petition — that the petition had not actually sought prospective relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The court rejected Petitioners’ recharacterization of their own petition, finding that the original petition plainly sought “prospective enforcement” and “prospective relief only” to be applied to future election cycles. The court noted that Petitioners’ request for expedited consideration itself underscored that the relief sought was prospective in nature, making their contrary assertion in the reconsideration motion without merit.
The court also confirmed that it had not overlooked or misapprehended any points of law or fact, as required to warrant reconsideration under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b).
Key Takeaways
- A motion for reconsideration under HRAP Rule 40(b) requires a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact — a high bar that petitioners failed to meet here.
- Petitioners cannot recharacterize the nature of their own pleading on reconsideration; the court held the original petition’s language requesting “prospective enforcement” and “prospective relief only” was unambiguous.
- The court’s expedited-consideration request by petitioners was itself treated as evidence of the prospective nature of the relief sought.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the limited grounds for reconsideration in Hawaii appellate practice and signals the court’s unwillingness to allow litigants to reframe their claims after an adverse ruling. For election law practitioners, it also illustrates the difficulty of obtaining mandamus relief directed at prospective enforcement of election obligations when courts find such relief premature or otherwise improper.
The decision leaves intact the June 17 denial of the mandamus petition, meaning the underlying legal questions Petitioners sought to have resolved prospectively before the 2026 election cycle will not be addressed by this court in this proceeding.