Background
Kurt Fevella and Bob McDermott tied in the August 8, 2026 Republican primary for Hawaiʻi State Senate District 20. McDermott was selected as the winner in an August 15 tiebreaker using a lau hala basket method. Fevella petitioned for a writ of mandamus to invalidate that result, arguing that the tiebreaker method required rulemaking and that two voters had been improperly denied District 20 ballots.
The court took judicial notice of a related election contest and its evidentiary hearing. That record showed that two voters residing in District 20 were mistakenly issued ballots for a precinct in Senate District 21. The error created a two-ballot underage in the tied District 20 race, where a single vote could have altered the outcome.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court denied the mandamus petition. Mandamus is unavailable when the petitioner has another adequate remedy, and Hawaiʻi’s primary-election-contest statute supplied that remedy. Fevella did not file an election contest by the August 24 deadline, and the court concluded he could have proactively sought information after learning of the tie and timely pursued that statutory route.
The court declined to treat the petition as one of extraordinary public importance, emphasizing the need to resolve election disputes within statutory deadlines so general-election ballots can be prepared and sent to military and overseas voters. Although it denied relief, the court stated that the statutes governing overage and underage reports are unclear because they require the reports to be kept as public records but do not require prompt public posting or notice to candidates before an election-contest deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A writ of mandamus cannot substitute for a timely primary-election contest when that statutory remedy was available.
- An underage that could affect an election result may support an election contest, but candidates must meet the statutory filing deadline.
- The court suggested legislative amendments requiring earlier public availability of overage and underage reports.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that election candidates must act quickly and use the election-contest procedures prescribed by statute, even where information about a ballot error may not have been broadly publicized. It also highlights a reporting gap that can impair a candidate’s ability to discover potentially outcome-changing ballot discrepancies before the contest deadline expires.