FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.
from Hawaii Judiciary
NO. SCPW-26-0000498
RALPH S. CUSHNIE and TAMARA MCKAY, Petitioners, vs. SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer, State of Hawai‘i, OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, State of Hawai‘i, and ELECTIONS COMMISSION, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents.
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.
Self-Represented Petitioners, RALPH S. CUSHNIE and TAMARA MCKAY
Attorneys for Respondents SCOT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer, State of Hawai‘i, and OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, State of Hawai‘i: Randall S. Nishiyama and Nietzsche L. Tolan, Deputy Attorneys General, and Aaron Schulaner, General Counsel
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 07/14/26.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter T. Cahill, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Dyan M. Medeiros, due to a vacancy, filed 07/15/26.
NOTE: Order setting Oral Argument for Friday, 10/16/26 at 10:00 AM, filed 10/05/26.
COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Medeiros, assigned by reason of vacancy.
Brief Description:
This petition for a writ of mandamus requests that the court compel the Office of Elections to provide staff support to the Hawai‘i Elections Commission.
On June 30, 2026, Elections Commission Chair Michael Curtis’ term as chairperson expired. The Commission was left without a Chair.
On July 1, 2026, the Elections Commission prepared a notice for a meeting to be held on July 8, 2026, to address the chairperson vacancy. The Commission requested staff support from the Office of Elections, as set out in Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) § 11-1.5(b). The support from the Office of Elections helps to fulfill statutory notice requirements. The Office of Elections declined to provide staff support for the meeting, and the meeting did not occur.
Election Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay bring this writ of mandamus to compel the Office of Elections to provide support for the Elections Commission meeting. They argue the Office of Elections is required to provide staff support to the Commission under HRS § 11-1.5(b), and the Office violates the law by refusing to do so. This refusal has prevented the Commission from holding a meeting in compliance with HRS chapter 92, part I, commonly referred to as the Sunshine Law.
This court ordered the Office of Elections to respond and answer (1) whether the Office failed or refused to provide staff support to the Elections Commission and (2) whether that failure or refusal prevented the Elections Commission from meeting to elect a chairperson.
The Office of Elections answers that it provides staff support in response to actions passed by a majority of the Elections Commission or at the request of the Commission Chair, neither of which is present here.
* * * * *
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court to Hear Case Friday Over Whether Office of Elections Can Prevent Elections Commission From Meeting
News release from Ralph Cushnie, Oct 12, 2026
HONOLULU — The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Friday, October 16, in Cushnie and McKay v. Nago, SCPW-26-0000498, a case brought by Hawaiʻi Elections Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay concerning the Office of Elections’ refusal to provide administrative support needed for the Elections Commission to meet after its former chair’s term expired.
The case centers on HRS §11-1.5(b), which provides that the Office of Elections “shall provide staff support to the elections commission, as requested by the elections commission.” Cushnie and McKay requested the administrative support necessary to notice and convene a public Commission meeting. The Office of Elections refused, maintaining that the request lacked authorization through Commission action by majority vote.
That creates the central issue now before the Court: How can the Commission take a majority vote authorizing the support necessary to hold a meeting when it cannot hold the meeting without that support?
The Elections Commission has not assembled since the former chair’s term expired June 30, 2026.
The dispute has now expanded beyond simply arranging a meeting. A supplemental filing submitted to the Supreme Court on October 11 documents concerns that correspondence addressed to the Elections Commission has also not been distributed to commissioners.
In June 2024, the Elections Commission voted unanimously among participating members to require Commission-business correspondence to be shared with the Commission. It also separately voted 6–1 that communications and correspondence addressed to the Elections Commission be distributed to commissioners as received.
The new Supreme Court filing documents that a July 5 email from Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp concerning the effort to convene the Commission was sent to the Commission's official email address but was not distributed to Cushnie and McKay through the Commission's correspondence process. Cushnie ultimately obtained the email through a public-records request.
On September 28, McKay asked Chief Election Officer Scott Nago and Office of Elections staff to explain whether correspondence sent to the Commission email address is distributed to commissioners, who receives it, who decides what is forwarded, and whether her correspondence since July 1 had been distributed. Cushnie separately requested that any undistributed Commission correspondence be provided to commissioners. As of October 11, the filing states that the commissioners had received neither a response nor Commission correspondence responsive to those requests.
The broader question is who controls whether Hawaiʻi's Elections Commission can function.
The Legislature created the Elections Commission to provide oversight of election administration, while requiring the Office of Elections to provide the Commission with staff support. An amicus filing by the Public Interest Legal Foundation argues that the Commission's dependence on OE for administrative support should not be interpreted as giving the Office authority to decide whether the Commission may assemble.
“This should be a simple question,” Cushnie said. “Can the Office of Elections withhold the administrative support necessary for the Elections Commission to meet and perform its oversight responsibilities? The Commission cannot exercise its authority if it cannot assemble, and it cannot effectively function if commissioners are not even receiving correspondence addressed to the Commission.”
Oral argument is scheduled for Friday, October 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. before the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court at Aliʻiōlani Hale in Honolulu.
Case: Cushnie and McKay v. Nago
Supreme Court Case No.: SCPW-26-0000498
Oral Argument: Friday, October 16, 2026, 10:00 a.m.
Location: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, Aliʻiōlani Hale, Honolulu