*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
28-AUG-2026
10:29 AM
Dkt. 63 OP
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
NATALIE IWASA, PHYLLIS TAKARA, DANNY LOUI, CHELSEA LOUI,
SARA CHINEN, JOHN M. OTTO, JUANITA LIU, REBECCA GARDNER,
ORION IWASA, SHAWN CAVACO, OLIVIA MANAYAN, LEONARD PARESA, MICHELLE RIOS, CHRIS CHWASTYK, LORRAINE MANAYAN, WINSTON WELCH, NANCI KREIDMAN, ROBERT FINLEY, CALVIN HARA, JEANNINE JOHNSON, THOMAS COOPER, DONNA HOSHIDE, DOMINIC MARQUEZ, GAREN DEWEESE,
BRADFORD COLE, KEVIN IMANAKA, YVETTE IMANAKA, GUY MATSUNAGA,
BART DAME, KATHLEEN STANLEY, JOEY MANAHAN, RICHARD SING,
ZOE SING, ERIC HAMAKAWA, PETER SAVASTA, TAMMIE TORRES,
ANGELA CORREA-PEI, NOLA LEWIS, GAIL AWAYA-FUJII, and
WAIPAKAWIWAOʻOLE PARKER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER;
STATE OF HAWAIʻI OFFICE OF ELECTIONS; CHADD KADOTA, in his
official capacity as Acting City Clerk, City and County of
Honolulu; TREVOR OZAWA; and TARA MALIA GREGORY,
Defendants.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
AUGUST 28, 2026
GINOZA, J., CIRCUIT JUDGE CAHILL,
IN PLACE OF EDDINS, J., RECUSED, AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE KUBOTA, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY;
WITH MCKENNA, ACTING C.J., CONCURRING AND DISSENTING SEPARATELY,
AND WITH WHOM CIRCUIT JUDGE SOONG,
IN PLACE OF DEVENS, C.J., RECUSED, JOINS
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
OPINION OF THE COURT BY GINOZA, J., IN WHICH
CIRCUIT JUDGE CAHILL AND CIRCUIT JUDGE KUBOTA JOIN
This election contest challenges the result of the City and
County of Honolulu (City) first special election for the office
of councilmember, District IV, City and County of Honolulu
(District IV), held on August 8, 2026. The main issue before
this court is whether the term limit provision in § 3-102 in the
Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu (Revised
Charter) – which states that “[n]o person shall be elected to
the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive fouryear terms” – prohibits District IV councilmember Thomas Waters,
also known as Tommy Waters (Waters), from being re-elected for
the 2027-2031 term. This case also raises the question as to
the proper procedures to challenge a candidate’s eligibility.
The present dispute traces back to the November 2018
election, in which Waters and Trevor Ozawa (Ozawa) were the two
candidates on the ballot to be elected District IV councilmember
for a four-year term beginning January 2, 2019. Waters v. Nago,
148 Hawaiʻi 46, 49, 468 P.3d 60, 63 (2019). The results from the
November 2018 election indicated that Ozawa had 22 more votes
than Waters. Id. at 50, 468 P.3d at 64. Two election
challenges were filed in this court, one by Waters, challenging
the results of the November 2018 election. Id. at 51-52, 468
P.3d at 65-66. In an opinion issued on January 25, 2019, this
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
court invalidated the November 2018 election for District IV
councilmember because 350 absentee ballots had been invalidly
received and a recount to exclude the invalid ballots was not
possible. Id. at 65-66, 468 P.3d at 79-80. The judgment of
this court required that it be filed with the Governor, under
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 11-174.5(b) (2009), triggering a
renewed election only between Waters and Ozawa in April 2019.
Id. at 66, 468 P.3d at 80. This court did not order a new
election under Revised Charter § 3-105 for filling a vacancy.
Waters prevailed over Ozawa in the April 2019 election and was
sworn in on or around May 8, 2019.
Subsequently, Waters was re-elected in 2022 for the 2023-2027 term.
In March 2026, Waters filed nomination papers to be reelected again for the 2027-2031 term. Ozawa objected to Waters’
nomination under HRS § 12-8 (2009 & Supp. 2025), asserting that
Revised Charter § 3-102’s term limit barred Waters from being
re-elected. After the City Clerk rejected Ozawa’s objection,
Ozawa filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1. The Circuit Court
declared Waters ineligible. Because ballots had already been
printed and distributed, city election officials issued a press
1 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
release advising voters that although Waters’ name appeared on
the ballot, he was ineligible and votes for him would count only
toward determining whether an eligible candidate received a
majority.
On August 8, 2026, in the first special election for
District IV councilmember, Ozawa received 12,252 votes, Waters
received 8,654 votes, Tara Malia Gregory (Gregory) received
4,212 votes, and Jason Liang received 2,674 votes. Because no
candidate received a majority of the votes, and election
officials declared Waters ineligible, Ozawa and Gregory would
advance to the second special election in November unless we
rule otherwise.
We conclude under the circumstances of this case, and due
to an exception in the declaratory judgment statute HRS § 632-1
(2016), Ozawa’s declaratory judgment action should have been
dismissed as procedurally improper because HRS § 12-8’s
objection provisions and HRS Chapter 11 statutes governing
election contests provide special forms of remedy to address
such disputes.
Under HRS § 11-172 (Supp. 2025) and § 11-173.5 (2009 &
Supp. 2025), however, we can address the merits of Waters’
eligibility in the election challenge brought by Plaintiffs
Natalie Iwasa, et al. (40 voters) in this case, SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX.
That is, whether Waters is eligible for another term as
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
councilmember could cause a difference in the results of the
August 8, 2026 election regarding who qualifies to be on the
ballot for the second special election in November.
We conclude under a plain reading of § 3-102 of the Revised
Charter that Waters was “elected to” the 2019-2023 four-year
term. Determining whether Waters or Ozawa was elected to that
term was delayed due to the challenges to the November 2018
election. But it was the same four-year term to which Waters
was ultimately elected. The term limit provision in Revised
Charter § 3-102 is not based on the amount of time “served” or
when a councilmember is sworn into office. Further, Waters was
not elected as a successor to fill a vacancy. Our reading of
the Revised Charter is consistent with the purpose of the term
limit expressed by the Honolulu Charter Commission in 1992,
which proposed a term limit to encourage citizen legislators who
would sit out a term after being elected to two consecutive
terms.
Therefore, because Waters was also elected to the 2023-2027
four-year term, Waters is ineligible for re-election to the
office of District IV councilmember for the 2027-2031 term.2
2 No voters have been disenfranchised, as argued by the 40 voters. The number of votes received does not render a candidate eligible for office. Rather, under the term limit provision of Revised Charter § 3-102, adopted by voters in 1998, we conclude Waters is not eligible to run for councilmember for the 2027-2031 term. Further, the sentiment that any dispute about Waters’ eligibility should default to allowing him to run and let voters decide, misses the point. The plain reading of the term limit precludes such
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
For this county election contest, this court’s judgment
“shall decide what candidate was nominated or elected, as the
case may be[.]” HRS § 11-173.5(b) (2009).
Accordingly, the names of Ozawa and Gregory shall be placed
on the ballot for the 2026 second special election for District
IV councilmember.
Having heard this matter with oral argument and in
accordance with HRS § 11-173.5, we enter the following findings
of fact, conclusions of law and judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT
2018 Second Special Election for the District IV Council Seat
1. Pursuant to the Revised Charter, nonpartisan special
elections for City and County of Honolulu elective officers are
held in conjunction with the State of Hawaiʻi’s (the State)
primary and general elections except as otherwise provided.
Revised Charter § 13-116 (2025).
2. On November 6, 2018, in conjunction with the State’s
general election, the City held a nonpartisan second special
election for the District IV councilmember seat. Waters, 148
Hawaiʻi at 49, 468 P.3d at 63.
3. Waters and Ozawa were the nonpartisan candidates for
the District IV seat. Id.
a run. Such a default would also ignore the votes in favor of Gregory. Here, we must interpret the provisions of the Revised Charter’s term limit.
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
4. The State of Hawaiʻi Office of Elections (Office of
Elections) reported that Ozawa had 22 more votes than Waters in
the second special election. Id. at 50, 468 P.3d at 64.
5. On November 26, 2018, Waters and a group of 39 voters
who reside and are registered to vote in District IV each filed
complaints contesting the District IV election results. Id. at
51-52, 468 P.3d at 65-66.
6. On January 25, 2019, this court entered a published
opinion invalidating the District IV election results because
350 absentee ballots had been improperly received, and a recount
to exclude the invalid votes was not possible. Id. at 65-66,
468 P.3d at 79-80. This court’s judgment ordered that it be
filed with the Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi in accordance
with HRS § 11-174.5(b). Id. at 66, 468 P.3d at 80. This court
did not order a new election to fill a vacancy under Revised
Charter § 3-105.
7. On January 29, 2019, then-Governor David Y. Ige issued
a proclamation that “there will be a special election for the
Councilmember for District IV, City and County of Honolulu, to
be conducted by the City Clerk and to be held not later than one
hundred twenty days after the judgment was filed.”
8. On February 4, 2019, the Honolulu City Council
(Council) adopted Resolution 19-12, stating that this court’s
January 25, 2019 judgment invalidating the second special
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
election for the District IV seat “creat[ed] a vacancy on the
City Council . . . on that date,” and called a special election
“to fill the vacancy” for the District IV seat, citing Revised
Charter § 3-105(b).
9. Revised Charter § 3-105 provides:
Section 3-105. Vacancy in Office –
A vacancy in the office of any councilmember shall be
filled in the following manner:
(a) If the unexpired term is less than one year, the
remaining members of the council shall elect a
successor with requisite qualifications to fill
the vacancy for the unexpired term. Vacancies
shall be filled only at a meeting of the council
after reasonable notice of intent to fill the
vacancy has been given to all remaining members
of the council by the presiding officer. Should
the council fail to fill any vacancy within
thirty days after its occurrence, the mayor shall
appoint a successor to fill the vacancy for the
unexpired term.
(b) If the unexpired term is for one year or more,
the vacancy shall be filled by special election
to be called by the council within ten days and
to be held within one hundred twenty days after
the occurrence of the vacancy. At such time, the
electors of the district shall elect a successor
to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the
term. If any special or general election is to
be held in the city after thirty days and within
one hundred eighty days after the occurrence of
the vacancy, then the election shall be held in
conjunction with such other election. Pending the
election, the remaining members of the council
shall make a temporary appointment with requisite
qualifications to fill the vacancy until a
successor is duly elected. The vacancy shall be
filled only at a meeting of the council after
reasonable notice of intent to fill the vacancy
has been given to all remaining members of the
council by the presiding officer. Should the
council fail to fill the vacancy within thirty
days after its occurrence, the mayor shall make
the temporary appointment to fill the vacancy
until a successor is duly elected.
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
10. On February 5, 2019, the Council adopted a resolution
to temporarily appoint Michael D. Formby to fill the “vacancy”
in Council District IV, citing Revised Charter § 3-105(b).
11. By Special Election Proclamation dated February 7,
2019, then-City Clerk Glen Takahashi proclaimed that the special
election for the District IV seat would be held on April 13,
2019, “consistent with and pursuant to the Hawaii Supreme
Court’s decision . . . which invalidated the second special
election for councilmember for District IV held on November 6,
2018.” The proclamation declared that the special election
ballot would only include Ozawa and Waters, and that no
candidate nomination process would be held. The proclamation
also said: “The term of the office for the councilmember
elected will end at 12 o’clock noon, January 2, 2023.”
12. Waters received the highest number of votes in the
April 13, 2019 special election.
13. Waters was sworn in as District IV councilmember on or
around May 8, 2019.
2022 Election for the District IV Council Seat
14. In 2022, Waters was re-elected as District IV
councilmember for a term ending at noon on January 2, 2027.
15. On January 3, 2023, Waters took the oath of office as
District IV councilmember.
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
2026 Objections and Preliminary Determination Letters Pursuant
to HRS § 12-8
16. HRS § 12-8 sets forth the procedure and timeline for
registered voters and others to object to nomination papers, and
explains how those objections must be resolved:
§12-8. Nomination papers; challenge; evidentiary
hearings and decisions.
(a) All nomination papers filed in conformity with
section 12-3 shall be deemed valid unless objection is made
thereto by a registered voter, an officer of a political
party whose name is on file with the chief election
officer, the chief election officer, or the county clerk in
the case of a county office. All objections shall be filed
in writing not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day or
the next earliest working day prior to the primary or
special election.
(b) If an objection is made by a registered voter, the
candidate objected thereto shall be notified of the
objection by the chief election officer or the clerk in the
case of county offices by registered or certified mail.
(c) If an objection is filed by an officer of a
political party with the circuit court, the candidate
objected thereto shall be notified of the objection by an
officer of the political party by registered or certified
mail.
(d) Except for objections by an officer of a political
party filed directly with the circuit court, the chief
election officer or the clerk in the case of county offices
shall have the necessary powers and authority to reach a
preliminary decision on the merits of the objection;
provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to extend to the candidate a right to an administrative
contested case hearing as defined in section 91-1(5). The
chief election officer or the clerk in the case of county
offices shall render a preliminary decision not later than
five working days after the objection is filed.
(e) If the chief election officer or clerk in the case
of county offices determines that the objection warrants
the disqualification of the candidate, the chief election
officer or clerk shall file a complaint in the circuit
court for a determination of the objection; provided that
the complaint shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit
court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the seventh working day
after the objection was filed.
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(f) If a political party objects to the nomination paper
filed by a candidate because the candidate is not a member
of the party pursuant to the party’s rules filed in
conformance with section 11-63, an officer of the party
whose name appears on file with the chief election officer
shall file a complaint in the circuit court for a prompt
determination of the objection; provided that the complaint
shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court not
later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day or the next
earliest working day prior to that election day.
(g) If an officer of a political party whose name
appears on file with the chief election officer, the chief
election officer, or clerk in the case of county offices
files a complaint in the circuit court, the circuit court
clerk shall issue to the defendants named in the complaint
a summons to appear before the court not later than 4:30
p.m. on the fifth day after service thereof.
(h) The circuit court shall hear the complaint in a
summary manner and at the hearing the court shall cause the
evidence to be reduced to writing and shall not later than
4:30 p.m. on the fourth day after the return give judgment
fully stating all findings of fact and of law. The
judgment shall decide the objection presented in the
complaint, and a certified copy of the judgment shall
forthwith be served on the chief election officer or the
clerk, as the case may be.
(i) If the judgment disqualifies the candidate, the
chief election officer or the clerk shall follow the
procedures set forth in sections 11-117 and 11-118
regarding the disqualifications of candidates.
(Emphases added.)
17. On March 17, 2026, Waters filed nomination papers for
the District IV seat with the City Clerk’s office.
18. As alleged in the first amended complaint, on March
25, 2026, District IV voter Christian Butt (Butt) filed a
written objection to Waters’ candidacy with the City Clerk
pursuant to HRS § 12-8, questioning whether Waters’ 2019 term
counted toward the Revised Charter’s two-consecutive-term limit
in Revised Charter § 3-102.
19. Revised Charter § 3-102 provides:
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Section 3-102. Number, Election and Terms of Office of
Councilmembers --The council shall consist of nine members. One
member shall be elected from each of the nine districts
hereinafter provided. Except as provided in Section
16-122, the regular terms of office of councilmembers shall
be four years beginning at twelve o’clock meridian on the
second day of January following their election. The terms
shall be staggered in accordance with Section 16-122. No
person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for
more than two consecutive four-year terms.
20. In a letter dated April 7, 2026, Acting City Clerk
Chadd Kadota (Kadota) responded to Butt’s objection with a
“Preliminary Determination” that the provisions of Revised
Charter § 3-102 “that prohibit a person from being elected to
the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive fouryear terms has not been triggered.” Kadota stated it was his
preliminary determination that the objection does not warrant
seeking a disqualification determination in the Circuit Court of
the State of Hawaiʻi, and that no further action would be taken.
21. On June 5, 2026, Ozawa submitted to the City Clerk a
written objection to Waters’ candidacy, asserting that Waters is
ineligible to seek election to “a third consecutive four-year
term” in District IV under Revised Charter § 3-102.
22. By letter dated June 12, 2026, Kadota responded to
Ozawa’s June 5, 2026 objection with a preliminary determination
stating that Ozawa’s objection did not warrant seeking a
judicial determination of disqualification and that no further
action would be taken.
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Ozawa’s Circuit Court Complaint (1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
23. On June 16, 2026, Ozawa filed a lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, Ozawa v. Kadota, et. al., 1CCV-26-0000889, seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to HRS Chapter
632, that Waters is ineligible under Revised Charter
§ 3-102 to be elected to the District IV seat for the 2027-2031
term, “by virtue of his having already been elected to that
office for two consecutive four-year terms (2019-2023 and 2023-2027)[.]” The lawsuit named Kadota, State Chief Election
Officer Scott T. Nago (Nago), and Waters as defendants. Ozawa
also sought an injunction enjoining Kadota from certifying
Waters’ nomination paper for the 2026 election for District IV
and enjoining Nago from printing and distributing ballots for
the “2026 general election” that includes Waters’ name as a
candidate for District IV.
24. On June 19, 2026, Ozawa filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.
25. On June 22, 2026, Waters filed a motion to dismiss
Ozawa’s complaint, arguing in part that under Revised Charter
§ 3-102, he is eligible for re-election in 2026 because his
first term following the April 13, 2019 election was not a full
four-year term. Waters also argued that Ozawa’s Circuit Court
complaint improperly sought to circumvent HRS § 12-8’s “specific
process where a registered voter can object to nomination
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
papers” and that HRS § 12-8 did not provide Ozawa a private
right of action to pursue his objection to Waters’ eligibility.
26. On July 8, 2026, Ozawa filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Revised Charter § 3-102 limits the
consecutive four-year terms to which a person may be elected,
not how long a person may serve. Ozawa argued that the only
circumstance in which the Revised Charter contemplates electing
a person to less than a four-year term is Revised Charter § 3-105, which provides for a special election to elect a successor
to fill a vacancy for the remainder of an unexpired term of one
year or more. Ozawa contended that the April 2019 election was
a “re-run” of the invalidated 2018 election, not an election to
an unexpired term under Revised Charter § 3-105, and that
therefore Waters has been elected, in 2019 and 2022, to two full
four-year terms.
27. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss and motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2026.
During the hearing, Ozawa withdrew his requests for injunctive
relief, and the Circuit Court confirmed that the only remaining
relief Ozawa sought was a declaratory ruling that Waters is
ineligible under Revised Charter § 3-102 for the upcoming
councilmember District IV election.
28. During the hearing, the Circuit Court denied the
motion to dismiss, stating that Waters had not shown that the
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, “if for no other reason than because the complaint
alleges that Mr. Waters has already been elected to two
consecutive four-year terms.”
29. The Circuit Court also rejected Waters’ argument that
HRS § 12-8 does not provide a private right of action, stating
that Ozawa’s complaint did not rely on HRS § 12-8 and that the
complaint instead stated that HRS § 12-8 does not provide an
adequate remedy and affords no further administrative or
judicial avenue to a registered voter seeking review before the
election. The Circuit Court stated that Ozawa asserted a
controversy between himself and the Circuit Court defendants
regarding Revised Charter § 3-102, Ozawa has a private cause of
action to seek enforcement of that section, and the dispute is
the type that the declaratory judgment statute, HRS § 632-1, is
intended to cover.
30. With regard to Ozawa’s motion for summary judgment and
the interpretation of Revised Charter § 3-102, the Circuit Court
preliminarily stated that the Revised Charter contemplates only
two types of councilmember terms: a regular term under § 3-102,
and a vacancy term under § 3-105. The Circuit Court stated that
Waters’ first term “clearly was not a vacancy term” because
Revised Charter § 3-105 is triggered by a vacancy “such as the
departure of a sitting council member, a death, et cetera,”
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
which did not occur. The Circuit Court stated that, instead,
the term to which Waters was elected in 2019 was “always a
regular four-year term.” In particular, the Circuit Court
stated that in 2018, Waters and Ozawa ran for election to a
regular four-year term, and neither was elected in 2018 because
the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court invalidated the 2018 election,
triggering a new election in 2019 for that same term. The
Circuit Court stated that Waters and Ozawa then continued to run
in 2019 for “the very same term they both ran for in 2018[.]”
The Circuit Court further stated that the fact that Waters was
not elected until 2019 and was not able to serve the entire
four-year term “does not alter the term he ran for and was
elected to[,]” which was a “regular four-year term.” The
Circuit Court further stated that “any other result would be
absurd” and that if Waters was elected to and served a 2027-2031
term, he would end up serving as District IV councilmember for
more than eleven and a half consecutive years, which is “clearly
and undeniably contrary to the obvious intent of Revised Charter
§ 3-102, which intends to allow any person a maximum of eight
consecutive years in the same council member seat.” The Circuit
Court further stated that allowing a councilmember to serve for
more than eight years “is exactly what the voters rejected in
2016.” The Circuit Court therefore granted the motion for
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
summary judgment to the extent that it found Waters ineligible
to be elected to the District IV seat for the 2027-2031 term.
31. On July 28, 2026, Ozawa filed a withdrawal of his June
19, 2026 motion for preliminary injunction.
32. On July 29, 2026, the Circuit Court entered an order
and judgment declaring that Waters is ineligible to be elected
as District IV councilmember for the 2027-2031 term.
33. Waters timely appealed from the order and judgment.
34. On August 12, 2026, Ozawa filed an application to
transfer the appeal to this court, which this court granted.
2026 First Special Election
35. In the meantime, as alleged in the 40 voters’ first
amended complaint, on July 17, 2026, election officials mailed
ballots containing Waters’ name to District IV voters.
36. On August 1, 2026, following the Circuit Court’s
ruling, the Honolulu Elections Division, Office of the City
Clerk (Honolulu Elections Division), issued a public release
advising voters that Waters is ineligible to be elected to the
District IV councilmember seat for the 2027-2031 term. The
release stated that because ballots had already been printed
before the Circuit Court’s ruling, Waters’ name would continue
to appear on ballots for the District IV contest, and that votes
cast for Waters would be counted only for the purpose of
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
determining whether an eligible candidate has received a
majority of the votes counted in the first special election.
37. On August 8, 2026, in conjunction with the State’s
primary election, the City held a nonpartisan first special
election for the District IV councilmember seat.
38. As indicated in the first amended complaint, the
result of this District IV race in the first special election
was as follows:
OZAWA, Trevor 12,252 39.9%
WATERS, Tommy 8,654 28.2%
GREGORY, Tara Malia 4,212 13.7%
LIANG, Jason K. 2,674 8.7%
Blank Votes 2,734 8.9%
Over Votes 210 0.7%
39. Pursuant to Revised Charter § 13-116(2)(c), because no
candidate received a majority of votes cast in the first special
election, “the names of the two candidates receiving the highest
number of votes cast for that office shall be placed on the
ballot for the second special election.”
The Election Contest Filed by 40 Voters Who Reside and Are
Registered to Vote in District IV
40. On August 14, 2026, 40 voters who reside and are
registered to vote in District IV filed a first amended
complaint contesting the election for District IV.
41. The 40 voters assert one count: “By declaring Waters
ineligible, the Honolulu Elections Division changed the primary
election results and disenfranchised voters by declaring Gregory
18
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
as the candidate advancing over Waters, despite Waters receiving
the second-highest votes.”
42. The 40 voters assert in part that HRS § 12-8 is the
exclusive means in which a citizen can challenge an election
nomination, and that challengers who disagree with the City
Clerk’s determination are not authorized to further challenge a
nomination through a declaratory judgment action.
43. The 40 voters also allege that because the Circuit
Court’s July 29, 2026 judgment did not direct elections
officials to “take action” or stay the Circuit Court’s ruling
pending appeal, the Honolulu Elections Division should not have
taken any action and “interfered with the primary election by
declaring to the public that Waters was ineligible.”
44. The 40 voters also assert that the Revised Charter
does not bar Waters from running for the District IV seat for
the 2027-2031 term. They contend that Waters has not served the
maximum allowable two consecutive four-year terms because his
first term following the 2019 election “lasted 3 years, 7
months, and 25 days.”
45. The 40 voters ask the court to (1) determine that
Waters is an eligible candidate for the general election against
Ozawa for the District IV councilmember seat; (2) direct that
Waters be placed on the ballot for the general election on
November 3, 2026; and (3) direct the Honolulu Elections Division
19
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and other officials to withdraw or remove any contrary notices,
postings, or declarations regarding Waters’ eligibility.
The August 19, 2026 Order
46. On August 19, 2026, this court issued an order
directing that Kadota, Ozawa, and Gregory be made defendants to
the election contest.
47. This court also consolidated the election contest,
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX, with Waters’ appeal, SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX, for
purposes of oral argument, and took judicial notice of the
records and files in the appeal, SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and underlying
records in the Intermediate Court of Appeals case (CAAP-26-0000550) and Circuit Court case (1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX).
State Election Officer Nago’s Answer to the First Amended
Complaint
48. On August 24, 2026, Nago and the Office of Elections
filed a response, stating that they take no position on the
first amended complaint, and that the first amended complaint
challenges actions taken by the Honolulu Elections Division –
which is part of the Office of the City Clerk – not Nago or the
Office of Elections.
49. Nago and the Office of Elections also state that they
take no position on the interpretation of the Revised Charter or
whether the Circuit Court correctly determined Waters’
eligibility. The Office of Elections requests that the
20
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
candidates for District IV councilmember, City and County of
Honolulu, be determined no later than September 4, 2026, in
order to avoid additional delay and ensure the State can meet
the September 18, 2026 deadline for transmitting military and
overseas ballots.
Acting City Clerk Kadota’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint
50. On August 24, 2026, Kadota filed a response, asserting
that the first amended complaint is legally insufficient under
HRS § 11-172 because it does not allege “actual information”
showing that any action by the City Clerk had the effect of
changing the results of the election. In other words, Kadota
asserts that it was the Circuit Court’s decision, and not the
City Clerk’s decision, to declare Waters ineligible.
51. Kadota asserts that the City Clerk’s actions in
announcing that Gregory would advance over Waters to the 2026
second special election were correct because: (1) the Circuit
Court’s Order and Final Judgment were not stayed; (2) HRS 11-117(b)3 (Supp. 2025) allows the City Clerk to notify the public
3 HRS § 11-117(b) states:
(b) On receipt of the notice of death,
withdrawal, or upon determination of
disqualification, the chief election officer or the
clerk shall inform the chairperson of the political
party of which the person deceased, withdrawing, or
disqualified was a candidate. When a candidate dies,
withdraws, or is disqualified after the close of
filing and the ballots have been printed, the chief
election officer or the clerk may order the
candidate's name stricken from the ballot or order
21
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
of a candidate’s disqualification after receiving a
determination of disqualification; and (3) the Circuit Court
declared Waters was ineligible, and the City Clerk properly
notified the public of the impact of Waters’ disqualification
under State and City election laws, particularly in the absence
of a stay of the Circuit Court’s ruling.
52. Kadota also asserts that the 40 voters could have
intervened in the Circuit Court case, but did not, and that the
first amended complaint is an attempt to overturn the Circuit
Court’s Order and Final Judgment.
53. Kadota states that the City Clerk takes no position on
the Circuit Court’s decision to disqualify Waters.
Ozawa’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint
54. On August 24, 2026, Ozawa filed a response to the
first amended complaint, asserting that the first amended
complaint: (1) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under HRS § 11-172 and § 11-173.5; (2) does not assert a
basis that could cause a difference in the election results
within the meaning of HRS § 11-172; and (3) is an impermissible
collateral attack on the final judgment entered in 1CCV-26-0000889, which is on appeal in SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
that a notice of the death, withdrawal, or
disqualification be prominently posted at the
appropriate voter service centers on election day.
22
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
55. Ozawa asserts that should this court affirm the
Circuit Court’s ruling that Waters is ineligible to be elected
for the 2027-2031 term, the relief that the 40 voters seek is
inconsistent with HRS § 11-173.5(b), which does not contemplate
placing the name of an ineligible candidate on the ballot for
the 2026 second special election.
56. Ozawa does not ask this court to declare him elected,
and requests that the second special election proceed on
November 3, 2026, between him and Gregory.
57. Ozawa contends that the 40 voters’ disagreement with
the Circuit Court’s ruling and the City Clerk’s decision to
follow that ruling are not bases for an election contest under
HRS § 11-172 because a judicial declaration that a candidate is
ineligible to be elected to an office is not fraud, an overage,
an underage, or any error of that kind. According to Ozawa, an
election contest is meant to address errors in the processing of
ballots or other similar procedural errors, and not to
collaterally attack a judgment that is pending on direct appeal.
Ozawa asserts that the appeal is the better vehicle to address
Waters’ eligibility issue.
58. Ozawa further asserts that Waters is ineligible to be
elected to the District IV seat for the 2027-2031 term. Among
other things, Ozawa asserts that Revised Charter § 3-102’s term
limit does not turn on how long a councilmember serves, and that
23
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
it instead contemplates a “term” to be a “fixed legal period
with a start and end fixed by law, determinable in advance, and
independent of when a particular person is sworn in.”
59. Ozawa asserts that the April 2019 election was the
completion of the 2018 regular election, not a vacancy election.
He states that when this court invalidated the 2018 second
special election in Waters, the April 2019 election followed
pursuant to HRS § 11-174.5(b), which directs that a certified
copy of the judgment be filed with the governor, who shall then
call a new election to be held. See Waters, 148 Hawaiʻi at 66,
468 P.3d at 80.
60. Ozawa also asserts that the 40 voters’ reading of
Revised Charter § 3-102 produces a result that was rejected by
the voters in 2016, when a majority of voters declined to extend
the term limit in Revised Charter § 3-102 to three terms instead
of two terms.
61. Ozawa also asserts that he properly brought a
declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court, as confirmed
by this court’s own precedent in Clark v. Arakaki, 118 Hawaiʻi
355, 191 P.3d 176 (2008).
62. As to disenfranchised voters, Ozawa asserts that none
of the choices that resulted in Waters being declared ineligible
were made by election officials that the 40 voters now blame.
Ozawa points out that Waters opposed Ozawa’s efforts to have the
24
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
eligibility question decided on an expedited basis before
ballots were printed, arguing that post-election remedies would
suffice. Additionally, Waters neither sought a stay of the
Circuit Court’s decision pending appeal, nor moved to expedite
his own appeal.
63. Ozawa requests that this court: (1) deny the relief
requested in the first amended complaint and dismiss the first
amended complaint; (2) determine in the appeal that Waters is
not eligible to be elected to the 2027-2031 term for District IV
councilmember; and (3) confirm that the 2026 second special
election will proceed between Ozawa and Gregory.
Gregory’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint
64. On August 24, 2026, Gregory filed a response, opposing
the relief sought by the 40 voters that would effectively
replace her with Waters on the ballot for the 2026 second
special election.
65. As to disenfranchising voters, Gregory asserts that
the disenfranchisement concern began when voters were presented
with an ineligible candidate as a choice and were permitted to
cast ballots without the eligibility question being timely
resolved. Gregory contends that she asked election officials to
determine Waters’ eligibility months before ballots were mailed.
She expresses concern for the voters that were presented with a
25
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
ballot containing the name of an ineligible candidate, and for
those people that voted for Waters prior to the Circuit Court’s
decision that Waters was ineligible to be elected to the 2027-2031 term. Gregory asserts that the 40 voters’
“disenfranchisement theory does not resolve what Waters’ voters,
or the electorate as a whole, would have done had [his]
eligibility been definitively resolved before voting began.”
66. As to the merits of Waters’ eligibility, Gregory
relies on the Circuit Court’s order and judgment and points out
that the voters rejected a 2016 proposed amendment to the
Revised Charter that would have allowed councilmembers to serve
three consecutive four-year terms. Gregory asserts that HRS
§ 11-173.5 requires this court to determine which candidate was
legally nominated or elected, and the reported vote totals for
Waters does not answer the question about whether Waters was
legally eligible to receive the nomination. Gregory asserts
that the burden is on the 40 voters to establish that Waters was
legally eligible to be elected to serve the 2027-2031 term.
67. Gregory also asserts that the 40 voters must establish
a verifiable evidentiary foundation for the reported results
before replacing Gregory’s name with Waters’ name on the ballot
for the 2026 second special election for District IV
councilmember. According to Gregory, the reported total amount
of votes for each candidate should not, standing alone, be
26
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
treated as complying with ballot accounting and reconciliation
requirements governing the election. In asserting as such,
Gregory states that she does not ask this court to presume that
the reported totals are false merely because she has questioned
their verification. Rather, Gregory asks this court not to
treat the reported vote totals as self-proving where the 40
voters seek to use those totals to remove her name from the
ballot for the 2026 second special election.
68. Gregory requests that this court: (1) deny the 40
voters’ request to determine that Waters is eligible to advance
to the 2026 second special election; (2) deny the 40 voters’
request to remove Gregory’s name from the ballot for the 2026
second special election; (3) decline to treat the reported vote
totals, standing alone, as establishing the 40 voters’
entitlement to the relief requested; and (4) preserve Gregory’s
status as a candidate advancing to the 2026 second special
election.
Oral Argument
69. Oral argument was held on August 25, 2026. The court
heard arguments from counsel for the 40 voters, Waters, Ozawa,
Kadota, the Office of Elections and Nago, and heard arguments
from Gregory as a self-represented party to the election
contest.
27
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Election Challenges
1. The 40 voters bring their challenge under HRS § 11-172, which provides in relevant part:
With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified
political party directly interested, or any thirty voters
of any election district, may file a complaint in the
supreme court. The complaint shall set forth any cause or
causes, such as but not limited to, provable fraud,
overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in
the election results.
(Emphases added.)
2. A complaint challenging the results of a primary
election or a county election held concurrently with a regularly
scheduled primary election fails to state a claim unless the
plaintiff demonstrates errors, mistakes, or irregularities that
would change the outcome of the election. See HRS § 11-172;
Funakoshi v. King, 65 Haw. 312, 316-17, 651 P.2d 912, 915
(1982).
3. A judgment deciding which candidate was nominated or
elected is the only remedy that can be given in a challenge
contesting a primary or a county election held concurrently with
a regularly scheduled primary election. Funakoshi, 65 Haw. at
315-16, 651 P.2d at 914. In other words, the “only statutory
relief to which plaintiff is entitled under HRS § 11–173.5(b)
would be to have this Court declare the name[s] of the
28
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
candidate[s] to be nominated or elected.” Id. at 315, 651 P.2d
at 914.
4. After the Circuit Court’s July 29, 2026 judgment
declaring Waters ineligible, the Honolulu Elections Division
declared Waters ineligible. The 40 voters seek to overturn the
Honolulu Elections Division’s ineligibility ruling, and thus
their first amended complaint could cause a difference in the
election results declaring Ozawa and Gregory the candidates to
be placed on the ballot as candidates for District IV
councilmember in the City’s second special election to be held
concurrently with the general election.
5. We first address whether the Circuit Court properly
entertained the declaratory judgment action. In 1CCV-26-0000889, Ozawa sought declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1,
which provides in relevant part:
§632-1 Jurisdiction; controversies subject to. [(a)] In
cases of actual controversy, courts of record, within the
scope of their respective jurisdictions, shall have power
to make binding adjudications of right, whether or not
consequential relief is, or at the time could be, claimed,
and no action or proceeding shall be open to objection on
the ground that a judgment or order merely declaratory of
right is prayed for; provided that declaratory relief may
not be obtained in any district court, or in any
controversy with respect to taxes, or in any case where a
divorce or annulment of marriage is sought. Controversies
involving the interpretation of deeds, wills, other
instruments of writing, statutes, municipal ordinances, and
other governmental regulations may be so determined, and
this enumeration does not exclude other instances of actual
antagonistic assertion and denial of right.
[(b)] Relief by declaratory judgment may be granted
in civil cases where an actual controversy exists between
contending parties. . . . Where, however, a statute
provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of
29
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
case, that statutory remedy shall be followed; but the mere
fact that an actual or threatened controversy is
susceptible of relief through a general common law remedy,
a remedy equitable in nature, or an extraordinary legal
remedy, whether such remedy is recognized or regulated by
statute or not, shall not debar a party from the privilege
of obtaining a declaratory judgment in any case where the
other essentials to such relief are present.
(Emphasis added.)
6. The declaratory judgment action was litigated and
decided in the Circuit Court before the August 8, 2026 first
special election was held. In the Circuit Court, Waters filed a
motion to dismiss that case because HRS § 12-8 did not provide
Ozawa a private right of action to pursue his objection to
Waters’ eligibility in the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court
denied the motion to dismiss. We agree with Waters that the
declaratory judgment action brought in the Circuit Court should
have been dismissed because, in those circumstances, HRS § 12-8
“provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case,”
that is, determining within a mandated time period the
eligibility of candidates after nominating papers are filed.
See Punohu v. Sunn, 66 Haw. 485, 487, 666 P.2d 1133, 1134 (1983)
(quoting the “special form of remedy” language in HRS § 632-1
and stating “We have held that where such a statutory remedy
exists, declaratory judgment does not lie.” (citation
omitted)). Thus, under the exception set out in HRS § 632-1, a
declaratory action was not the proper manner of determining the
candidates for the August 8, 2026 first special election.
30
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
7. HRS § 12-8 mandates strict time limits when there is a
proper objection to a candidate’s eligibility. When a
registered voter’s objection is to a candidate to a county
office, the county clerk “shall have the necessary powers and
authority to reach a preliminary decision on the merits of the
objection[,]” and “shall render a preliminary decision not later
than five working days after the objection is filed.” HRS § 12-8(d).
8. If the county clerk determines that the objection
warrants disqualification of the candidate, the clerk “shall
file a complaint in the circuit court for a determination of the
objection[,]” which must be filed “not later than 4:30 p.m. on
the seventh working day after the objection was filed.” HRS
§ 12-8(e). The circuit court clerk must then issue a summons to
the defendants in the complaint to appear before the court no
later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after service of the
summons. HRS § 12-8(g). Then, the circuit court must, among
other things, “hear the complaint in a summary manner” and give
judgment “not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fourth day after the
return[.]” HRS § 12-8(h). Further, if the circuit court’s
judgment “disqualifies the candidate, . . . the clerk shall
follow the procedures set forth in sections 11-117 and 11-118
regarding the disqualifications of candidates.” HRS § 12-8(i).
31
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
9. Importantly, HRS § 12-8 does not authorize the county
clerk to file a complaint in circuit court when the clerk’s
preliminary decision is that an objection does not warrant
disqualification. In this case, Acting City Clerk Kadota made a
“preliminary determination” that the objections to Waters’
eligibility did not warrant disqualification or seeking Circuit
Court action.
10. We thus hold that, under the circumstances of this
case, the Circuit Court should have dismissed the declaratory
judgment action because HRS § 12-8 provided a special form of
remedy to address, prior to the August 8, 2026 election, the
objections to the nomination papers of Waters, which challenged
his eligibility to run again for councilmember of District IV.
11. Clark, 118 Hawaiʻi 355, 191 P.3d 176, which Ozawa
argued allows for HRS § 632-1 declaratory relief in election
challenges, is distinguishable. There is no indication that the
HRS § 632-1 “special remedy” provision was asserted in that
case, or that any party asserted that HRS § 12-8 precluded the
declaratory action in that case. Thus, the issue as to whether
HRS § 12-8 should have applied was apparently waived in that
case. Further, the circuit court there did not rule until after
the election had taken place. Id. at 359, 191 P.3d at 180.
12. Here, although the declaratory judgment action should
have been dismissed, it does not mean there is no means for a
32
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
court to decide whether Waters is eligible for another term as
councilmember for District IV.
13. HRS § 11-172 provides in relevant part that:
§11-172. Contests for cause; generally. With respect to
any election, any candidate, or qualified political party
directly interested, or any thirty voters of any election
district, may file a complaint in the supreme court. The
complaint shall set forth any cause or causes, such as but
not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages,
that could cause a difference in the election results.
(Emphases added.)
14. The August 8, 2026 election was a “county election
contest held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary
. . . election” and is governed by HRS § 11-173.5, which
provides in relevant part:
§11-173.5 Contests for cause in primary, special primary
elections, and county elections held concurrently with a
regularly scheduled primary or special primary
election. (a) In a . . . county election contest held
concurrently with a regularly scheduled . . . primary
election, the complaint shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the supreme court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the
thirteenth day after . . . a county election contest held
concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary . . .
election . . . . The clerk shall issue to the defendants
named in the complaint a summons to appear before the
supreme court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day
after service of the summons.
(b) In . . . county election contests held concurrently
with a regularly scheduled primary . . . election, the
court shall hear the contest in a summary manner and at the
hearing the court shall cause the evidence to be reduced to
writing and shall not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fourth
day after the return give judgment fully stating all
findings of fact and of law. The judgment shall decide
what candidate was nominated or elected, as the case may
be, in the manner presented by the petition, and a
certified copy of the judgment shall forthwith be served on
the . . . county clerk, . . . who shall place the name of
the candidate declared to be nominated on the ballot for
33
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the forthcoming general, special general, or runoff
election.
(Emphasis added.)
15. This election challenge by the 40 voters is the proper
method for voters to challenge a primary election or a county
election contest held concurrently with a regularly scheduled
primary election.
16. HRS § 11-171 (2009) provides: “This part [Part XI
governing Election Contests] shall apply whenever a contested
election is subject to determination by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the manner provided by law.”
17. HRS §§ 11-172 and 11-173.5 are within Part XI of HRS
Chapter 11. Pursuant to HRS § 11-171, they are the statutes
that govern when voters seek to challenge a county election
contest held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary
election. They provide “a special form of remedy” as delineated
in HRS § 632-1(b).
18. Here, the 40 voters have brought a proper HRS §§ 11-172 and 11-173.5 election challenge.
Interpretation of the Revised Charter
19. We now turn to whether, under Revised Charter § 3-102,
Waters is eligible to be elected to the District IV
councilmember seat for the 2027-2031 term.
34
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
20. “The interpretation of the charter is similar to the
interpretation of a statute.” Citizens for Equitable and
Responsible Gov’t v. County of Hawaiʻi, 108 Hawaiʻi 318, 323, 120
P.3d 217, 222 (2005) (citing Maui County Council v. Thompson, 84
Hawaiʻi 105, 106, 929 P.2d 1355, 1356 (1996)). When interpreting
a statute,
our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to
the intention of the legislature[,] which is to be obtained
primarily from the language contained in the statute
itself. And where the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous, our only duty is to give effect to its plain
and obvious meaning.
Id. Further, when interpreting provisions of a county charter,
“we must ‘give effect to the intention of the framers and the
people adopting’ the provision in the county charter.” Clark,
118 Hawaiʻi at 361, 191 P.3d at 182.
21. “Courts are bound to give effect to all parts of a
statute, and no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as
superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be
legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all
words of the statute.” Dejetley v. Kahoʻohalahala, 122 Hawaiʻi
251, 263, 226 P.3d 421, 433 (2010) (citation, quotation marks,
and ellipses omitted).
22. A term limit for councilmembers was first adopted as
part of Revised Charter § 3-102 in 1992. The Honolulu Charter
Commission, as the framer proposing a term limit, explained the
purpose as follows:
35
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
This proposal would encourage “citizen legislators,”
who would serve in elected office for a limited
number of terms, then return to their lives in the
community. These “citizen legislators” would be an
integral part of the community, experiencing the same
kinds of needs and problems as their neighbors.
Since they would be sensitive to the community, they
would be inclined to address relevant issues while in
office. These “citizen legislators” would assume
elected office as a public service.
Final Report of the Charter Commission, City and County of Honolulu 1991-1992 at 26 (Dec. 8, 1992),
https://www4.honolulu.gov/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document186411/199212_final%20report%20of%201991-1992%20hnl%20charter%20comm_hcc.pdf [https://perma.cc/E4HL-WGZF].
23. In 1998, amendments to Revised Charter § 3-102 were
adopted. This 1998 version of the provision is applicable here
and provides:
Section 3-102. Number, Election and Terms of Office of
Councilmembers –
The council shall consist of nine members. One
member shall be elected from each of the nine districts
hereinafter provided. Except as provided in Section
16-122, the regular terms of office of councilmembers shall
be four years beginning at twelve o’clock meridian on the
second day of January following their election. The terms
shall be staggered in accordance with Section 16-122. No
person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for
more than two consecutive four-year terms.
(Emphases added.)
24. Critically, the plain language of Revised Charter § 3-102 prohibits a person from being “elected to” more than two
consecutive four-year terms. In other words, the term limit
hinges on the type of term a councilmember is “elected to,” not
on the actual amount of time the councilmember serves within
that elected term.
36
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
25. The Revised Charter describes three types of
councilmember terms. First, as noted above, Revised Charter §
3-102 provides that “[e]xcept as provided in Section 16-122, the
regular terms of office of councilmembers shall be four years
beginning at twelve o’clock meridian on the second day of
January following their election.” This provision establishes a
regular term as a fixed, predetermined period defined by a
specific start and end point, regardless of when a councilmember
is sworn into office.
26. Second, Revised Charter § 16-122, adopted in 1998,
established “Transitional Provisions” to stagger councilmember
terms beginning in 2003 and temporarily set two-year terms.
Specifically, it provided that councilmembers for certain
districts would be elected to “four-year regular terms”
commencing January 2, 2003, and other councilmembers would be
elected to “two-year regular terms” commencing on the same date:
Section 16-122. Transitional Provisions on the Staggering
of Councilmembers’ Terms –
1. The staggering of the terms of councilmembers
shall commence on January 2, 2003 and be implemented in
accordance with this section.
2. On January 3, 2001, the city clerk shall certify
the total votes counted for all mayoral candidates in the
special election at which the mayor was elected for the
regular term commencing January 2, 2001. The city clerk
shall transmit the certificate to the council chair and
maintain in the clerk's office a copy available for
public inspection during normal business hours.
(a) If the total votes counted, as certified by the
city clerk, is an odd number, the councilmembers
for council districts I, III, V, VII, and IX
37
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
shall be elected to four-year regular terms
commencing on January 2, 2003. Councilmembers
for other districts shall be elected to two-year
regular terms commencing on the same date.
(b) If the total votes counted, as certified by the
city clerk, is an even number, the councilmembers
for council districts II, IV, VI, and VIII shall
be elected to four-year regular terms commencing
on January 2, 2003. Councilmembers for other
districts shall be elected to two-year regular
terms commencing on the same date.
For the purpose of this subsection, a “vote counted”
for a mayoral candidate shall not include ballots which are
blank, spoiled or otherwise invalid in connection with the
mayoral contest. “Special election at which the mayor was
elected for the regular term commencing January 2, 2001”
means either the first or second special election, held in
conjunction with the 2000 primary or general election, at
which a candidate for mayor was elected for the term
commencing January 2, 2001. The phrase does not mean both
the first and second special elections if a second special
election was held.
3. After the expiration of the two-year regular
terms established by this section, the subsequent regular
terms of the pertinent councilmembers shall be subject to
Section 3-102.
4. Except as provided in the next paragraph, a
person elected as councilmember to a two-year regular term
in 2002 shall be eligible for election to two more
consecutive four-year terms as councilmember.
A person elected as councilmember to a four-year
regular term in 1998 and a two-year regular term in 2002
shall be eligible for election in 2004 to a four-year
regular term as councilmember. Such a person, however,
shall not be eligible for election in 2008 to a four-year
regular term as councilmember.
A person elected as councilmember to two consecutive
four-year regular terms in 1994 and 1998 shall not be
eligible in 2002 for election as councilmember.
(Emphases added.)
27. Third, Revised Charter § 3-105 describes an “unexpired
term” resulting from a vacancy for which a “successor” is
elected:
38
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Section 3-105. Vacancy in Office –
A vacancy in the office of any councilmember shall be
filled in the following manner:
(a) If the unexpired term is less than one year, the
remaining members of the council shall elect a
successor with requisite qualifications to fill
the vacancy for the unexpired term. Vacancies
shall be filled only at a meeting of the council
after reasonable notice of intent to fill the
vacancy has been given to all remaining members
of the council by the presiding officer. Should
the council fail to fill any vacancy within
thirty days after its occurrence, the mayor
shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy
for the unexpired term.
(b) If the unexpired term is for one year or more,
the vacancy shall be filled by special election
to be called by the council within ten days and
to be held within one hundred twenty days after
the occurrence of the vacancy. At such time,
the electors of the district shall elect a
successor to fill the vacancy for the remainder
of the term. If any special or general election
is to be held in the city after thirty days and
within one hundred eighty days after the
occurrence of the vacancy, then the election
shall be held in conjunction with such other
election. Pending the election, the remaining
members of the council shall make a temporary
appointment with requisite qualifications to
fill the vacancy until a successor is duly
elected. The vacancy shall be filled only at a
meeting of the council after reasonable notice
of intent to fill the vacancy has been given to
all remaining members of the council by the
presiding officer. Should the council fail to
fill the vacancy within thirty days after its
occurrence, the mayor shall make the temporary
appointment to fill the vacancy until a
successor is duly elected.
(Emphases added.)
28. With the foregoing terms established, we turn to the
term that Waters was “elected to” in April 2019. Waters was
plainly “elected to” a four-year term at that time. In the
November 6, 2018 second special election, Waters and Ozawa were
on the ballot to be “elected to” a regular four-year term as
39
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
District IV councilmember, to commence January 2, 2019. See
Revised Charter § 3-102. In January 2019, based on two election
challenges under HRS § 11-174.5 (one filed by Waters), this
court invalidated the November 2018 election results for that
race and directed that “[a] certified copy of this judgment
shall be filed with the Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi in
accordance with HRS § 11-174.5(b).” Waters, 148 Hawaiʻi at 66,
468 P.3d at 80. HRS § 11-174.5(b) states, in relevant part: “If
the judgment should be that the . . . special . . . election was
invalid, a certified copy thereof shall be filed with the
governor, and the governor shall duly call a new election to be
held not later than one hundred twenty days after the judgment
is filed.” (Emphasis added.) As HRS § 11-174.5(b) requires,
the Governor then issued a proclamation calling for a special
election for the District IV seat. The result was a repeat
election only between Waters and Ozawa in April 2019. The April
2019 election thus concluded the electoral process for the
District IV councilmember term that the November 2018 election
was intended to resolve. Therefore, by prevailing in the April
2019 election, Waters was “elected to” the same four-year term
for which he and Ozawa were candidates in November 2018.
29. The 40 voters contend that Revised Charter § 3-102
does not bar Waters’ candidacy because he “has not served ‘two
consecutive four-year terms’” since his first term following the
40
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
April 2019 election “lasted 3 years, 7 months, and 25 days.”
This argument is flawed in at least two respects. First, it
impermissibly attempts to import the word “served” into Revised
Charter § 3-102’s term-limit provision. Based on its plain
language, Revised Charter § 3-102’s term limit is not determined
by the amount of time that a councilmember actually serves upon
being sworn into office. Rather, the term limit turns on the
type of term that the councilmember was “elected to.” Second,
the claim that Waters’ first term was 3 years, 7 months, and 25
days incorrectly presumes that the type of term a councilmember
is elected to turns on when they are sworn into office. Nothing
in the Revised Charter links the definition of a four-year term
to a councilmember’s swearing-in date. Rather, as discussed
above, the regular four-year term established in Revised Charter
§ 3-102 is a fixed, predetermined period of time.
30. The 40 voters’ contention that Waters “was elected to
a 3-year-7-month-and-25-day term, not a four-year term” is
similarly flawed. (Emphasis added.) The fact that Waters was
ultimately elected in April 2019, after the regular four-year
term began on January 2, 2019, is not dispositive. Again, the
April 2019 election – which resulted from election challenges
and this court’s invalidation of the November 2018 election –
completed the objective of the November 2018 election; that is,
to elect a District IV councilmember to the 2019-2023 four-year
41
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
term. The April 2019 election did not and cannot retroactively
change the fixed, four-year term to which Waters was elected.
31. The 40 voters also suggest that Waters’ first term
filled a vacancy under Revised Charter § 3-105(b).
Specifically, they rely on the City Council’s Resolution 19-12,
adopted February 4, 2019, which stated that this court’s January
25, 2019 invalidation of the November 6, 2018 second special
election for District IV “creat[ed] a vacancy on the City
Council” and, citing Revised Charter § 3-105(b), called a
special election to be held April 13, 2019 “to fill the
vacancy[.]” The 40 voters state that the City Council “itself
understood the April 2019 election as a vacancy-filling election
under Section 3-105(b), not a regular election under Section 3-102.”
32. We are not bound by the City Council’s
characterization of the April 2019 election as filling a
vacancy. Rather, we must render our interpretation of the
provision, and we conclude that Waters’ first term did not fill
a “vacancy” under § 3-105(b).
Section 3-105(b) provides:
Section 3-105. Vacancy in Office --A vacancy in the office of any councilmember shall be
filled in the following manner:
42
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(b) If the unexpired term is for one year or more,
the vacancy shall be filled by special election
to be called by the council within ten days and
to be held within one hundred twenty days after
the occurrence of the vacancy. At such time,
the electors of the district shall elect a
successor to fill the vacancy for the remainder
of the term. If any special or general
election is to be held in the city after thirty
days and within one hundred eighty days after
the occurrence of the vacancy, then the
election shall be held in conjunction with such
other election. Pending the election, the
remaining members of the council shall make a
temporary appointment with requisite
qualifications to fill the vacancy until a
successor is duly elected. The vacancy shall
be filled only at a meeting of the council
after reasonable notice of intent to fill the
vacancy has been given to all remaining members
of the council by the presiding officer.
Should the council fail to fill the vacancy
within thirty days after its occurrence, the
mayor shall make the temporary appointment to
fill the vacancy until a successor is duly
elected.
(Emphases added.)
33. Waters’ first term was not a vacancy term. First,
Revised Charter § 3-105(b) provides for “the filling of any
vacancy, whether resulting from death, disability, resignation,
recall, impeachment or because the council[member] has moved out
of [their] district.” Mink v. Pua, 68 Haw. 263, 264-65, 711
P.2d 723, 725 (1985). Here, the April 2019 election for the
District IV seat was not triggered by the departure of a sitting
District IV councilmember. Rather, the April 2019 election
directly resulted from this court’s judgment that
(1) invalidated the November 2018 election results for the
District IV councilmember four-year term, and (2) ordered that
43
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the judgment be filed with the governor to call a new election
in accordance with HRS § 11-174.5(b).
34. Second, when the April 2019 election was called, no
person had yet been elected to the District IV councilmember
term due to this court’s invalidation of the 2018 election
results. The April 2019 election therefore did not elect a
“successor” to fill the vacancy for an unfinished “remainder” of
the term. See Mink, 68 Haw. at 265, 711 P.2d at 725 (examining
Revised Charter Section 3-105(b) and stating that “the usual
meaning of the word ‘successor’ is one who takes the place of
another”).
35. Third, the April 2019 election was not administered as
a vacancy election. The April 2019 election was never subject
to the standard nomination process provided in HRS Chapter 12.
See Revised Charter § 13-116(1) (requiring city elections to be
conducted in accordance with state election laws insofar as
applicable); HRS § 12-1 (providing that all candidates for
elective office except for presidential electors to be nominated
in accordance with HRS chapter 12). Rather, the April 2019
election was limited to Ozawa and Waters — the same candidates
in the November 2018 election. Indeed, the then-City Clerk’s
proclamation calling the April 2019 election expressly stated
that the candidates would be Ozawa and Waters, and that no
candidate nomination process would be held. This is because the
44
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
April 2019 election completed the 2018 election for the regular
four-year District IV councilmember term.
36. The 40 voters cite to three Florida cases for the
proposition that other courts “recognize that partial terms—
particularly those resulting from special elections—should not
count toward consecutive term limits.” These cases are not
precedent here, are based on different Florida law, and in any
event, are clearly distinguishable from this case.
37. Specifically, the 40 voters rely on Martinez v.
Hernandez, but that case concerned an initial partial term that
arose from a vacancy election triggered by the then-mayor’s
resignation. 227 So. 3d 1257, 1259-60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2017). Similarly, in Ervin v. Collins, 85 So. 2d 852, 853, 858
(Fla. 1956), the governor was deemed eligible to run for reelection, where he was first elected to complete the unexpired
term of the prior governor who died. Both situations are akin
to electing a “successor” for an unfinished, “unexpired term”
under the vacancy provision of the Revised Charter. See Revised
Charter § 3-105. Here, in contrast, Waters was not elected in
2019 to complete an unexpired term of an elected official who
vacated office.
38. The 40 voters’ reliance on Vieira v. Slaughter, 318
So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975), is also unavailing
insofar as the mayor in that case was eligible to seek
45
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
reelection because his first, “short term of two years, nine
months was required by [the charter] only to serve an interim
and transitional purpose.”
39. Critically, the 40 voters do not cite to any provision
in the Revised Charter that could be read as supplanting the
fixed terms established in Revised Charter § 3-102 and § 16-122
with a councilmember’s length of service. Instead, the 40
voters cite Waters, 148 Hawaiʻi at 65, 468 P.3d at 79, and State
v. Nago, 148 Hawaiʻi 297, 304, 473 P.3d 758, 765 (App. 2020), to
assert the proposition that it “is a foundational principle of
election law that disputes regarding eligibility requirements
must be resolved in favor of preserving the right of voters to
choose their representatives — a right that forms ‘the basis of
our democratic society.’”
40. Those cases do not adopt that principle. Moreover,
any suggestion that a candidate-eligibility dispute should
simply default to allowing voters to vote on the candidate in
question misses the point. It ignores the right of the voters
to choose how they are governed, as reflected by the Revised
Charter’s term-limit provision adopted by voters in 1998.
41. Neither should the court abdicate its duty to “give
effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting”
county charter provisions. Clark, 118 Hawaiʻi at 361, 191 P.3d
at 182 (citation omitted). Indeed, we have well-established
46
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
rules of construction for county charter provisions, and none
require a court to resolve disputes in favor of a candidate
being deemed eligible. See id. at 361–62, 191 P.3d at 182–83.4
Relevant here, the Revised Charter provides: “No amendment or
revision of this charter shall be effective unless approved by a
majority of the voters voting thereon.” Revised Charter § 15-103.
42. A majority of voters approved staggered four-year
terms in 1998. See Revised Charter § 16-122. In 1998, a
majority of voters also approved amending the term limit in
Revised Charter § 3-102 so that a person could not be elected to
more than two consecutive “four-year terms.” A majority of
voters did not approve time of service (e.g., three years, seven
months, and twenty-five days) to be the measuring yardstick to
4 This court in Clark stated:
Provisions in a county charter that affect the
organization and government of the county are
construed pursuant to fundamental principles of
construction relating to constitutional provisions.
As such, we must give effect to the intention of the
framers and the people adopting the provision in the
county charter.
The general rule is that, if the words used in
a constitutional provision . . . are clear and
unambiguous, they are to be construed as written. In
this regard, the words are presumed to be used in
their natural sense unless the context furnishes some
ground to control, qualify, or enlarge them.
118 Hawaiʻi at 361–62, 191 P.3d at 182–83 (internal citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).
47
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
determine whether a term counts toward the voter-approved term
limit of being elected to “two consecutive four-year terms.”
See id.; see also Clark, 118 Hawaiʻi at 361–62, 191 P.3d at 182–
83. If time of service was the determining factor for term
limits, any councilmember not immediately sworn into office at
the beginning of a four-year term, for whatever reason, would be
able to assert that particular term does not count for their
term limit. This would subvert the intent of the voters who
adopted the term limit.
43. Similar absurdities could result if terms for term
limit purposes were defined or altered by remedial elections
triggered by successful election challenges. Allowing such
challenges to alter established fixed terms of office and
thereby evade term limits could enable a councilmember to serve
multiple back-to-back terms on the theory that they never served
a “four-year” term. For example, if an election between an
incumbent councilmember and a challenger is invalidated,
triggering a post-January 2 remedial election, and the incumbent
ultimately prevails in that remedial election, the incumbent
would still be eligible to immediately seek two more four-year
terms. This would similarly undermine the intent of the voters
who adopted the term limit.
44. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Waters was
elected to two consecutive four-year terms in 2019 and 2022. He
48
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
is therefore ineligible under Revised Charter § 3-102 to be
elected to the office of District IV councilmember for the 2027-2031 term. We further conclude that Trevor Ozawa and Tara Malia
Gregory shall be placed on the ballot for the 2026 second
special election for District IV councilmember. See HRS § 11-118(c); Revised Charter § 13-116(2)(c).
JUDGMENT
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Nago, the
Office of Elections, Kadota, Ozawa, and Gregory, and against the
40 voters. Trevor Ozawa and Tara Malia Gregory are the two
eligible candidates who received the highest number of votes in
the August 8, 2026 first special election for District IV
councilmember. As a result, Trevor Ozawa and Tara Malia Gregory
shall be placed on the ballot for the 2026 second special
election for District IV councilmember, City and County of
Honolulu.
The clerk of the supreme court shall forthwith serve a
certified copy of this judgment on the chief election officer
and county clerk in accordance with HRS § 11-173.5(b).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 28, 2026.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
/s/ Peter T. Cahill
/s/ Peter K. Kubota
49
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Thomas M. Otake
for plaintiffs
Tiffany R. Chang
(Randall S. Nishiyama, Jung Min
Lee, and Aaron H. Schulaner on
the briefs)
for Defendant Scott T. Nago
Duane W.H. Pang
(Jacqueline M. De Leeuw Huang on
the briefs)
for Defendant Chadd Kadota
Deirdre Marie-Iha
(Matthew D. Ezer and Kellie K.L.
Wong on the briefs)
for Defendant Trevor R. Ozawa
Tara Malia Gregory
Defendant, Self-Represented
50