Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX
31-AUG-2026
08:17 AM
SCEC-XX-XXXXXXX Dkt. 40 ORD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
TRAVIS A. LIGGETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOANA M. LUTEY, in her official capacity as
County Clerk of the County of Maui;
RICHARD T. BISSEN, JR.; and YUKI LEI KASHIWA SUGIMURA,
Defendants.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
(By: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ.,
and Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Gluck,
assigned by reason of vacancy)
On August 24, 2026, Plaintiff Travis A. Liggett (Liggett)
filed a complaint contesting the August 8, 2026 first special
election for Mayor of the County of Maui. Liggett was an
unsuccessful mayoral candidate, placing sixth in the first
special election. See Charter of the County of Maui § 7-2(3)
(stating that, where there are three or more candidates for
Mayor, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest
number of votes in the first special election shall be placed on
the ballot for the second special election).
Liggett’s complaint alleges that errors or irregularities
occurred in connection with government publications and
communications that “could have” caused, or were “legally
capable” of causing, a difference in the election results
because these errors or irregularities resulted in a materially
inaccurate account of Liggett’s public policy record. Liggett
asserts that, as a result, voter comparisons among the mayoral
candidates were adversely affected.
At the same time, Liggett acknowledges that the over 11,000
vote difference between Liggett and the second-place candidate
is “substantial.” Liggett nonetheless requests that this court:
(1) based on the evidence presented by Liggett, determine that
an error, irregularity, or other cause “could have” caused or
was “legally capable” of causing a difference in the election
results; and (2), based on that decision of error, decide which
candidates were lawfully nominated. Liggett claims that an
accurate account of Liggett’s public policy record “could have
caused a significant number of voters to rank or select the
candidates differently.”
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) Section 11-172 (Supp. 2021)
states that an election 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.” See Dicks v. Office of Elections, 155 Hawaiʻi 102,
2
106, 557 P.3d 831, 835 (2024) (“To state a claim under HRS § 11-172, the election contest complaint, at the bare minimum, must
plead that the conduct in question by the election official
could cause a difference in the election results.”).
HRS Section 11-172’s requirements for an election complaint
are viewed in context with the relief allowed in a primary
election contest, which is that this court’s judgment “shall
decide what candidate was nominated or elected, as the case may
be, in the manner presented by the petition[.]” HRS § 11-173.5(b) (2009). Thus, the causes alleged in Liggett’s
complaint should result in a change in which candidates were
nominated to proceed to the 2026 second special election for
Mayor. See HRS §§ 11-172, 11-173.5(b). Liggett’s complaint
fails to meet this standard.
“An election contest cannot be based upon mere belief or
indefinite information.” Akaka v. Yoshina, 84 Hawaiʻi 383, 387–
88, 935 P.2d 98, 102–03 (1997). For example, it is insufficient
for a complaint to merely point to a “poorly run and
inadequately supervised election process” that suggests “room
for abuse” or “possibilities of fraud” that could cause a
difference in election results. Id. at 388, 935 P.2d at 103.
Similar to the insufficient basis identified in Akaka,
Liggett’s complaint asks this court to engage in speculation as
to whether the alleged errors or irregularities associated with
3
the government publications and communications “could have”
caused, or were “legally capable” of causing, a difference in
the election results notwithstanding the “substantial” vote
difference between Liggett and the second-place candidate. For
example, other than speculation, Liggett does not provide any
evidence showing that, had the alleged errors or irregularities
been corrected prior to the election, Liggett would have
received enough additional votes to be the second-place
candidate. See HRS § 11-173.5(b); Akaka, 84 Hawaiʻi at 388, 935
P.2d at 103 (observing that a plaintiff has the burden of
demonstrating that the specific acts and conduct complained of
would have had the effect of changing the results).
Liggett’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted in a primary election contest.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
It is also ordered that the motion filed August 24, 2026,
is denied as moot.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 31, 2026.
/s/ Vladimir P. Devens
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
4