Moanike'ala Akaka and Samuel Kealoha were narrowly defeated by Hannah Springer and Colette Machado in bids for re-election. However, Akaka and Kealoha were anything but gracious in defeat, demanding a new election or, in the alternative, suggesting that OHA hire them as consultants to help create a budget and investigate the very allegations in their lawsuit.
Perplexed by the dispute, OHA Chairman Clayton Hee allowed Akaka and Kealoha to vote on the office's budget proposal in January even though their terms had expired and there was no justification for them to sit as trustees. Springer and Machado were denied the power to vote because they had not been sworn into office in lieu of the court challenge.
In filing the suit last November, Akaka complained that many eligible Hawaiians did not receive OHA ballots at the polls. "How many people have left the elections polls without realizing until later they were not given an OHA ballot and didn't even call and register complaints?" she asked.
Four months later, we know how many -- a grand total of two, according to the Supreme Court's assessment of the evidence provided by Akaka and Kealoha. "Assuming that both of these voters would have voted for Akaka and Kealoha, the two votes could not have made any difference in the outcome," the court said. Akaka lost by 72 votes, Kealoha by 643.
OHA should be embarrassed about how it was stymied by a ludicrous complaint by a couple of poor losers. It should establish a method of assuring smooth post-election transitions in the future while election challenges are allowed to go forward.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor