Court gives
primary candidates
no satisfaction

Candidates who lost
close races say without a recount
or new election, they have
no proof and no recourse

By Craig Gima
Star-Bulletin

Candidates who lost close races in the primary say a state Supreme Court decision denying a recount or new election in a state Senate race puts them in a legal paradox of sorts.

The court ruled state law does not allow for a recount of ballots. It also ruled candidates must prove there were enough votes that were not counted to change the election.

But the candidates say they need the court to order a recount and examine the ballots to get the proof.

"You can't really determine that (there were enough votes to change the outcome of the election) until you count the ballots," said Zandra Amaral, who filed a petition with the Supreme Court after losing in a Democratic primary for a state House seat on Maui by 90 votes.

Alex Sonson, who lost to Rep. Roy Takumi (D, Pearl City) by nine votes, points to a section of state law that says he can look at the ballots after "the end of the contest period." He interprets that to mean he can only look for miscounted ballots after the Supreme Court declares a winner.

"I really don't think that's fair, but that's the system that's in place," he said.

Four candidates filed petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the election results because of problems with the state's new election system.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court affirmed that Sen. Robert Bunda (D, Wahiawa) beat Gerald Hagino by 15 votes in the Democratic primary.

In its decision, the court said there was no evidence of any irregularity, computer system malfunction, errors or mistakes to change the results.

About 8,000 ballots were disqualified statewide because people marked more than one party, a much higher number than in past elections.

However, the court also noted voter instructions specifically directed voters to vote on only one colored party/

nonpartisan ballot. "It is not sufficient that the plaintiff point to a poorly run and inadequately supervised election process," the justices wrote.

The attorney general's office said it expects the Supreme Court to make similar rulings in the other three cases.

"We're pleased that the court followed the law as provided," said Cynthia Quinn, special assistant to the attorney general. "It's pretty much a simple issue. The remedy is clearly spelled out in the statute so a recount is not provided for."

Bunda said the Supreme Court decision was "a load off my mind."

"At this juncture, where the Office of Elections, the attorney general, and the Supreme Court did rule and found nothing irregular, I think the process was handled correctly," he said.

His opponent, Hagino, said he was disappointed at the decision and believes the law is "unfair" because candidates only have a few days to gather evidence that the election result could have been different.

"Because of the closeness (of the election) and the newness of the (election computer) system, I wanted to at least verify the result," he said.

Cliff Laboy, who is asking the court to allow him to face Councilwoman Rene Mansho in a runoff election, said even if the court rules against him he will push for changes in the way elections are held.

Sonson said he has found seven voters who were confused by the new election system and were not aware their votes for him would not count because they had also voted for Frank Fasi in the Republican primary. There were also five "underages" in his precinct where voters took out ballots but the ballots were not turned in.

He was planning to file a new brief with the affidavits with the court this morning before the Supreme Court issues its decision in his case.

Sonson also said he will lobby for a change in election law during the next Legislature.

However, Senate Judiciary Co-Chairman Matt Matsunaga (D, Palolo) said while he thinks the election law may be worth looking at, he is concerned about what a recount would cost and what taxpayers would gain.