So, for your understanding, items four through nine are matters where the prior motions were proving, so we'll need another motion.

Yes, okay. Not much to say, but I can do it.

At 10 o'clock, we'll call the meeting of the Elections Commission to order.

Savana, could you do a roll call, please?

Yes, roll call.

Um, Chair Curtis? Here.

Commissioner Andreon? Here.

Commissioner Aino? Here.

Commissioner Krishne? Here.

Commissioner Kada? Here.

Commissioner McAdam? Here.

Commissioner O'Sham? Here.

Commissioner Papal Liu? Commissioner Papal Liu is excused.

Commissioner Young? I believe Commissioner Young will be joining briefly later.

Yeah, he said he had car trouble.

Right, we have a quorum.

Big pardon, thank you.

Uh, the meeting materials have been circulated to the Commissioners this morning, and they're now available online.

I'd like to ask for the approval of the written minutes of the August 27th meeting.

I'd like to add something in the minutes, Chair.

Uh, let's put it on the—let's make a motion, and then we can amend it.

I move to amend the minutes.

Second.

Okay, what you got?

At 1:42, Deputy Attorney General Ye said, "I want to be clear that the role of the Attorney General's office is to represent the commission as a whole, not individual members. We do not answer questions from individual members because we do not want to have one member play us off on another. But we would be willing to answer questions from the commission as a whole. We also want to be clear that answers are given to the commission as a whole, not to individual members. We will receive only questions from the commission and give the response to the commission."

What is your change?

I want that added to the minutes. That's what Deputy Attorney General Ye said in the meeting, and that's important.

There, so it's a direct quote from the meeting. You can look at the recording. It needs to be added to the minutes. None of the Deputy Attorney General's advice to the commission has gone on the meeting minutes. It just says that he gave us advice. Now this is specific, and it's going to come up later, um, so it needs to be in the meeting minutes.

Other discussion?

Yes, okay. Um, just to note, I believe the statement does appear correct. I think there's also a statement, though, elsewhere in the meeting which I said, uh, except for certain issues, uh, peculiar within the chair's, uh, uh, pow, as we will give advice to the chair.

Thank you.

Other discussion?

Yeah, Chair, I see two issues with this.

One is, I see two issues with this.

Uh, first off, while I'm not, um, in any way, um, claiming that this was a misquote, I think we need to verify, uh, aside from one individual member's statement, that the precise quote is, in fact, accurate, and that should probably be done separately, uh, to make sure that nothing is being misquoted.

And secondly, as, uh, Mr. Ye just brought up, when there are other statements made that, uh, affect the context, those need to be in there as well. Otherwise, uh, we're going to be misrepresenting what was actually said.

So, I think very picking a few statements and adding them to the minutes without, uh, verifying the complete accuracy of a statement is not a good practice and not something that we should be doing.

Thank you.

Sure, I'd like to be recognized, please.

So, I believe everything he's guiding the commission in a direction that is beneficial to the Office of Elections.

So, I believe that everything that he says should be in the minutes.

So, I concur. Let's put everything that he told the commission and all the advice that he gave the commission in the meeting minutes because it is pertinent to what happened.

So, let's put it all in there, especially this at 1:42. You can look it up easily. You can look it up after the meeting, but all of his statements need to go into the minutes.

Other discussion?

Yeah, so, Chair, I would offer then an amendment to the motion that, uh, staff is directed to, uh, take the complete universe of the statements that Mr. Ye made, uh, as well as the statements that he was responding to, and add them to the minutes after sometime after the meeting is adjourned.

Let me back up a minute.

I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 27th.

Then we can discuss amendments to that.

So, the motion's already on the floor, Chair. You haven't made a motion to approve the minutes of August 27th unless your motion was to approve the minutes of August 27th with the exception of including Mr. Ye's statements.

We already have a motion on the floor, and it's seconded, and it's in front of the body. We need to dispose of this first.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

No.

Um, roll call.

Motion fails. We don't have five votes.

We need to do individual roll call.

Okay, roll call, please, Sylvana.

Roll call.

The motion was to amend the minutes.

Um, Commissioner Kushi?

Uh, Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner O'Sham?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu is excused, and, um, Commissioner Young has joined.

So, Commissioner Young, were you able to hear the motion?

I was, and no.

Okay, and Chair Curtis?

No.

Motion dies.

I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of August 27, 2024.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, sir.

So, we are voting to exclude what happened in the meeting.

I think it's very pertinent that the Deputy Attorney General's advice to the commission and how he's representing the commission go into the minutes because it's pertinent for what's happening later.

It's already part of the record.

It's not in the record.

That wasn't my motion.

My motion was to approve the minutes.

Understood, and this is discussion.

And is there any other discussion?

Ralph, did you have anything else?

Well, we should reflect what happened in the meeting minutes.

When somebody reads the summary, they need to know, get the context of what happened in the meeting.

And by taking out the advice from the Attorney General, we are not giving the context of what's in the meeting.

And you're saying, "Oh, you can go watch the video," but it clearly says in the, um, I believe it's Chapter 9 too, that you have to give the context of what happened in the meeting.

Other discussion?

Would ask for a roll call to approve the minutes of August 27th.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Andreon?

No.

Commissioner Aino?

No.

Commissioner Kushi?

No.

Commissioner Kada?

Aye.

Commissioner McAdam?

Aye.

Commissioner O'Sham?

Yes.

And Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Um, 5 to 3 to approve the minutes.

Motion carries with the request of the Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of in-person voting at the precinct.

The voter ID required.

Would entertain a motion.

Or, Chair, I have a point of order.

What's your point of order?

Uh, Robert's Rules of Order, Section 10, Paragraph 10 says motions to reaffirm a position previously taken by adopting a motion or resolution are not in order.

This motion was taken in the August meeting, and that's still in full force and effect.

So, to retake this motion, clearly by Robert's Rules of Order, is out of order.

It's an improper motion.

101.

Okay, so we'll go to the next one.

If that's acceptable to every other Commissioner, we can move on to the next one.

So, here's the deal.

We've already asked—your deal.

We've already asked this question, and Deputy Attorney Ye has not answered the question promptly, so he's violating the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.

Number one, diligence.

Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.

A client's interest often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions.

In extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client's legal position may be destroyed.

And all of these things, that's exactly what's happening.

You're stalling the clock, and Deputy Attorney General Ye specifically doesn't want these questions, wants to answer these questions that the commission has already voted to have answered, and this is another deflection.

So, he needs to answer these things in writing, as we stated in the August meeting.

It's been four months since we've done that.

What's—why can't we get that opinion?

So, this question is whether to request the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of.

That question was asked and passed.

Does the Chief Election Officer have the authority to change the voting method?

Mr. Ye?

Um, so, as you may remember, uh, this question was, um, this motion was moved and approved at a meeting in which, uh, we had a Sunshine violation.

Consequently, the motions that were made and passed at that meeting are voidable.

No, they're not.

Pursuant to, uh, only the court can void it.

Excuse me, don't interrupt again, please.

Were you finished?

Um, so, we had represented to the Office of Information Practices that because it was voidable, we would seek to correct the Sunshine violation by holding or placing on the agenda, uh, at the next available meeting.

So, this is what we've done in at the, um, last meeting.

You may remember there was, uh, a lot of discussion.

Um, I had made a presentation.

This is what, um, I was recommending to the commission.

Uh, there was a lot of discussion by the commission on a number of other points, but I don't believe anyone responded or objected to the fact that we placed it on the agenda at the next meeting.

I also represented to the commission at that time that, um, we would be prepared to answer it at the next meeting, but we would need a motion that was approved by the commission at a, uh, at a valid Sunshine meeting.

That's the reason it's on the agenda.

So, the commission acts by majority vote.

The commission did not do any of those things.

The only motion that was passed in the October meeting was that we said the amendment to the motion would be that the Sunshine Law was violated and the meeting would not be voided.

It was an amendment to the motion.

The motion failed, but the only thing that the commission agreed on in the October meeting was that the meeting would not be voided.

So, when you say "we," that's you and the chair.

The commission acts by majority vote.

The commission has not nullified those motions that were made.

So, the whole meeting was nullified.

Nullified by the complaint to the Office of Information Practices?

No, it's not, and we agreed to it.

No, we did not.

The point that was made was that, uh, Zoom access was erroneously posted, which voided the whole meeting.

According to practice, nobody—no, no, no, absolutely not.

And I'm on that complaint that says only the court can nullify the actions of a board or commission verbatim.

You got the same?

Yeah, you, um, please wait till you're recognized by the chair.

Thank you.

Did you have anything to add?

Uh, no, I don't think I have anything helpful.

So, right now—excuse me, you're lacking—

Candid, you're out of order.

You can be recognized by the chair and talk, but if you're not recognized by the chair, you are out of order.

I'd like to speak, Chair.

Go ahead.

Okay, so right now, you lack candor towards the tribunal.

You were telling us something that's not true.

The commission has not voted to nullify any of these motions.

The commission voted to not void the meeting, and when you say "we," you're saying the chair and yourself decided those things.

The commission has not decided those things.

If you want to rescind the motions, then you take a vote to rescind the motions, but you can't rescind it with a majority vote unless you give prior notice that you're going to rescind the vote.

So, if you want to rescind the vote, you can take it, and you need a two-thirds vote to rescind those motions.

So, what I want the public to know is that everything in that meeting has already been acted on except for getting the advice of the Attorney General.

And why wouldn't we want to get his opinion on these items?

The only person who does not want to give the opinion is the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and he's avoiding these things because they're inconvenient to somebody.

But we feel that these laws have been broken.

The, uh, ballot was unconstitutional, and Mr. Nago has the ability to change the voting process, and you're refusing to give your opinion.

And you cannot just hijack the commission like that.

We need to follow Robert's Rules of Order.

If you want us to rescind the motion, you can take that vote.

So, let's—I'm going to make the motion.

I move to rescind the, um, the motions that were made to ask your opinion in the last meeting.

Now we need a two-thirds vote to pass this, so I move to rescind the vote.

I have a second.

Well, on item number four, it's the agenda item we're on now, whether to request the Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of in-person at the precinct with voter ID required.

That's improper.

It's the agenda item that we're discussing right now.

Doesn't matter.

You made the agenda.

You're out of order, Ralph.

That's the item on the agenda that we're discussing now, and we'll decide whether to request the Attorney General.

And again, I think this was your motion.

Would you like this to be considered again and made formal?

No, the motion is in full force and effect.

If you would like to rescind it, I move to rescind this motion.

Do I have a second?

The question—the item on the agenda is whether to request the Attorney General.

It's a proper motion.

You can't put an improper motion on the agenda.

You're our counsel.

You should know that.

You're out of order.

Any other discussion on the request to the Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority?

Might be easier.

Um, Scott, do you have the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of or in-person voting at the precinct with the voter ID required?

So, as I said at the last meeting when asked the question, I do not believe I have that authority.

The authority is in statute, which requires the method of voting, so I do not have that authority to change it without a rule change.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on this agenda item?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

This motion is still for in full force and effect.

I would open to public testimony if anybody would like to testify on item number four on the agenda.

Okay, Scott Nago testified that, um, he doesn't have the authority, that it's legislative.

And are there any other questions on that point?

Yes, sir.

It's really a question.

What's your name, please?

Well, my name's D. Cos.

You know who I am.

So, what you're saying is OIP, who is investigating the complaint, could therefore nullify the acts of this commission?

So, basically, you're saying that if there is something under investigation, it should be nullified?

The Office of Information Practices investigates complaints.

The complaint hasn't been adjudicated; it's only being investigated.

And as you know, per the letter, the letter specifically says that only the court can nullify the acts of the commission.

So, to Commissioner Kushi's point, those motions are still in full force and effect unless nullified by a court.

The Office of Information Practices hasn't even given their opinion yet.

But what you're suggesting is interesting because what you're suggesting is that if something is under investigation, it should be nullified.

So, how is it possible that you have investigations currently in play right now in the Hawaii Supreme Court is challenging the 2024 election, and yet you're inaugurating candidates as if they were lawfully elected before they've been lawfully elected?

You just said, "If something's under investigation, it could be nullified."

Interesting twist you have in your dialogue.

I would ask the commission to consider the ramifications of this statement by the Attorney General and that something under investigation should be nullified.

We agreed with the complaint; that's why.

Thank you.

Who is we?

Are there any other testifiers?

Please.

Morning, Chair.

My name is Adriel Lamb.

I've testified previously on many occasions before the commission holding this meeting today.

I did have a prepared testimony that pertains to items four, five, six, eleven, twelve, and thirteen.

Let's stick to five.

I can read four.

Four, four, four.

I'm sorry, present this to you, and I guess I don't have to read through the testimony as you've done it for each of these for this meeting.

But I do want to highlight that does the Chief Election Officer have the authority to change the voting method?

That's what we're discussing right now.

I testified in the last commission meeting that it is still in the law.

The method to do in-person voting is still in law, in the books, to be able to provide for in-person voting.

So, in his opinion, I guess that is a matter of opinion that I think is before the commissioner of whether you do in-person or more in-person voting.

I provide this testimony as I was the last observer of the Hawaii County elections at K-Hole to witness the very last vote cast on Wednesday, November 6, at 12:04 a.m.

In the morning, people sit in line for five hours in order to vote in person.

Every citizen has a right to choose the time of their method of voting.

They have the right to hold their vote until all the information is available to them.

They are not required to make a vote two weeks ahead of time before all the information is available to them.

This is a violation of our civil rights, and the election office should know that they have a right to vote in person, and the option is in the laws for them to vote in person.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

So, when you approve the five of you that said refer to the video, you're not keeping in taking into account that videos are not accessible to everyone, particularly those with reliable internet access, those with disabilities, or those who rely on concise summaries to stay informed.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

And I stood in line for five hours from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. after having to request my right to a ballot because they're going around passing a paper out, which apparently was the paper you fill out so that you can get a ballot, and going around and saying, "Oh, does everybody have a ballot?"

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

So please take this into accountability that by saying refer to the video and by trying to set a precedent where if you're going to do something wrong for a meeting which should be recorded for accountability, you can now violate on purpose and then just want to avoid it.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, I participated as an official election observer this year at the state elections office, and I just wanted to commend the frontline workers of the state elections office for their hard work and dedication, as well as the county election workers.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

There were a lot of issues to me from an observation point of view when I asked questions about the boxes of envelopes, the ballots secured in the envelopes that had already gone through signature verification.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these are some of the, like, really specific issues.

Um, and I don't want to get into all the details, but, um, when there's a question on specifics like this, then there lends to be, um, no confidence in our elections process.

There's a lack of staff at the county level.

On that night during closing at K-Hole, I was one of two official observers there, and I observed the last voter in line at 11:45 p.m.

And after that, all the voters were out of the building.

When they opened the scanned, um, boxes or the scanned—the scanner machines, a literally a waterfall of ballots came out, and there were only two county workers there and one state worker.

And the state worker was there to pick up the ballots to transport back over to the capital for counting and processing.

That is unacceptable.

These county workers were there from 5:30 a.m. in the morning.

These things need to be corrected, and I understand the county clerks for the elections division have been invited to this meeting numerous times, and they are not here again.

And that's where a lot of the problem lies.

There's still problems at the state level too.

We should not accept auditing of scanned images; that's not acceptable.

But being an election observer opened my eyes to a lot of things, a lot of inconsistencies.

There is no accountability.

The county level doesn't want election observers.

That, to me, is a red flag right there.

There's a whole lot more, um, that I can speak to, but I want the commission to know that that needs to be fixed immediately, and I support one day of voting, one ID.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on item four?

In that case, we'll move on to item five.

There's a whole bunch of people raising their hands.

I'm sorry, I didn't—could you read in order, please, of the volunteers for testimony?

This is on item four.

Um, we can do Tara Roas.

Miss Roas, just to let you know, uh, give people a chance to unmute because the request to unmute comes with a lag.

Okay, so aloha, Tara.

I want to testify on this item four and what you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting too because public trust and transparency is at stake when you're approved.

I'm grateful for those who—the three who oppose because meeting minutes are not just procedural; they're a permanent record of government accountability.

This move does not foster equity; it creates barriers to public participation.

Like you're just about to, um, move over, you know, without even looking up at the public participation online and opens the door to selective editing and minute records.

Now, when a meeting violates the law, voiding the meeting should not be a tool to erase wrongdoing but an opportunity to enforce accountability and restore trust.

This commission's actions today reflect the pattern of diminishing transparency, which is unacceptable in a democratic system.

Now we need—that's why we're all here.

That's why you see all the hands raised.

We need to restore transparency, ensuring accountability, and commit to equity.

I came from the other way, so I didn't see them just happen.

I asked, so I had to ask somebody, had to request a supervisor, and luckily that supervisor has the knowledge and understood, and then I had the proof that I was there in time to get my vote.

So, but I'm going to say that, but just that experience and what I'm seeing now, what we're all seeing, my goodness, blatantly really trying to hide things.

Just, you need to be transparent.

And thank you for the board member who is speaking up, which you want to call a point of order on him because he is the only one there speaking on behalf of the people.

That does not work that way.

So please enforce accountability, restore trust in all of your positions, whoever is there from the top down, Attorney General and from the people up.

We need to restore.

Mahalo.

Next, um, individuals have submitted their names prior to the meeting.

Uh, the next one is Jamie DeWeer.

Jamie DeWeer, one, two, three.

Hello?

Excuse me, I was waiting.

I was waiting to be unmuted.

Oh, sorry.

Oh my gosh.

Let me see.

Uh, aloha.

Yeah, as the previous testifier said, there's a delay in the unmuting, so please be mindful for the future testifiers.

I am testifying on agenda item number five, so I'm not sure if we're talking about number four right now.

Right, so, um, I understand that, but I was just—I was called upon.

I was called upon by the moderator, so please, please be respectful.

These are the names of the people that—yes, ma'am, go ahead.

You can talk about anything you'd like.

I'd like to go in the order that you're running the meeting too.

Care if you're—if you're going to—it's going to be really—it's going to be difficult if you're just—

Understand, and I will entertain testimony on any of the agenda items today.

Right now, please go ahead and start your three minutes over, Miss DeWeer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'd actually like to start off with something—a quick brief note on something positive.

Um, and what I want to speak to is agenda number five, whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

And I'm going to do this through the lens of an election observer.

Uh, we had the opportunity as observers to go down to the signature verification center here in Honolulu, which is where the ballots are received.

Um, and these are mail-in ballots and Dropbox ballots.

And as observers, we were asked to sign off on the number of boxes and not the number of ballots that were in the boxes in the locked cages.

So, these

I stand with Susie Martinson. I stand with Adriel Lamb. Lest anyone be confused about where I stand, I stand in direct opposition to Scott Nago. I stand in direct opposition to Chair Curtis. I stand in direct opposition to D. I stand in direct opposition to Commissioner McAdams, Commissioner Uster Camp, and Commissioner Kuada. Chair Curtis, we might as well call you Ringmaster. You are running a circus, and it is absolutely infuriating that we have to give you any credibility at all by attending this meeting and by testifying.

I agree with Doug Pasnik. I call for your resignation, and I stand and maintain that if you wanted to solve the problems, you would. Thank you, Miss Fetzer. Next testifier is Wallen Christian, followed by Carl STI.

Aloha. Sorry about that. Can you folks hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you so much. I just want to make a quick observation. The county clerk had said that I had testified already, and that is true. However, I do want to make a note that Chair Curtis has asked anybody who wanted another three minutes, so I want that on the record.

I just wanted to ask one quick question because I'm noticing that testimonies are coming in on any agenda items. Is the commission still going to go through each agenda item while we're on recording so that if there's anything that needs to be added, those that have testified, like me, can also input as well at that time? That's my only question.

I yield. You're welcome to comment on anything on the agenda. Okay, mahalo. I appreciate it. Next testifier.

Next testifier is Carl Dicks, followed by Pat Beakman, who already testified. Mr. Dicks? Hello. Hi again. Thank you for the opportunity again. Just a couple quick points of clarification. Access to voting is very extremely important to me. I've been in a wheelchair since 2019, so that's not a factor even considered in same-day voting. In my efforts, I've been in a wheelchair. I understand what it is to go on the sidewalks and the access issues of the cross slopes and the terrible disregard for people with disabilities.

Yeah, that is important to me. And also, anybody that thinks that Act 136 bears any credibility whatsoever, has anybody read it or attempted to read it? I have. It's not readable. It's 92 pages of garbage. 72 of those pages, 72 of the 92 pages have crossed-out items. Some of them entire pages. Try to read it. Try to read it. How could it possibly have passed three readings? Read it once. I love reading legal documents. There's no way possible I could read that and make any sense of it whatsoever.

And that's the foundation from our legislature, and that's where this actually began. I sympathize with the election commission. This is thrust upon you, but I ask those voting against the people, and repeatedly, and you've all been mentioned, just try and do your own research. Look at what you're fighting against the people.

Mr. Uster Camp, you're an Esquire, a lawyer, an attorney, a legal scholar of sorts, I guess. Have you tried to read Act 136? And I know it's improper to address anybody specifically, but anybody in the commission, you should read these things. You should understand these things. You should understand and read the HRS statutes, the duties of your commission, the duties of the chief election officer. That is your responsibility to be informed and make good decisions based on your information and research.

With that, I yield. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Next testifier is Pat Beakman, followed by Tara Roas. They're both already testified. Yep. Aloha. Aloha. A few minutes ago, I testified that the 2024 elections were blatantly corrupt because there were only two locations on Oahu in the final days leading up to the November 5th election day. That was also the case in 2022 and probably in 2020 also.

There may be some people here who are unaware of where I got my evidence. That is clearly available in the precinct report put out by the office of elections. If you look at the precinct reports, it breaks down in-person voting and it shows that overwhelmingly the in-person voters are Republican voters. Unfortunately, the report does not break it down statewide, so you do have to go through the considerable inconvenience of going precinct by precinct, but the trend is obvious.

As a final recommendation, I would recommend that the office of elections put down a statewide in-person voting total so that the facts are clear to the public. I yield. Thank you, Miss Beakman. Next testifier is Tara Roas, followed by Donald Sakamoto.

Aloha, testifiers. I want to say again, like the other testifiers, if you're going to go through the agenda and then again ask for testifiers, I would like to testify then as well. But again, since you asked for more comments, I would just like to add in that from what we've heard regarding the instance of premature action of the inauguration before the election was certified, that's very concerning.

And that justifies action such as an investigation to view the timeline of the certification, again emphasizing the need for accountability. Those who disregarded proper certification processes must be held accountable to restore public confidence. Also, systemic reform needs to happen, and stronger safeguards to prevent these similar occurrences.

And we know that does start with your stepping down. Now, my other comment of concern is of the other testifier mentioning about the narrative being painted where she called them the white paper terrorist group. Now, I do need to say this: you need to realize that the legality of this governance is wrong. The Hawaiian Kingdom still exists. Hawaii is not America, and these American and westernized ways of thinking and doing have been wrongfully and unlawfully imposed upon the kanaka, who are the people of this place.

They're being forced, as you heard a previous testifier, to participate again in this Western legal system. The only way possible in this day and age to advocate for inherent inalienable rights that do not have a time limit, that are in perpetuity. I just need to say that again by the other previous comments, testimony about this white paper terrorist group, as she calls them, this is another form of colonization and repression, forcing those whose lands and sovereignty have been stolen to navigate and use this colonized system simply to demand what is just and right and is held in perpetuity.

Again, the lands and water are being stolen, and they're fighting against this very oppression as we are doing right now in this one election committee meeting with a chair who refuses to sit down, hearing and knowing that the people are calling for it and that you work for the people. So again, I call on this commission to rise to the kuleana you have as you are in these unlawfully, illegally occupied lands of Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next testifier is Donald Sakamoto, followed by Rosemary Jaw. Mr. Sakamoto, you're coming in broken. Hello, Chair, can you hear me now? Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair. Donald Sakamoto for the record. I'm the Hanalei County Elections Accessibility Needs Committee Chair for the County. This is enacted with the legislature to have counties give input to the elections office.

My experience with the elections in the primary, I was able to register as an electronic ballot, had no problem with that. Came for the general election, I did not get my mail-in ballot, so I didn't want to do an electronic ballot. So I went down in person because I had a complaint from a blind individual, which I am blind also. I tested the machine at District Park on the last day of voting for that area, and I noticed that the voter machine was very soft in the certain descriptions of the say Harris and walls for the Democratic Party and some other ones.

I brought that to the attention of the city clerks that were there, and I was able to do the ballot electronically on the machine. It took me about 45 minutes, but I finally completed it. But I do have some concerns about the voting machine not being able to understand different voices, especially when the amendments came up. The amendment, one of them when it said yes, was very loud and clear, but the no was very soft and not as exciting.

So I just want to bring that up. But I believe that in-person voting is a good thing to have. We're fortunate to have five days in Kauai on the Waianae side and five days in Wailuku, and then we have the other centers in Hanalei and Kapaa. But I think the stretch should be more to the B centers so that people can get to it so we don't have to stand in line for that long. But I appreciate you taking my testimony. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sakamoto. Next testifier is Rosemary Jaw, followed by Gary Cordy. Rosemary? Hello. Aloha. Aloha. My name is Rose Maria, Island of Kauai. I am the district chair for the Republican Party District 17. I was also the coordinator for signature verification observation for the general election 2024. We had 12 volunteers. We had new equipment that we were denied access to sensitivity settings by County Deputy County Clerk Mr. Yoshi in April.

April 19th, Mr. Yoshi was at that meeting. It took six months to get that meeting with Jay Tagawa and Mr. Yoshioka, and several different things occurred in that meeting leading up to the general election signature verification. We discussed the new equipment run back in Agilis on the day of. They were supposed to start on the 21st processing. They had problems; they could not get the system functioning.

I requested an IT report failure analysis to see what was transpiring. I was denied that. I was inquiring about the process and I did it in writing, the process of curing ballots that were rejected for no signature of record on file. There were three reject categories. I did not get that information. I have since filed OIP UI PA to get the final count of ballots that were rejected and ballots that were not able to be cured. There's a big discrepancy there. I don't have that information either.

It's a delay, it's stall, no response. I also have a letter regarding chain of custody. I got a response. The agency is requesting additional time to respond in order to avoid an unreasonable interference with other statutory duties and functions, and that's from Scott Nago's office. I sent my request directly to his office, not his general email inbox because nothing ever happens with the general inbox.

Wrap it up, please. Still waiting for information on that. My husband filed at the Supreme Court candidate concerns with election results here on Kauai. We can't get the data. Thank you.

Release the data also. Thank you, Rosemary. Your time's up. Next speaker, please. Next, Gary Cordy, followed by Jamie Deweer. Mr. Cordy? Aloha. Aloha. Thank you for taking this Zoom. I have a couple of points to make in the next three minutes. Over the last several commission meetings, we've heard about the mission statement for the commission itself and Scott Nago's office to enhance and to ensure that we have an accurate vote in Hawaii.

Contrary to that, what we've seen is less accuracy, more chaos, less voter turnout, more cost. There's actually been nothing that has improved since this new mail-in ballot system. So first point I'd like to get in the record is we must go back to one person, one vote with an ID, a paper ballot in the precincts. It's effective, it's inexpensive, it happens in one day, and there's nothing in my mind that is—there's no negative side, there's no downside to voting in that method.

There's nothing but problems with what we're doing now. I also want to thank Ralph Kushy for his stand and his willingness to interrupt the chaos on that board. And I know, Chair Curtis, that there's been numerous calls for your resignation, but I want to speak not just to you for a moment but for the entire commission. Most of the commissioners, with the exception of Ralph, sit there silently unless asked a direct question.

And the only way that we have in our constitutional republic an effective governing body, which you are one, is we must be a people of virtue and honor and integrity. People who are willing to look, discern, account, and if needed, make a shift change. Actually use wisdom and discernment to make good public policy in this case, the vote.

And I actually have a warning. I'm very concerned for the commissioners on this commission that sit back and do not do their jobs. There's more at stake than just this commission meeting. There's actually your personal integrity and your own character that's at stake. How you live your life and the choices that we make as people and you make on that board absolutely matter.

If your physical health, everything about this meeting is going to matter in the future for your lives. My request is for your own sake, will you please tell the truth, act responsibly, act accountable, use transparency, keep your promise, stop avoiding hard questions, engage, and do the job. Do the mission statement. And if it means the commission needs to change, then please, for your own sake, resign. It's the only honorable thing.

So please, for the sake of the people of Hawaii, for an accurate vote, for public confidence in our system, please engage in these requests. They're numerous, they're excellent, and I agree with Karen. I stand with all those that she articulated earlier. Please, for the sake of your own health, your own well-being, your own conscience, and your own heart, do what's right. Act with virtue, honor, and integrity. Thank you.

Mr. Cordy, thank you. Next testifier is Jamie Deweer, followed by Shami Okata. Miss Deweer? Thank you for unmuting me. I just want to be brief and address a previous testifier, Mr. Gasher, with regards to accessibility for voting. I know Mr. Dicks already addressed it. I just want to add to what Mr. Dicks has already said.

Again, as an election observer, an official observer this year, we had to read about accessibility and address that issue. There are options that are not going to be impacted by same-day voting. You know, there are accessible electronic ballots, there's vote-at-home with paper ballots, absentee voter ballots. So for him to say that no one has addressed the accessibility, thank you for this opportunity to address that issue. There is accessibility for those with disabilities. I have family members and friends who appreciate those options, so there is accessibility for everyone. I yield.

Thank you. Next testifier, Shami Okata, followed by Shelby Badire. Hello. Aloha. Hi. Aloha. Well, Jamie and Miss Deweer just already said what I wrote out for me to read, but I'm going to read it anyway. Earlier, Mr. Gasher did say that in-person voting hinders accessibility for individuals with disabilities, but I would like to bring back to everyone's memory and understanding that before this vote-by-mail, or also known as the all-mail program, was implemented, there always was such a thing called absentee ballot, which people have taken advantage of.

So it just boggles my mind that people forget that, especially those that are in charge of the election, and then go ahead and use a new system like the all-mail program. So I think we are all in agreement that everyone should have a vote, everyone should have a say, but also it's important to be truthful and not forget about the system that's already in place.

Voting in person is important, not only because of the accountability and all that, but I used to take my son to the polling station every election day to teach him that this is America, this is important, we participate in our politics and government. So when it changed to the all-mail program, the opportunity was sort of lost. So I grieve.

So anyway, Chair Curtis, I know you're there to do your job, so please do it. Don't just have a meeting for the sake of having a meeting. After the meeting, please review your notes, take actions, and make your plans known to the public. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. Next testifier, Shelby Badire, followed by Leonard Nakoa. Check, check, check. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Okay, so thank you, guys. We're getting round two. So I know we're talking about the agenda item, so I still want to touch upon the Sunshine Law, which is agenda number seven and ten, which goes back to agenda five, the chain of custody.

We can't go into all of it, but you know, with the Sunshine Laws, what I'm feeling with this meeting, because you want to invalidate the last meeting, which was four and a half hours, which I downloaded, recorded, put all over Al TV, YouTube, because the whole meeting was five hours and thirty minutes. So when you go and invalidate the meeting, that pisses me off because it ruins all of our time and everyone who testified before we got Wend Elento.

Everyone in the lineup, I cut there. He says they put them on social media so we could tell the truth about what's going on. Every time it gets dismissed. Now, if you're saying you have an admission of that, you not only broke the law, but you had a complaint because Tara called it out. Tara Roas about the Zoom meeting because it's recorded, like Ralph Kushy says, it is recorded on the meeting.

I know because I downloaded to rewatch that thing two or three times, and other people watched it thousands of times after the meeting, after we done, after I showed up the meeting, after the guy had the whole thing about the certification and the governor got put into office before the certification. Everything is true with all the testifiers are saying, and it's pissing us off.

Now, every time we put an individual's case, it gets dismissed, which is why we're leading to SCOTUS. Now we have other testifiers, Anita K. Lauren, that's her real name, the one that said Hawaiian is a dead language. It's not dead. She's trying to go under the false premise of Kai. That's not her real name. She's literally illiterate, she's ignorant, and she's pretty much, you know, there's two official languages in the state of Hawaii. You all know this because Tommy Waters called it out: Hawaii, Hawaiian, and English.

So what two languages should be on the election ballot? Hawaiian and English. If you go to Japan, guess what? It's going to be in Japanese. You go to Thailand, guess what? It's supposed to be in Thai. You're breaking your own U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2, the supreme law of the land. That the other testifier, when the purple Zoom, I know who she is. That's my royal cousin.

I don't bring the Hawaiian king up to you guys because you go to HawaiianKing.org, then I'm just talking bubbles to you. But no, you live in your state of Hawaii, but the Hawaiian kingdom has never left. Call K Aluni Co Haai, the kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. I literally have to spell this out for you because you would be illiterate.

Now, why do I talk that to you? Because now I feel dumb because why don't you follow your own laws? I'm talking to you in the state of Hawaii. I'm talking to the U.S. Constitution. I'm talking to your HRS 1-1, which is the Hawaii fixed judicial precedence, which will be already fixing the law. I can see the deputy attorney looking down. That's men's Ria and act this real. You know you're normally breaking the law.

Now, if you don't want to listen to all of our advice or what we're telling you, you can do your own thing. We're still going to go to SCOTUS, but this is going to lead to RICO. You know Donald Trump's going to come president, and we're going to go after civil asset forfeiture and take all the assets because Anita Klo Rank, we know where she lives because we can find her address.

She lives—you should not go on this meeting publicly, call people white terrorists, white paper terrorists with no backup. And so I yield back to all of you.

Next testifier is Leonard Nakoa, followed by Rosemary Jaw. What's up? Yes, you hear me? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay, this is freaking tiring. Yeah, you guys, first you guys like here, my county council, take away our voice. Yeah, when I talk, you take all this evidence and tell everybody to watch the video. Tired of this kind of crap, bro.

And then, you know, here we are. I'm part of a case that we're taking to the Hawaii Supreme Court for the counting of ballots here in the west, in Ki Maui for County Council. Yeah, so this is full of crap. We're tired of this crap. We're sick and tired. And then you guys come over here, you guys power V, stop this crap more.

Okay, one other thing is, you know what? I hate America with a passion. Yeah, and that you guys are confirming my hate for America. Yeah, but we got to try to follow the system because you guys want to overtake our freaking government. Yeah, so we're going to try our best to do whatever we can, but you guys are proving that I cannot stop fighting. I got to keep standing and fighting against you guys because you're taking away all our power every damn time. Sick and tired.

Yeah, at a DNR, BLNR, DHHS, see whatever we get all kinds of crap we got to deal with. Yeah, oh, sometimes, you know what? We like to do, get the heck out of our way. Get the heck out of the way. Let us do our stuff and all that kind. That's what I told the president is getting kicked out of the office right now. That's what I told the stupid governor of Hawaii and our mayor, just get out of our way so the people of L can r l like how he like do because you guys are taking away our voices and you guys screwing us up.

Thank you, Mr. Nakoa. Next testifier was Marie Yak, followed by Jerick Madas. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, thank you for this opportunity. I'm going to speak on agenda number four. We still have no follow-up on motions, and for agenda number four, we equals the commission, not the chair and the Attorney General.

To the best of my understanding, Scott Nago's belief that he cannot change election policy is not the response that we requested through the commission to the Attorney General's office. It's not what was requested on the validity of the election. On June 9th, Chair Curtis went on record that we accept that digital images can be manipulated. How does that constitute a free and honest election?

The election, in my mind, is invalid. The certification is invalid because the data has not been supplied. There are numerous lawsuits pending. How can you certify the election in Hawaii with Hawaii Supreme Court cases pending? And I would also support Doug Pasnik's motion. Let's make a motion of no confidence and request the resignation of Scott Nago and Chair Curtis. I yield.

Thank you, Michelle. Next testifier is Jerick Madas, followed by Forest. I appreciate the second round of testimonies, you know, addressing other things. Now, for one, I know where the jurisdiction stands in Hawaii, right? It's county above the state, county above the federal government because of the fact of the illegal occupation and stuff and no Treaty of Annexation.

But I think it's unconstitutional to have the county now and the state of Hawaii. There's two different governments. You know, I think it's unconstitutional for them to be running alongside each other like that, to have our county ballots on the backside of the state of Hawaii ballots. No, man, that's not how it's supposed to go. It should definitely be two days of voting, one day for the state of Hawaii and one day for the county of Hawaii.

Okay, we shouldn't have to put our ballot on the backside of the state's ballot. We have in our county, we have our own elections office. Okay, we have our own team that can count our county ballots ourselves. In-person voting is very important because when you go and you look in the past, you look in the past, it does not say any—you don't see any complaints. You don't have—there's no complaints of the type of complaints we have today, right?

More so having our county ballot on the backside of the state's ballot and the state allowing people to vote a week and a half, two weeks before the election. Man, we suffered a big hit this last primary where these guys got to go through all these mailing ballots and then mail it out and say, "Oh, there was a problem with your signature." How is that possible when the state of Hawaii previously, in 2019, did legislation to say that X qualifies to be a signature?

Now, I know that the persons that we were putting up to run as mayor, Junior Tupai, right, he secured 21,000 voters from the Big Island in that election of 2020-2022 when Josh Green supposedly got selected, not elected, because we didn't vote for him. At the same time, 21,000 people voted for Junior Tupai from the Big Island. We didn't have to convince 21,000 people to vote for him when he ran for mayor two years later.

Okay, and then we get on the ballot, he had only 5,000 voters, right, the last out of three other Democratic supporters. Okay, 24,000 mail-out ballots sent back to the people on the Big Island. That's 30,000 votes for J. Tup. Right? Thank you, Mr. Madas. You got to—you guys, Scott Nago, you guys got to go through all these ballots, huh?

Thank you, Mr. Madas. Next testifier is Forest, followed by Kai Lauren. Forest, get unmuted. Forest, you got to unmute. Okay, next speaker, Kai Lauren, followed by Sheila Mados. Chair, there you go. Thank you again. Thank you again for what is your—what is your full name? My full name is Anita Kai Lauren. Thank you.

And I would like to testify as to a form of the domestic terrorism that I was telling you about. Testifier Dox me, who was actually not using his legal name. I'm sure he's not Pikachu billionaire. Doxed me in an election commission meeting. I would also like to clarify, if you will look at the picture, this is just one of thousands of links and screenshots that I have.

This individual was from Turkey that people in a political party were fundraising for to get them elected into office. There is no CSC or FE reports or filing on this fundraiser. Also, they were working with this person, and we have the manifesto that they were doing so to overthrow a political party and in turn the state.

I would like to ask Mr. Yee if that violates any election laws, and I would like this to be referred to the Attorney General's office. People that stand up against this group are threatened and doxxed. They are very dangerous, and not only do I worry about my safety because they are doxxing me, but I actually worry about your safety. Thank you, and please refer this to the Attorney General's office for the protection of American citizens.

Thank you. Next testifier is Shayla Mados, followed by—can you hear me? Yes. Aloha, commission. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak and just give you firsthand experience of my own experience on Election Day on November 5th at the Kapolei. I was in line for six hours, along with kupuna, along with families with babies, and they were determined to vote.

And that actually was a proud moment to watch and witness that they were willing to stand in line and just endure the long lines and the elements because it actually rained while we were standing in line, but they refused to budge. And that just should show you—I wish some of you were there to witness just the commitment to cast their vote on Election Day.

That has been done prior to COVID. We've been doing this prior to COVID. COVID changed everything, but we are beyond COVID now, so there's no reason not to go back to what used to be. We can add in elements of mail-in ballots, allowing people with medical conditions, disabilities to use mail-in ballots and the military.

But to say that we want to go 100% mail-in ballots, I don't think you'll get a full consensus to do so. I really wish you folks would consider what you're doing because you folks had schools closed on Election Day. There was no reason not to open up more polling stations knowing very well there are committed voters that like to vote. They choose to vote on Election Day.

So please consider this as you folks move forward into the upcoming election in 2026. You should take everything that you're hearing now and sit down and really plan it out and make the corrections because these are valid issues. And if you ignore it, that's on you folks. You folks were elected to work for the people. Please listen to them.

One more thing is there was a lot of marketing dollars that were spent to promote mail-in ballots. I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, I did not see that amount of marketing for in-person voting. So if that was a strategy to encourage more people to mail in their ballots and not vote in person, you folks bet wrong because there were a bunch of people—there are, I would say, thousands of people trying to stand in line and vote.

One more last thing, in the primary election, there were no polling stations, I think, pop-up in on the Windward side. There were a couple of elderly kupuna who didn't even know there was no polling station on the Windward side for the primary election. You folks need to do a better job promoting the primary election because the primary election turnout was horrible, and it was because the marketing dollars that you all spent to push mail-in ballots, you probably could have pushed more in the primary election because the primary election is really important, and people need to be educated and informed about primary elections because that is what determines who represents that party in the general.

Thank you, M. Madas. Thank you. Next testifier is Brit Kus, followed by iPhone. Mr. Kus? Thank you, Chair Curtis, members of the committee. We are two and a half hours into this meeting, and I agree with the sentiments of somebody else. This is a circus. While I agree that the testimony of many of the members or many of the people here are valid points, I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but there are valid points out there.

I would like to remind members of this commission and the members of the public, there is nothing preventing each county from having more polling locations open on Election Day. Their limitation is money and manpower. Having been at the Capitol in both the primary and the general election as an official observer, it was obvious to me that many of the people on this call spending two and a half hours waiting to speak or speaking here, at least in Honolulu, you were not at the counting center when I was there.

So maybe you were there after or in the second shift in the evening, but you're not doing your due diligence as you come here to voice your opinions on what's going on without knowing the facts of everything. I agree with some previous speakers that were at the Capitol that the office of election staff did everything within their power to answer any questions that were brought forward and provide the official observers a semblance of fairness and understanding and transparency.

So that would be my first point. The other thing is I didn't see, other than knowing that Mr. Kushy went to the location on Kauai, like he I think he always does, none of you on the commission showed up at one of the counting centers. I don't know if you went to the Honolulu Hall or Kapolei to observe it, but you didn't show up to Honolulu Hall or the state Capitol when I was there, and I was there all during the day, pretty much every day during the official observing.

So you guys need to get, as somebody previously said, do your due diligence, understand what's going on. As far as the last meeting being canceled, if that's what this committee determines, that's fine by me. As somebody that has a very good understanding, probably a better understanding of Robert's Rules of Order than anybody on that commission, including any assistant, I think if you determine you want to determine without the court actually saying that the previous meeting was invalid, a simple solution would be to make a motion to approve all, to blanketly approve all actions taken at that meeting.

I yield. Thank you, Mr. Kus. Next testifier is iPhone, but can you please state your full name, followed by Forest? Yes, my name is David Williams. I pretty much just want to testify kind of what the lady had said previously on it makes no sense that you guys spent so much money taking out ads to basically discourage people. Not only like you guys would discourage people to vote in person, you guys are making advertisements saying how much of a hassle, how much of a headache it was going to be to vote in person.

That right there is wrong already. Like, obviously, more people are going to vote in mail because you guys keep making commercials to discourage people to vote in person. And I understand people need access to vote by mail for disabilities and whatnot, but for the most part, people want to vote in person on Election Day, which should still be allowed.

Like, there should be more voting places everywhere. It should be convenient for people that want to vote in person on Election Day. It should be made convenient for everyone to do so, not this big, huge hassle to where you guys basically were discouraging people—not basically, you guys were discouraging people to vote in person. You took out ads discouraging people from voting in person.

Everything just seems super suspicious, the way everything is going on. No one's happy with the way the election commission is running, and things need to change. Yeah, that's all. Thank you.

Next testifier is Forest, followed by Wendy B. Hello, can anybody hear me? Aloha. I got you now. Okay, hello, my name is Forest. I'm calling in and joining from Kauai. I again have a quick question. I don't want to come on here and just listen to myself speak. I'd actually like to hear Commissioner Curtis, or Chair Curtis, rather.

A question for you, Mr. Curtis. Simple question: how can they inaugurate the County Council on Kauai before the election is certified? I don't know. You don't know? So it's negligence is the answer? Or I don't know? You don't know? So what are the following steps pertaining to what happened there? Recognize the elected officials?

Yeah, because as a person that put his signature on that lawsuit with Ralph Kushy, we want to verify that there's that many pieces of paper and an independent count of the envelopes and business reply mail receipts from the post office. What are your thoughts on that? Not my thought, it's your time.

Okay, well, before I yield my time, I would just like to say that's what the people want, and we're in agreement that this whole thing, nobody's happy with this commission and how it's operating. And with the gentleman before that referred to it as a circus, and you being the ringleader, I would probably like to correct that. It's more like one regime, like you said, literally out of your mouth, it's a regime, and time for a shift.

And you know a lot of people are calling for your resignation. I yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Forest. Next testifier is Wendy Bador, followed by Shami Okata. Hi, my name is Wendy Bador. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. Wow, this is a really long meeting. It's always long, but maybe you remember me, maybe you won't, but I say the same things to you guys when I come on because you guys are in this.

You hold the positions, and you know what the people want, but yet I don't know that you have the power to—I believe Scott Nago has the power to just make a decision to bring us back to voting paper ballots. That's what works, Scott. You know, the last meeting that I was on, we asked you about that, and Commissioner Kushy said that you do have the authority. It is a decision that you can make. It doesn't have to go through the House or Senate or anything.

I believe you have that power. Do what is right. You know, throughout history, courageous men, even if you're in it, how long you've been in it, there is a sense of goodness in you that you know what the people want, and you can step up and do the right thing. You know, we can make choices. God did not make us like puppets. You get to choose, and you can hear all the testimony. You know what the people want.

Rise up, be courageous, go against your constituents, do what you need to do. You got one life to live. Do it right. I pray and I continue to pray for you guys. Yeah, thank you, guys. Be blessed. Bye-bye.

Thank you, Wendy. Last testifier, Miss Okata. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, hi. Thank you so much. Sorry about that technical issue. I just wanted to comment on the volunteer issue that Mr. Kus brought up earlier. I was one of the volunteers for the 2022 election. There are quite a few volunteers who reported to me, well, as we shared with each other that our shifts kept getting canceled.

So there are different teams, you know, but whatever I could sign up for, I did. Many of my colleagues or co-volunteers said that their shifts kept getting canceled. And so I know there are people that—all that is to say that there are people who are willing to work if the office of elections have their work more organized.

I went to all the meetings that I was asked to go to, and I asked questions. Some of the questions were not answered honestly, I believed. One day, I went to a county clerk's office at Hono before the election in 2022 regarding to ask a question and to ask if I could volunteer in the signature verification process. The answer I received was, "No, ma'am, can't do that because the room that we have for signature verification work is too small. We can't have more people in it."

And I thought, wow, well, he may have no power over that, but what an excuse. If you know that going in, why don't you get a bigger room? They have lots of rooms in the state capitol. You could make that arrangement, but they didn't. And I was—my husband and I were active also in the Hanalei District at that time, and there are a few people that volunteered, and I heard this year they continue to volunteer, and even more people volunteered.

We were active in election integrity. There are a lot of people who want to make sure that our election is pono, and they would volunteer if you put, as Shayla Maderos said, if you put just as much marketing money into advertising opening for volunteers.

So I think there's a lot of work to be done, but not just the work, a lot of the brain work that needs to be done. Honest honesty, integrity that need to go into your work. So Chairman Curtis, you have a lot of work to do, and I hope we do it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll have two more testimonies today. Next testifier is Malik Obama, followed by Painkillers. Did we lose him? He is here. Looks like we lost him. You did not lose me. Oh, sorry. Hey, welcome. You have people are outraged. You have fake elections, you have fake state, you have fake president. This is a joke.

Thank you, sir. Next testifier is Painkillers. Can you please state your full name? Yeah, hello, everybody. What is your name? Keon Payton. Thank you. Okay, so, you know, I've been following this for a few years now, and normally what happens when I have an employee or employees that aren't doing their job, they get replaced. I don't know what part of that formula is so confusing for all you guys.

Also, you know, Mike Curtis, you in real clown, because anytime we try to get involved, you'll put it onto a recess, and you're negating your duties. You're lawfully, illegally negating your duties here. What—why are you on the commission? Why are you on the commission? You're not doing your job. You actually are stopping others that want this commission board and board to do well and do good for the community, and you are actively stopping that from happening.

Now, the only other reason I can say is I can deduct from that is that you're probably for a corrupt reason. Are you getting paid? Like, are you getting under-the-table checks? Are you so concerned with party over policy that you're willing to ruin the community for selfish benefits and concerns? We need—we need a hully on this whole board. It's ridiculous. All you four clowns sitting up there need to just resign. Just do yourself a favor, man. Resign. You want legacy? Let that be your legacy that for once you did the right thing and you guys resigned, all four of you clowns.

My time is done. Thank you. We have time for one more. Next testifier is Nicole. Hi, my name is Nicole Baron. I first was brought to the attention of this when I called the commission's office back in 2020. I asked them, I said, "Why do I have two ballots, and why did one of them come after?" And my problem was with the lady on the phone didn't know, and they got back with me a week later, and then the lady that got on the phone couldn't properly tell me who she was, what the procedures were, and they did tell me that, "Oh, everybody got two ballots."

Now I've asked again and again and again people from all over, "What can we do about this?" And then, second was the chain of custody. I don't understand why the chain of custody got to go to Kona and got to go to Hilo, then got to go to Hawaii or Waho. I don't understand that. There's just too much time for problems.

Yeah, and then they took my ballot when I went there. I brought my ballot, and they want me to put it into a box. I'm like, "I don't trust you guys." I don't—I thank you all for volunteering, but I don't trust you guys. What can you do to fix this problem? And if you cannot and you do resign, who and what is the procedures going to stand in your place? You need to let us know. Like, put it on your page. Let the people who answer the phones know. Give us some kind of legal recourse.

You need to be accountable for something, and you know you are going to be investigated. The new election, everybody is accountable. So if there's any kind of corruption, I recommend just stepping down so you don't get part of that whirlwind if you think you were corrupt. I don't know. It sounds shady, all of it. I yield.

Thank you, Nicole. Now Ralph raised the issue of items 4 through 9 having been previously approved in a previous meeting. That's been challenged under the Sunshine Law out of the effort of conservative because that Sunshine Law does look at H. It looks like it has validity because we published an incorrect URL for the Zoom meeting at the last meeting.

So there was a Sunshine Law complaint that out of conservative action. Mr. Yee and I have suggested that items 4-9 were passed at the last meeting. That's subject to challenge from the Sunshine Law. Ralph says that these four through nine are already in place because of that last meeting that has not yet been invalidated by the Sunshine Law.

So with the commission's permission, we'll go to item 10 and consider 4-9 valid from the last meeting that has not yet been invalidated by the Sunshine Law complaint. Is that correct, Ralph? That about right? That's correct, but we need to still discuss the topics that are on there. We're not going to revote. We need to discuss the topics.

If four through nine are approved at the last meeting, then we move on to item number 10, if that's the commission's pleasure. Any other commissioners want to give input? I'd like to speak, Chair. Yes. So we need to talk about the topics. The topics—no, no, no, no. The topics are on the agenda. You're suggesting that they've already been discussed and approved at the last meeting?

Yes. Then we don't need to discuss them now. They're on the agenda because we assumed that last meeting was going to be invalidated because of the Sunshine Law complaint. If we're going to assume that these were passed in a valid meeting, we don't need to discuss them again. We'll go to—

Is that what's the pleasure of the commission? These items are on the agenda. I believe we should be able to discuss them. There's no reason to not discuss these items. Okay, they were discussed and passed at the last meeting. Let's follow out of an effort at conservativism. We were going to bring them up and act on them again today to make sure that they weren't invalidated by a Sunshine Law ruling.

Chair, could we get Mr. Yee's input on whether they were invalidated due to the Sunshine Law? We have to vote. They were complained. There's a Sunshine Law complaint that hasn't been ruled on yet. We recognize the validity of the complaint. Yes, sir, Jeff.

Yeah, we recognize the validity of the complaint, but the issue is that either there was a violation or there was not. The fact that it hasn't been ruled upon yet doesn't change that. So we cannot assume that anything was valid if it is later determined that the meeting was in fact not. Then we should discuss these four through nine agenda items.

The consensus? Yes. Okay, then let's look at item number four, and I would entertain a motion. With no motion, we'll move on to number five. Whether the request for ballot change—beg pardon. Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Papalo. Yes, could you reiterate? I must apologize that I was on late. I'm still doing the estate for my sister, and I'm in Washington. Could you read number four, please?

Whether to request the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of in-person voting at the precinct with voter ID required. And that was passed at the last meeting? Yes, you folks are the assumption that the last meeting might be ruled invalid.

That's correct. And so what you want to do for number four is you want to accept it in this meeting so that if the last meeting is invalidated, it will have then been validated today? Yes, but that's what we're not—what we're doing. We're discussing these individual motions, and I would entertain a motion for discussion.

So I'm trying to think of what kind of motion you're looking for. Are you looking for a motion to redo this in this meeting, or are you just looking to discuss it, period? Somebody wanted to discuss it. I'll discuss it when there's a motion on the floor.

Okay, so we have to redo the motion we did and then have a discussion. Is that correct? That's correct. And the reason you were going to number 10—no, I'm sorry, number four. I was going to number 10 because I was skipping these because we decided them at the last meeting.

So because they were all decided at the last meeting, you were skipping to 10. And what was 10 going to do? Well, we're still on four because the commission— I understand we're still on four. I'm trying to understand. I'm not going—I'm not going to 10 until we get by four.

She wants to know why we're—I was wanting you to explain why you were going to 10 first because I was going to eliminate items four through nine, suggesting that they were passed at the last meeting. You weren't going to ask for a motion on 10 to accept four through nine as they were already passed previously?

No, I was going to skip over four through nine and jump to 10 until the commission drew me back to item number four on the agenda. Okay, had we just gone to 10, would that have invalidated four through nine?

No, four through nine were passed at the last meeting, right? But the reason we're discussing these is because you folks are assuming that they are going to come back and say they were invalid. So were we going to revalidate them on 10? That's why they're on the agenda now.

No, we're not going to revalidate them. We revalidate one at a time because we assumed they were going to be invalidated by the Sunshine Law. So I was going to skip over those because they're still valid because the last meeting is still valid. However, right, but if they come back and say then it was invalidated, then the meeting was invalid, then they would become invalid again.

That's right. Okay, so we need a motion in this meeting that is not breaking the Sunshine Law in order to get them repassed again individually? Yes, that's why we're on number four. I make a motion for exactly what you read in number four, whether to request the Deputy Attorney General.

No, not whether to. I make a motion to request. Okay, do I have a second? Is there a second? Thank you. Chair, discussion? Point of order, Chair. Yes, sir. This is an invalid motion. The only thing we can do as a commission is vote to resend the motion. A motion to reaffirm a position previously taken by adopting a motion or resolution is not in order.

So we cannot revote on this. We have to vote to resend it if we don't like the motion, and the motion to resend requires a previous notice to everyone that we are intending to resend this, and it requires a two-thirds vote to resend. And this is an improper motion to make. So if we want to vote to resend it, then we can put that to the floor. If not, it stays there.

Okay, so we don't have to consider four through nine because it's already—we can make a motion to resend it. Okay, would you like to resend the request to the Deputy Attorney General? Actually, the motion on the floor is to receive the request of the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change voting.

Is there any other discussion on resending this passed motion? Yes, Chair, I'd like to discuss it. So all we're asking for is the Deputy Attorney General's opinion on this. So why this is a big deal and why he is resisting this tremendously is just beg the question on accountability.

So I say that we vote against this motion to resend, and we have the Deputy Attorney General, as we previously asked him to do, answer this in writing to the commission and vote no on this motion. Other discussion? A roll call on resending the request to the Attorney General. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Andreon? Mr. Andreon? Sorry, Commissioner No. Commissioner Kush? No. Commissioner Kuada? Mr. Kuada? Sorry, I—Commissioner McAdam? Yes. Commissioner Auer Camp? Yes. Commissioner Papalo? No. Commissioner Young? Yes. Chair Curtis? Yes.

Motion fails. No, the motion passes. No, Chair, if you don't give previous motion that you're going to resend, you need a two-thirds vote. The motion fails. Oh, sorry, two-thirds vote. Yes, Robert's Rules of Order, our rules are five votes to pass a motion. Our rules are five votes to pass a motion. We're following—we have specific rules for our commission.

I have never seen specific—can I see the specific rule on five votes for resending? Pretty sure Rule of Order takes precedence here. Mr. Lee, Mr. Yee, could you tell us about the number of votes it takes to pass a motion for the commission?

So the Hawaii Revised Statutes say that it requires a majority, that all matters may require a majority of the members to which the board is entitled. So that means under Hawaii Revised Statutes, five votes is sufficient. So in the absence of a revised statute, a different five votes is sufficient to pass a motion.

Thank you. I'd like to be recognized and read this on Robert's Rules of Order. No, they're out of order. We've already been told about the statutes. Why do we not want an opinion from the Deputy AG? We just got the opinion from the Deputy AG.

The next item, five. Sorry, Chair, he was just quoting Hawaii Revised Statutes. He has not given his—ask his opinion. Is your opinion consistent with the statutes? Yeah, I think what they're asking is whether my opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer can change number four, correct?

I don't understand. So the challenge was Robert's Rules of Order versus the statute of votes that carries a motion on this commission. It takes five votes to pass a motion on this commission. We just had five votes. The motion just passed. We're on item number five now, whether to request ballot chain of custody documentation.

And the only thing we can do with this is to resend it. Is there a motion to resend item five from the prior meeting? I move to subpoena ballot collections chain of custody documentation from all the counties for the 2024 general election, including Dropbox and United States Post Office collections.

Second. I have—what's on the floor is item five, whether the request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties. You can give the motions. You're out of order. This was passed at the last meeting that may or may not become invalid.

We're going to consider resending this again. I would entertain a motion to resend whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties. Chair, there's a motion and a second on the—no, no, no. You weren't recognized. The question on number five, you're out of order, Ralph.

Once point of order, what rule am I not following? I'm saying a point of order rule. You cannot base it on a rule. What rule are you challenging? Chair, his motion is in relation to the item. The motion was not valid, though. He wasn't recognized.

Item five is whether to request ballot chain of custody documentation for the counties. You can resend this or we can go on to number six. A motion to resend whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties. Sorry, Chair, courtesy. No, there are other commissioners who are trying to speak. Please, they'll be recognized as appropriate.

Right now, Chair, you're violating rule 1.4a. You're violating 1.4a. A member of an assembly, in a parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, a person is entitled to full participation in its proceedings. You're not allowing anyone to talk. You're dictating motion. You'll be recognized when the time is made.

Agenda, you weren't recognized to make the motion. You're out of order now. You do it again, I'll evict you from the meeting. The motion was made, you're rejected from the meeting. I'll take a five-minute recess for obstructing the agenda. We are on item five. You're obstructing. You're out of here.

The motion was made. You're rejected from the meeting. I'll take a five-minute recess while you remove yourself or are removed. Were you in the middle of making a motion and you did not have a second? He wasn't recognized.

Item five is whether to request to ballot chain of custody documentation from the counties. You can resend this or we can go on to number six. A motion to resend whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties. Sorry, Chair, courtesy. No, there are other commissioners who are trying to speak. Please, they'll be recognized as appropriate.

Right now, Chair, you're violating rule 1.4a. You're violating 1.4a. A member of an assembly, in a parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, a person is entitled to

Rojas, and I'm going to address this egregious behavior exhibited by the chairperson during this meeting. The public trust in this commission is already gone; it's completely lost. And you, the chairperson, your actions have pushed it to the breaking point.

Where the handing of accountability is concerned, I'm going to say this: you, as a leader, you are not a leader. Because a leader who mocks with head motion and tone all legitimate questions by fellow members, silences dissent, and ejects members mid-motion cannot remain in their role. You have overstepped your responsibility, and you are being demanded to step down immediately.

What happened while still in the process of even obtaining a second to the motion is an abuse of power and a violation of the principles of procedural fairness and ethics. Now, the inconsistent majority vote by the five members of this commission against the public's voice—because literally, when you threw out Ralph Kush, you eliminated the public voice. And all of you five know that.

So what you all are doing is eliminating the voices you are all supposed to represent and work for. This blatant disregard for our concerns, the people's concerns, demonstrates a failure of duty. You work for the public, not against us, and yet all of your majority five actions today reflect the complete opposite.

What I just heard now from the auster camp Esquire saying that, oh, you know how the chief election officer, how his composure to everything everybody is saying. And I'm going to state this: by the way, Scott Nago, Chief Elections Officer, stated that the state does not supersede the county.

This further highlights the importance of local accountability and the need for this body to represent the voice of the public rather than overriding it. I'm not done; I still have 50 seconds. And so we can hear you whispering to each other because your mic, by the way.

Again, voiding the meeting—what you all did by eliminating 4 to 9 should not erase wrongdoing. I'm going to restate that again: violations are happening left and right here, abuse of authority. And I finish my statement about Chief Election Officer Scott Nago and the Esquire saying there's composure.

If we are calling out injustice, the fact that you, both chair and Chief Election Officer, can sit with composure shows just, I don't know, a complete disregard for common sense, for ethics, for values. And again, just kind of the smugness of the five overriding against the public requires an investigation, requires the violations, requires immediate action. You all really need to step down now.

Mahalo. Thank you, Mr. Rojas. Next testifier is four more speakers, four more testifiers: Commissioner McAdam, followed by Jerick Mados.

Miss McAdam, sorry, I need to lower my hand. I didn't have anything to testify. So, okay, sorry. Next testifier is Jer Mados, followed by Julie.

Oh man, just when you thought you’d seen it all, like, yes, we didn’t, man, there’s always other craziness going on here. But, I don't know how this meeting should be even moving on without the commissioners at the table.

Like I said before, I know where the jurisdiction lies, and Mr. Nago finally did something with Tru, acknowledging the fact that the state does not have any powers over the county. The county should handle their own elections.

Look what we’re dealing with, guys. We’re dealing with one commission that doesn’t want to respect one another, right? Like, really, that’s the way we’re supposed to be handling our stuff? Is that the way we’re supposed to let you guys handle our stuff? Absolutely not.

We shouldn’t be moving forward like this. If guys are getting kicked out as a commissioner, and the commissioner that is bringing everything to light, how is it even okay? How are we supposed to trust you guys? That is lost already.

I mean, man, you guys are supposed to be kind of correcting yourselves, lead by example. None of that. It’s just, let’s take everything away from these people, let’s do what I want.

It’s the whole propaganda that is not working for the people. Come on, guys, please reevaluate your standards, your moral values. You guys gotta—I hope all of you that are on this commission are thinking about your future generations, how they have to put up with your bad decisions.

Everybody is going to feel it, man. That’s why I want you guys to not participate or not even have anything to do with our county elections. Leave it in the county's hands. Stop trying to make rules for them because you guys apparently cannot follow your own rules.

It’s clear to me I don’t want the state of Hawaii to handle anything because with that comes you guys. Okay? Nothing’s being fixed here, only hidden. Mr. E, you took a note, man. I never—I mean, none of you guys are voted over here on this commission. We didn’t put you there; you’re appointed by the biggest crook, the governor.

Okay, now, hey, just try and do something right, commissioners. They’re pointing fingers; they’re not deciding to go with the rules or the laws. Listen, nothing trumps a law. Nothing—not even a statute can trump unlaw. Thank you.

Mr. Mados, next testifier is Julie, followed by Anita Kai Lawrence. Julie, can you please state your last name?

Juliet Kim. Thank you. I have watched videos on this chairman here, and I was so shocked. It’s kind of really unbelievable how you are acting to everybody that nobody can talk.

I don’t understand how you feel that you have to approve things when people are telling you the truth. You know, it’s like watching high school all over again on TV, and now this is going to be a broadcast on YouTube. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. It’s very embarrassing.

Now, watching this for the first time, I’m highly disappointed in you guys. You kicked out another chair who speaks truth and stands up for the people who have a problem with you guys, your whole minions.

It’s like you have a minion appointed by Governor Josh Green, which nobody likes either because it’s the corruption. Now you guys need to behave and act accordingly because you work for us taxpayers. We paid your paycheck, you understand? Thank you.

Very highly embarrassing. Embarrassing. Next testifier is Anita Kai Lawrence, followed by Ly San.

Hello, I would like to address the testimony of the—I don’t know the chair’s name. If you could actually help me so that I could have that name that he just spoke about, you know, like Scott being attacked.

Do you know what chair, what commissioner was speaking at that time? The name?

Mr. Jeffrey Uster Camp. Jeffrey Uster Camp. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to make a statement that I agree with his testimony 100%.

I would also like to bring it to the chair’s attention that they’re complaining because someone got kicked out of the party, but I was literally docked and threatened by the same people that have been attacking Scott.

I gave testimony; I have actually volunteered and worked with Scott for 10 years. Do I agree with everything that he’s done? No. Do I think he’s fair? Yes. And those volunteers down there are as American as American can be.

But I am very upset that because I spoke out for Scott, I was attacked in this meeting and doxxed by a group that I made you aware of that are organized and are doing this on purpose. Yes, so chair, I would like for you to consider my complaint, and I would like to add this to the next agenda about doxing people and threats by an organization and what the legal ramifications are of that.

I yield the floor. Thank you. Next testifier is Ly San, followed by Brett Kus.

Ly San here. So when the motion was made to resend the previous motions, it had been stated multiple times that without this being on the agenda previously, a two-thirds majority would be required.

Then, when the motion was made and the votes were cast, it was after the votes were cast that the chair declared that it would be a majority vote. So I don’t understand how this can stand when there wasn’t any clarity on the vote and when this is changed after the fact, after people have voted.

You don’t even know if the motion would have been seconded if that had been clarified. So, as I stated before, we’re really just observing this commission ramming through their agenda.

A vast majority of the constituents on the phone here had praised and agreed with Ralph Kushne and are thankful for him and feel that he is the only one representing, hearing the voices, and trying to do something to actually fix our elections.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue; this is an issue of transparency and integrity of our elections. And I just want to ask, do you all feel that it is acceptable to act against the will of the people here? And if so, I want to ask, what are you doing in your position?

I think we’ve already spent some time exposing the behavior here of the chair and some other actors, but I do think it’s time to put everybody’s name on blast that is in this commission conducting themselves in this manner against the will of the people and in a very unprofessional way. I yield. Thank you.

Next testifier, Brett Kus, followed by Nicole.

Brett Kus, thank you, chair. As I mentioned in my previous testimony, the understanding is that this commission doesn’t understand Robert’s Rules. Unless your committee rules give you, comrade chair, the ultimate authority to remove a commissioner from this meeting per Robert’s Rules of Order, that had to be a vote of the commission.

That’s right; you do not have the authority to remove a commissioner. I would further suggest that you have just opened up this commission to a potential lawsuit from Mr. Kushy for your blatant disregard for Robert’s Rules of Order, the orders of this commission.

Going back to this discussion with Mr. Nago about how he should be rated, that is absolutely ridiculous. He’s your employee. Asking him how he should be measured is ridiculous. You pay his salary; you have the authority to hire or fire him.

And now you’re asking him how he should be selected or how he should be rated on his performance? Did you have that information when you decided to re-up his contract? How did you determine to re-up his contract as the chief director if now you’re asking him how he should be rated on his performance?

Just a continuation of the clown show. And for the commissioners on here, you are all complicit. Silence is acceptance. I yield. Thank you.

Mr. Kus, next testifier is Nicole, followed by Anoka Shane Bingo. Nicole, can you please state your last name?

Baronois. Baronois. Can you hear me? Thank you, Nicole.

All right, I’d like to know if this is something to put on the agenda for discussion. I need to know how much money is spent on the education of voters, and I would like to know how you guys are effectively using that budget and how we can further have accountability.

Because I did not know, and I am part of that public, so I would like to have that put on the agenda. And I’d like to see the point of the procedures that you guys have. Isn’t it for full transparency? It’s not for any kind of secretive. Everybody should be understanding.

It’s called Robert’s Rules. We need to understand better, so I’d like to put that on the agenda: how we could go forward with the accountability and the monies that are spent on educating the public and how to keep you guys accountable and transparent. Thank you.

Thanks, Nicole. Last testifier is Bingo.

It’s Miss OK, yeah, correct. Bingo’s no longer testifying. Miss Shami OK. Miss Okata is still muted.

Hello? Hi, thank you so much for that. We need to testify. This is your third time, so I’ll give you one minute.

Okay, well, thank you for the one minute. It was three minutes, but anyway, just want to let you know that I think the people on the board, the commissioners, are not paid, but they are appointed to do public service.

And what they do has fiscal responsibilities because what they do costs money, and the money comes from taxpayers’ tax payments. So, you know, even though they might not—they volunteer to serve. They volunteer to do their work, and what they do has fiscal ramifications to the taxpayers.

So I just wanted to say that. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me, there are no more additional testifiers. Thank you. Is there anything else?

Communications and correspondence. Is there anything that the commissioners would like to discuss?

Nothing here. If there is nothing else, I have for communications and correspondence.

Yes, please, Miss Papalo.

Yes, in our previous meeting, you had said you would share your communications you have with Mr. Nago and with the attorney general. Have you shared that?

There was a freedom of information request that was responded to Mr. Kushy in those respects. The things that we’ve talked about were the sunshine complaint, and we suggested that we readdress the issues that were on the potentially invalidated meeting.

So the FOIA request that you just mentioned, did that go out to all of us or just to Mr. Kushy?

I think Sunshine Law requires me to have a meeting if I’m going to talk to three or more of you. I cannot share with the whole commission one time unless it’s at a specified meeting because the public has the right to participate.

I don’t communicate with everybody. I have communicated with the whole commission relating to issues that were already public record, and that was like the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ballot question that was invalidated right away.

The things that I communicate with the whole commission, I’m allowed to do if it’s public information. I cannot communicate with more than two members of the commission except in a meeting, according to my understanding of the Sunshine Law.

So in order to get the FOIA request that was sent to Mr. Kushy, I would have to ask him for that. Yes, thank you.

And all the communication and correspondence, I asked the office of elections to include in the packet and make available to everybody, as they do to the commissioners. It’s against Sunshine Law for me to talk to two or more commissioners at a time.

Well, for any of us. Yes, that’s right. Thank you.

Is there any other discussion from the commissioners?

With none, we will adjourn. Thank you for attending. Thank you.

Get Our Mobile App

Elections Commission Meeting - December 18, 2024

Transcription