Elections Commission Meeting - 8/27/24

Let me see if that works on Zoom.

Commissioner Kada, I see Jeffrey Quada up there, but I don't hear him. RA, could you go ahead? He's not muted.

Okay, uh, Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AECamp?

Here.

Commissioner Papalo?

I don't see—oh, I see her on here.

Commissioner Young?

Here.

Okay, you have a quorum, Chair.

Thank you. Uh, Jeffrey Kada, I'm present.

Chair, can we see you, please?

Um, sorry, can you see me now?

Yep, thank you.

Okay, all right. I’m sorry, we’ll also have to ask, um, Mr. Quada, are you present? Are you alone or is there someone else in the room who is older than 18 years old?

Excuse me—oh, sorry. I’m the Chair, and I apologize. You're out of order.

I think there’s some technical issue here.

Yes, under the um notice rules for hybrid meetings, people who appear virtually have to announce whether or not there is another person who is an adult present in the room with them.

Thank you. For the record, Chair, I'm sitting on my front lanai. I am sitting right outside our home office. My daughter and my wife may be going in and out of the office, which is inside the home.

Thank you, Mr. Quada. We have a quorum and legal counsel to the commission. You'd like to make some comments?

Hi, my name is Brian Y. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Attorney General's Office. You may know Chris Leong from the prior meeting. I'm Chris's supervisor, and I will be answering some of the questions that were asked at the last meeting.

Did you want me to go through those questions at this time?

Not at this time, thank you. Just that you know, do you have any conflict of interest here?

I do not have a conflict of interest here.

Mr. Leong, do you have a conflict of interest here?

No.

Thank you. Then approval of the written minutes of June 19th. I would entertain a motion or corrections to the minutes of June 19th.

So moved.

Moved to approve the written minutes of June 19th. Is there a second?

Seconded.

Discussion? All in favor, say "aye."

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Abstentions?

Motion carries.

Uh, public testimony. Any interested person may submit comments or testimony on any agenda item. We'll open that up now.

Yeah, but I think there's a signup sheet for testimony. Can you read the first name and the second name?

Yes. Um, can I do my little—

Sure, go ahead.

Okay, if you would like to testify, please click “raise hand” under reactions on Zoom. If you're joining us by phone, press *9. When recognized, please unmute your microphone before speaking. You may also turn on your video at this time. For the record, please state your first and last name and the items you will be testifying on.

To ensure that we will have sufficient time to hear all testimony, each testifier will have 3 minutes to testify. Once your time has expired, you will be asked to conclude your remarks.

And the first testifier is…

I have a point of order.

Which rule are we not observing? Are we not following the agenda?

Yeah, we’re doing approval of—we did the written minutes. Now we’re doing the public testimony.

Call to order. Swearing in of new…

They’ve already been sworn in.

I’m sorry. Sorry, I—they’ve all signed their cards. They’ve all been sworn in. If you’d like to introduce—we can introduce them if you’d like.

Please introduce yourselves.

Yep, my name is Jeffrey Onorer Camp, and I’m a new commissioner. I’ve been sworn in.

I’m Peter Young. I’m a new commissioner, and I’ve been sworn in.

Any other questions?

Ro, when was swearing-in?

They signed cards by paper.

Yeah, but I did it last week, like the week before, I think.

Yeah, it was the start of your term.

Yeah, good.

Thank you. Continue.

Okay, so the first testifier is Kina Campbell, followed by Doug Pasnik.

Okay, is it Zoom?

Yes, Zoom.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi, I was unable to unmute.

Okay, I’m deeply concerned about election integrity in Hawaii regarding Chair Curtis. During the June 19th meeting, I felt Chair Curtis was unknowledgeable and inappropriately denied the motion to have Scott Nago removed when it had been passed by the general commission and deemed legal by the Deputy Attorney General. Furthermore, that chair was very disrespectful to Commissioner R. Ralph Kushi.

I ask that Chair Curtis step down. Cheryl and Wells' correspondence with Scott Nago requesting voting records before the expiration of the 22-month retention period is proof of federal felonies because Scott Nago stated that he no longer had access to the records. This is a violation of federal election law.

Scott Nago, bound by Constitution Article 4, Section 2, failure raises the question of treason. As Scott Nago holds a public office, he is bound by oath or affirmation to protect the Constitution. Within the US Constitution is the Supremacy Clause or Article 6, Section 2, which proclaims the US Constitution is the law of the land, as are the titles, US Codes, Supreme Court decisions, and treaties.

Mr. Nago, as our election officer, has been hired to uphold a sacred trust and maintain the very foundation of a legitimate government. Said employment, being a public office, he is incorporated into the public trust to uphold the Constitution.

There are extreme penalties for the above transgressions, not to mention violation of my rights under the 14th Amendment being denied access to public records, which, according to Title 42 US Code 1983, may include trespass, fines, fees, and jail time. Should it be determined that these violations extend to the level of treason, far more serious penalties become possible.

The state of Hawaii is equally liable, as are those who now know the above. See Title 18 US Code for Misprision of felony: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual Commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known that the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

As the state and the board is now bound, is now given this information, failure to protect us, we the people, from Scott Nago makes that inaction by the board a Class A felony under Title 18 US Code § 4 and § 2071. If collusion is involved, it adds 18 USC § 241 and § 242 charges. Scott Nago’s employment must be terminated immediately, and these issues referred to the state and federal attorneys general.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

The next testifier is Doug Pasnik, followed by Katherine Meyer Benel.

Mr. Curtis and Commissioners, through a series of UIPA requests to the Office of Elections, the people have received the documentation that was specifically used for the certification of the 2022 general election per HRS 11155. The request for the bulk of this information was initiated in January of 2023.

It took 5 months to receive the 16,960 pages from the Office of Elections and cost the people more than $4,000, and that evidence is right there.

Can I get a show of hands from the commissioners who have read the petition associated with this testimony?

So you can issue your testimony.

I don’t know if you’ve read the testimony that I’ve submitted, so therefore my testimony was tailored on the fact that you would have read it prior to this meeting.

Your assumption?

Can I get a show of hands from you that you read it?

No.

So you’re refusing to answer that question?

You’re testifying, you’re shrugging. That’s your testimony.

All right, I’m going to testify.

The information contained in the petition constitutes the facts that were discovered in the review of information provided by the Office of Elections. As you may know, HRS 11155 requires a certification of the results of an election be based on a comparison and reconciliation of five elements:

1. The canvas of ballots per Chapter 16.

2. The audit records and resultant overage and underage report.

3. The manual audit results.

4. The mandatory recount results.

5. All logs, tally sheets, and other documents generated during the election and in the canvas of the election results.

A comparison and reconciliation is the process of verifying the accuracy and consistency of two or more sets of records to ensure that the data is complete, accurate, and trustworthy.

Knowing this, how was it possible in Mr. Nago's review of the records used for the certification of the results of the 2022 general election that he ignored the fact that for equipment, 43% of scan, 66% of touch writer, and 78% of print seal certifications were missing required official observer certification?

18% of voted ballot container sealing, 34% of unsealing, 83% of container logs, and 45.7% of all official observer certification logs were missing certification.

There is no documentation for Dropbox or postal collection chain of custody in any of these records. For audits, 44% of votes cast reports, 60% of recount documentation, and 100% of manual audit ballot review logs were missing required official observer certification.

The fact that Maui and Hawaii County did not audit both mail and in-person voting for the required 10% number of districts and precincts is concerning.

The fact that more mail-in votes were reported on the final 2022 general election statewide precinct detail report than were reported for any district precinct from the post-election manual audit.

Thank you.

Your three minutes is up. At the end of this, you can have another three minutes, but your time's up now.

I’ll continue when I am afforded the time.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You’re welcome.

Next testifier is Katherine Meyer Fenel, followed by Jamie Deweer.

Aloha.

Aloha. Am I here?

Yes.

Um, it came to my attention via the research of Cherylyn Wells about election irregularities to do with Scott Nago, and he is declining to turn over the cast vote count. By law, he's required to do that.

So, one can only assume two things: He's either grossly incompetent or intentionally interfering with the election process; either way, he needs to be relieved of his position.

We cannot have any inference of election interference anymore in this country. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

The next testifier is Jamie Deweer, followed by S Godfrey.

Jamie?

Aloha and good morning, Chair and Commissioners.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

I’d like to direct your attention to the correspondence I sent to you, to Mr. Nago, and the Commissioners dated August 19th.

Um, I would like to thank the Office of Elections for scheduling my audit of a precinct in District 37 for January 2025.

With regards to that, I want to make sure that the commission understands HRS 1-16-42, specifically that 10% of a precinct must be audited.

I would also like to emphasize that because the statute of limitations on my request to do this audit began in November of 2022 and the statute of limitations ends, I believe it’s September 6, 2024, so just in a few weeks it’s going to expire.

I want to emphasize that the ballots and V drives must be preserved, especially if the VBCCs or voter ballot containers are unsealed. Those ballots and V drives must show that they’ve been preserved.

Lastly, I’d like to just share a few comments on my first experience as an election observer. I was an election observer this past primary election, and it was great. It was a wonderful experience.

I would like to commend the staff of the Office of Elections, who have been very helpful and very professional.

Um, but I left there with more questions than I have answers. You know, the handling of the V drives is one thing. You know, we are allowed to see that they were downloading the logs, and I was told the definition of a log is every time someone signs in to or logs into the computer.

Then I was verbally told that the votes from the voter service centers such as Honolulu, Hal K, WWA, and K, as well as the neighbor islands, are transferred—the actual tally of votes are transferred via secure, encrypted internet, but we don’t get to see that.

You know, we’re just supposed to trust.

The state spends a lot of money paying Hart InterCivic to handle our elections, and I think there should be more transparency in the election process to assure we the people that we have election integrity.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I yield.

Thank you.

The next testifier is S Godfrey, followed by Karine Solomon.

Mr. Godfrey?

Mr. Godfrey?

Oh, she’s muted. Sorry.

Yeah, hi, thank you.

I'm sorry, it’s okay. I just wanted to say my name is pronounced signing, just for the record, yeah?

Okay, no problem.

Chair and members of the Election Commission, I respectfully submit this testimony regarding an observation on August 10th, 2024.

I observed the pickup of ballots by the Signature Verification Center. I was with Amy, another voter observer. We arrived at the post office at 6:40 p.m.

I believe the person from the Signature Verification Center, whose name is either Jacob or Josh—I’m not sure—was picking up the ballots from the post office. He said they were picking up the ballots at 6:30, but he was giving another 15 minutes to 6:45 to pick up ballots that were mailed in.

He stated the voters had three weeks to get their votes in; therefore, picking the ballots up at 6:45 was enough time.

In reading the election law, it states that the county was to close the ballot boxes at 7 pm, as did all the drop boxes that were to be closed as of 7 pm.

My question is, how did the clerk decide what time ballots were to be picked up at 6:30 and decided to give another 15 minutes arbitrarily?

I submit my testimony. Thank you.

The next testifier is Karine Solomon, followed by Andy Crossland.

I’m sorry, are we going to address that question during the testimony, or are you going to wait until everybody is done?

We're receiving testimony now. This is Commissioner Pap.

Thank you, we're receiving testimony now.

Yes, I understand. I was saying, are we going to address her question during this testimony, or are we waiting until all of the testimonies are complete?

We’re waiting until all; we’re receiving testimony now.

We’re not discussing; and if you have discussions on any of these items, I would start the discussion with a motion made by a commissioner seconded. Then we’ll open the discussion on it, and it'll be the commission’s discussion as a matter of protocol.

The next testifier, please.

The next testifier is Karine Solomon, followed by Andy Crossland.

Solomon?

Miss Solomon?

Once, twice?

She muted or something?

I’m trying to move on to the next one.

The next testifier is Andy Crossland, followed by Jennifer.

Andy?

Aloha, commission.

Before I begin my testimony today, I would like to let you know that the Zoom link in the meeting agenda is incorrect. Only the link on the website is working.

First, as part of my testimony today, I would like to show a quick 90-second video clip of Chair Mike Curtis’s actions during the previous commission meeting on June 19th.

Shut up! You have a motion!

I'm telling you why this is important because right now...

Know why it’s important? If you continue interrupting me, I’m going to mute you!

I'd like to add to the discussion!

I don't think you need to!

Ral, I'd like to add to the discussion!

Chair, it’s my right!

If we leave it to the chair, the chair doesn’t follow up on any of this stuff, and it just withers away.

The point of order is the chair’s discretion, and I made my...

I challenge that!

I move we go...

The chair is cutting me off!

I'd like the floor to respond, please!

No, it’s within my authority. As you've shown me, I can exclude your discussion.

From now on, you're being out of line and cutting me off.

Chair, we're off!

Your point of order, what rule am I not following?

Well, number one, you muted my microphone; you didn't give me the floor and allow me to speak!

Chair, I’d like to have the floor to finish what I'm saying!

No, you don’t have the floor!

You had the opportunity to read all the course. You muted my microphone!

Chair, you muted my microphone!

Okay, but you can't take the agenda items off the agenda.

Can I speak in favor?

I don’t think you need to!

Is there anybody against allowing him to speak, Chair?

No, I’m saying under my regime, under my regime, with no further business, I’ll adjourn the meeting! We need to vote to adjourn!

So I think that that video speaks for itself, don’t you?

Seeing as this body follows parliamentary procedure, it's important to note that the following reasons are serious grounds for censure against presiding officers.

In general, a presiding officer harasses, embarrasses, and humiliates members or, more specifically:

1. He refuses to recognize members entitled to the floor.

2. He refuses to accept and put canonical motions to vote.

3. He refuses to entertain appropriate appeals from his decision.

4. He ignores proper points of order.

5. He disobeys the bylaws and rules of order.

6. He disobeys the assembly's will and substitutes his own.

7. He denies members the proper exercise of their constitutional or parliamentary rights.

It is clear to me that Mike Curtis has committed each and every one of these serious grounds for censure. Therefore, I strongly urge the commission to make a motion today to censure the chair of this commission.

If Mike Curtis's actions continue, I also urge the commission to make him face a vote of no confidence to remove him as chair of this commission and seek to replace him with someone who will uphold the important responsibilities of this position.

That is all, I yield.

Thank you, Andy.

The next testifier is Jennifer, followed by Adriel.

Jennifer?

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So, I want to address the chain of custody and lack of observers in the areas where it really matters when ballots are being picked up.

There are no official observers with the ballot workers who are picking them up, and so I don’t know if there’s any kind of chain of custody records that are published anywhere, but I would like to understand if they’re being kept.

I feel like there needs to be observers there, because HRS 1645 defines—oh, sorry, that's the different one—HRS 1642 needs to have official observers present when any ballots are being touched.

And the ballots, obviously, are being touched.

At the delivery at the clerk’s office, what happens there? We don’t know—there are no observers in the signature verification, which is an issue, because, again, the ballots are being touched, and there need to be different observers there from different parties and so on.

When they come into the counting center, it is defined where there are official observers and there are workers, and the observers cannot touch ballots or any paraphernalia of the election.

The workers can.

So those two items are defined in HRS 11-5, which defines the workers. HRS 1645 defines official observers.

The observers are there to observe; they’re not allowed to touch ballots.

But I believe it is HRS 11-14 that says there must be official observers there when they’re being handled.

I realized there are HRS 11-108 that says official observers must be in the counting center, but in like Maui, there are two different floors in a building where the signature verification is located and where the counting is happening.

So there needs to be observers there, and there is not.

So we have no idea what happens between someone dropping their ballot off and it coming into the counting center room where they un-envelope them and take them out of the envelopes and do the whole process for getting them weighed and so on.

Then it goes into the machine, and we have no idea what happens once those ballots are scanned into the machine.

They go on to the V drives. Where are the records that show what those batches are made up of? How many of those ballots are on each batch, and so on?

These are holes in our system that need to be addressed because we cannot verify—we’re made to say trust, but how can we do that?

We need to trust but verify.

And so I really think that this whole system is a waste of time and energy—money, taxpayer money—when we could go back to precinct voting and have it just be super simple; everyone can watch paper ballots.

On top of that, we don’t need a change in our statute to do that because the language says "may.”

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

The next testifier is Adriel Lamb, followed by Hanani Kaha.

Morning, Adriel.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, can I distribute my email?

Certainly.

This is I—my apologies.

I had finished it.

Pardon, you’re three minutes are there today, and thank you.

Commissioners, thank the Chair for this opportunity to testify.

I appreciate you all being able to do this in person where we can talk to one another here.

And congratulations to the new commission members.

Thank you.

I first heard my testimony on January 12, 2022. My main the first issue was the case of a voter by the name of United States Hawaii in my neighborhood that does not reside there, does not receive mail, does not get a ballot by mail, but still recorded a vote by mail from that registered residence.

I’ve been asking how did this happen? How could this be possible?

Simple question: What is the name on that ballot envelope, and whose signature was matched to that?

I have not gotten an answer back.

I wish the Commission can actually get an answer to what was on that ballot envelope and whose signatures match to that and why is the record not accurate as to what his name is on the record from two years of V rolls as well as two election cycles?

Another observation I have for this election was on August 8th. I was made aware that election data was posted online of ballot counts for the 2024 primary election.

I did talk to Chair Curtis and Mr. Nago prior to this meeting about what happened.

My question is, what has been done about that?

Did any government official look into this of why this ballot data was made public before the county's contest has been complete and published online?

And what corrective actions were made for that?

How is that access to data different than what the public has access to, and why is it even there before the election was over?

My third item here is we continue to see the ineffectiveness of elections by mail.

This is the lowest voter turnout in the history of Hawaii, and it’s not just our perception or lack of voter interest.

I think there is a widespread desperate impact of how we’re doing elections by mail.

I give you three examples of a KITV reporter who went out on Election Day to ask if people are aware of elections: they were not or they were inconvenienced; they couldn’t get to the ballot.

They couldn’t get to the voter service center because their ballot was in a different place.

Some people had to drive 20, 30 miles if they wanted to vote that day if they did not have the ballot in the mail yet.

We still see a Star Advertiser poll that says a major large majority, almost 90%, of the readers voted in the primary, and if you look at the second attachment here, it’s a breakdown of precinct participation—wide variance from 1.6% to 51% in precincts.

Time's up.

You can have another three minutes at the end, right?

Thank you.

You want to finish?

Um, just one last statement is that I’ve asked for the credit data, the bot file from two counties—this is 17 days after the election.

I still don’t have it!

We should have—this is elections by mail; electronic systems we should be able to push a button and get that information immediately!

I have gotten it within a day, and today I still have not gotten it.

Thank you.

Next.

The next testifier is Hanani Kaha, followed by Derek Costa.

Good morning.

Good morning, thank you for having me.

Um, I just have a few things to say.

Aloha to the new commissioners.

All right.

Okay, I just wanted to, um, ask about the original purpose for the mail-in ballots.

Yeah, um, and counting ballots by hand—we don’t have that many people in the state that vote, so it should be like counting by hand.

That shouldn't be a problem.

Um, one day voting in person, which identification, and, uh, the integrity of the vote, and being able to trust in the process.

We had such a hard time, and I’m an in-person voter.

We had a hard time with, uh, with handicap.

I had to walk really far and never saw any signs with the orange arrows pointing you to go this way to get to the ballot, the voting area, showing the path to the voting areas.

Um, opening other areas like we live on the Windward side and we came up here—we should have at least one place in each district or whatever to get those ballots in.

Um, what else?

Cleaning up the voter rolls would be great, and voting should only be for legal US citizens—not anybody who’s illegal—and you should have an ID.

I'm not learned or educated, but I'm no dummy; I’m a person with a lot of common sense.

So let’s bring it back home, grassroots.

We know like New York, you know, they get millions and millions of people—let's bring it back home, do it right, so people can trust in the process and trust in our officials.

Yeah, this is great that you guys have this, please, please really give an ear to what we’re saying today because we want to trust in our officials.

We want to trust in the process, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next.

The next testifier is Derek Costa, followed by Kim Cordary.

Eric Costa?

Pass.

Next?

Okay, next testifier is Tim Quarterly.

The next testifier is Martin Choy, followed by Anarie Hamilton.

Mr. Choy, thank you for coming.

Good morning.

Morning!

I'd like to welcome you, the new commissioners.

Thank you for stepping up.

And, um, I have lived here all my life, and so I understand what Aloha means by way of experiencing it.

At some point in time, we lost Paradise because people who do not understand it—visitors came, and they wanted a piece of paradise for themselves.

They felt it could be possessed, and so I have witnessed this and the change where Aloha was internal; it was an acceptance and a love of everyone.

And people wanted to change that because they didn’t understand what it was—what love was truly about.

They wanted it for themselves.

And so I—I so what was really lost from the very beginning.

You know, you all know the story. The Garden of Eden: Paradise was lost there, and what was lost was not just the environment, but the Aloha we call Aloha is internal.

That is what people have been searching for ever since.

And so I just want to remind the commissioners that this is something internal, and it is a what caused the law is a struggle between good and evil.

We all have that within us, and we have to try to have the good overcome the evil and get back to that, um, Paradise that we’re searching for—it can be preserved!

We are only trying to preserve it!

We know we cannot bring it completely back, so I appeal to your commissioners to go back to your roots.

If you understand what it’s like, you sensed it when you’re here. The visitors sense it when they come over.

There’s something different in the past—the main thing they used to say was it’s the people that makes the difference—not so much the land, too, but mainly the people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Anarie Hamilton, followed by Nolan Chang.

Anarie?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Anarie Hamilton. I'm a Kauai resident.

During the 2024 primary in Kauai, held this month, I was an official observer at the counting center all days of counting and also at the post-election audit.

I will start my talk with a statistic: according to the US Election Assistance Commission report on the 2020 election, 91 million mailed-in ballots were sent to voters by election officials in all 50 states, but only 70 million were returned.

What happened to those other 20 million-plus ballots? Did voters simply decide not to return them?

We will never know what happened to them. Again, there would be screaming headlines if in-person polling places across the country had records showing that 20 million ballots were missing and had not been counted, and election officials had no idea what happened to them.

For these reasons, I do not believe mail-in voting is working for the people of Hawaii.

I strongly encourage the Hawaii legislature to repeal and stop universal mail-in voting and return the voting process back to the people with in-person voting and local people counting our votes.

During my observation, I learned that the Kauai election vote counting system is designed to not show official observers fraud that may or may not be happening.

I've come to the conclusion after my hours of observation that if there is fraud in our elections, it can only be detected by a robust audit of two random and/or significant races, counting the paper ballots against the final results, which in my opinion in the primary was not done.

They instead counted two very limited races—one with less than five votes total and a candidate who ran unopposed—that was their audit.

I knew this would probably happen during the audit process, so I had told Scott Nago I wanted to do an observer’s audit in the letter that is posted to the agenda, which the law says I can request.

But since the law says observers with an “S” plural can request a manual audit, I was informed by Mr. Nago and his assistant that all the observers present would have to vote and agree to do the audit.

There was no way this would happen with that group of observers.

I know I was not even asked, so I’m not entirely sure if the observers even knew they had the ability to do their own audit.

I would be curious to know if there has ever been an observer’s audit conducted in the entire state of Hawaii.

Due to this interpretation of the law by Mr. Nago, if Mr. Nago would like to put my doubts about the process to rest, I suggest he facilitate the observers to do a post-election audit in November, the general of the presidential election according to the audit rules and allow me to be present when it’s done.

I will gladly come back here and report back the findings of that audit.

I will also point out that Mr. Nago did not count the ballots as the law states he counted the ballots his way for convenience.

I believe, in my opinion, if the legislature took the time to make the law on how to count the ballots manually, we should do it that way.

I yield.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Nolan Chang, followed by Rosemarie.

Mr. Chang?

Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for having me today.

Good morning!

Thank you for coming.

Yes, sir, I'm going to cover six motions that were put on the floor previously, and I would really appreciate it if you could give me the status of these motions later on in the meeting.

So on February 20th, the motion was to advise the Office of Elections to respond to all inquiries within 14 business days of receipt and post the response publicly on approval by the Election Commission.

Just wondering if that’s been happening, and the responsible person was Mr. Nago.

On March 19, 2024, a motion was put on the floor to pursue adopting a rule in accordance with HRS 1-7.53 requiring County clerks and chief elections officer to certify under penalty or perjury the chain of custody.

The chain of custody was maintained, and that action was for Mr. Curtis.

On April 20th, the motion was to request ballot box chain of custody procedures and documentation from county election divisions. That was for Mr. Curtis.

On April 20th, 2024, a motion was to advise the chief elections officer to use a voter verifiable paper audit trail to conduct all audits. That was for Mr. Scott Nago.

I wonder if that has been followed through on.

On April 20th, 2024, the motion was to have the state Chief Information Officer review pre-election audit and safety procedures and report to the Elections Commission the effectiveness of procedures to identify hacking or mistakes in our voting system, and that applies to not only what happened in the past but also the previous primary election—that was an action for Mr. Curtis.

And the last one is on April 20th again—the motion was to request a log of signature sensitive settings from the county who are using signature machines. That was for Mr. Curtis as well.

And so, I know, later on in the meeting, if you can provide me the update on those particular motions, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all for your time, and I rest.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Rosemarie, followed by Austin Martin.

Rosemarie?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yep, now I got you.

Okay, thank you, chair and commissioners. New commissioners, welcome.

My testimony today is on resubmitted previous testimony. We have a new secretary, and I resubmitted my previous testimony through her office.

The first testimony that was resubmitted was regarding testifier March 19th of this year. Her name was Belinda Jacobs, and I’ve asked that this be discussed in public forum, answered in our public forum after all of our testifiers have submitted their testimony.

Belinda Jacobs testified on 3/19, almost a little into the 2-hour mark on video, that she was a former IT troubleshooter and reports that the majority of our elections workers are from mainland China.

I would like that confirmed or denied during this session.

Also, Adriel Lamb has requested a United States of Hawaii registered voter—we need that answered.

How did that happen?

Please clarify that in public session, an answer, an action item that has an answer in public session.

Also on 6/19—and this is the most important part of my testimony—Chair Curtis went on record that we accept that digital ballot images can be manipulated.

This is grounds for returning to in-person voting.

The state of Hawaii cannot guarantee a secure election with that statement from our elections commission.

Return to in-person voting.

I have also contacted Hawaii administrator for Homeland Security, Mr. Pace.

So if you can’t make a motion today to return to in-person voting, it’s going to be out of your hands.

You’re in violation of National Security secure election process.

You can’t guarantee it. Get rid of it!

Get rid of Hart InterCivic!

Get rid of Scott Nago, whose questionable relationship with Hart InterCivic started not precog—it started in 2007 and it was followed by a multi-million dollar law suit. Thank you.

Rosary?

Questionable from the beginning. Get rid of it. Return to in-person voting.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Austin Martin, followed by Paul Durs.

Aloha, good morning, and thanks for having me here.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Um, I was an observer in 2022, and I am a rather technologically advanced observer, being younger. I’ve worked in IT before, so I have an idea of what I’m actually looking at with these systems and whether or not they’re doing what they say they’re not.

I want you guys to know very clearly: I’m not a Republican, by the way. I’m not a Democrat. I’m the Libertarian Party of Hawaii chairman.

I do not necessarily have a candidate that I think won the election.

I’m coming at this from a perspective without the bias that probably attends most of the other partisans in the room, and I can tell you as an observer that not only were the election protocols that were necessary that I was told to watch for not followed, but when I tried to file an incident report, I was threatened with arrest by the county clerk and by Hart InterCivic personnel.

I was actually assaulted by Hart InterCivic personnel.

I was physically stopped from recording, from being able to take notes or do anything to make any kind of record of what I was seeing.

Attempting to—if you know what you're doing and know what you’re reporting—they will use force to prevent an observer from doing so.

I want you guys to know that.

The observers are token observers; we are being managed.

We are being handled very nicely with great bedside manner, but it is absolutely ineffectual.

There is zero value in the current oversight of the elections.

Hart InterCivic controls it; they are insane.

They have zero regard for transparency or the public trust, and that is the only thing they are selling.

We don't need computer codes to count votes by precinct, which should be what we’re doing.

It’s absurd that we even have this system in the first place, but let me make it clear: their sell point is trust.

What we’re trusting them with is that they're going to accurately record these votes, and what we've let them do is put all the votes in a black box and not tell us what's happening until after the fact.

Complicit in this include members of this commission, who we've all seen on display with behavior that I think a hundred years ago would have resulted in immediate community consequences.

It is absolutely ridiculous that you guys can sit there and allow that chairman to continue to preside over these meetings, to allow Scott Nago to continue to destroy Hawaii's elections as our law and our legal system and our social order crumbles underneath the weight of your lawlessness.

I'm a Libertarian, guys, and I’m up here talking about the rule of law. What the hell is going on?

Thank you.

The next testifier is Paul Durs followed by Bra Cruz.

Aloha, commissioners.

My civic engagement includes being a Maui County charter commissioner and also a director of political action for the standard political action committee called the Maui Pono Network.

I’ve also been an observer in the 2022 elections as well as in this upcoming election that we just had with a primary.

There are the process we have is that there are hundreds of these free-floating thumb drives that are used at all the polls, and these thumb drives can be lost or misplaced.

They do not use the actual paper ballots that are generated; they use the thumb drives, and then these digital devices can also be hacked.

So again, we have all of these hundreds of thumb drives that are vulnerable.

Then we have also—the whole issue of election integrity has to do with our computer and using digital formats, and again, that is vulnerable for hacking despite calibration and testing by Hart.

The testing does not run; just is very limited in terms of the actual testing.

It doesn’t look at the overall runs that occur, and then the second—paper ballots are kept by the county, yet we rely on contractors and the state to give us the results even though we have all the paper ballots that are well-secured.

This does not make sense.

Basically, the counties give control to these contractors and also to the state so that they can give us the results.

Very similar to what Andy was just talking about, and then we have the transfer of the data electronically.

It goes into their computers, which again, can be hacked—the contractors can also be very susceptible—and then that data is transferred over line, and again, it’s vulnerable.

Then it goes into the state tabulators.

I have seen these tabulators. There are back doors to these tabulators that can easily be hacked.

So the county yet has all the paper ballots, yet the system does not allow us to even look at those ballots or count those ballots by the county.

So the solution is very simple: for about $35,000, the counties can have their own off-the-shelf counters.

These counters can be programmed so that they can read the election ballots just like Hart does, but yet we can assure that they are not being tampered with.

So these—we can take all of the paper ballots, including the paper ballots that are given at the polls. We can take all of them on a county level and then run them during this whole process.

Being in the county chambers during the counting process, I could assure you that there’s a lot of dead time where we could easily take our ballots and run them through our own machines so that there is a check, and we’re just using the paper ballots primarily and just using our own counter.

So it creates a solution that’s very cost-effective, it doesn’t require any additional staff, and again, for $35,000, they can purchase their own machines and have it programmed.

So again, it gives a level of assurance.

Okay, so please consider this.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Bra Cruz, followed by Carl Dicks.

Can you hear me?

Who's the next testifier?

Oh, there you go!

Oh, hello!

Um, I just want to start with a shoutout to Adriel Lamb for being there in person, uh, Annie Crossland for playing that video— that was hilarious to watch—and a rant.

She was about to talk in a few minutes, and you’re about to hear it from him.

I just want to start with it says that the mission for the office of elections is to provide a secure, accessible, and convenient election service to citizens statewide.

Um, in Hana, there was only two places to vote in person, and I was one of the people out of a lot of people that didn’t receive their ballot.

I had four other people in my household receive their ballot, and I didn’t get mine.

And that was actually—I’ve heard that from a bunch of people that weren’t able to actually vote because there’s only, like I said, two places in person.

And it says secure, but the ballot drop-off points for the mail-in ballots are in the middle of parks, in the middle of, uh, you know, kind of nowhere.

So I don’t know if secure, accessible, and convenient is what it is, which means I guess that you’re not meeting that mission point.

Uh, another thing I wanted to talk about is I like the video that Andy had played.

I think it’s kind of crazy that there’s people on your, you know, people on the board—there's a bunch of people showing up to call for Scott to resign, and the only person that seems to be not wanting that is you, Michael Curtis.

And I just I think it’d be probably good for you to explain yourself to the people just so that they understand why that is, if you had a valid reason for it, or just even any reason.

I think it’d be better than just cutting people off when they’re speaking and muting mics and not allowing people to talk.

You’re the chairman of the commission; I think you should show a little bit more Aloha and less authoritarianism.

And, yeah, that’s my testimony. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Carl Dicks, followed by Brett Kees.

Mr. Dicks?

Hello, um, there you—thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Okay, um, I have a few different topics.

Um, this goes all the way back to the March reappointment of Scott Nago.

I filed an objection to actions taken, which was completely ignored by the Election Commission.

I filed a court case, which, of course, got railroaded through, and I've never received any debate or any actions whatsoever about Scott Nago and the letter that was written.

Um, solely from the commissioner—not the other commissioners—the chair only sent a letter backdating the pay of Scott Nago, and that’s just a huge violation of law.

And then the next thing is, our ballots—I filed an objection to the ballot and its constitutionality, which was completely ignored, and the court case was ignored also.

And now, here again, we—I’d like to get an answer to how could the in-person voting—they claim that there are roughly 5,000 in-person voters, but yet the 992-page inf— or the precinct detail shows zero statewide in-person voting.

Where do that 5,000 come from? You just pick numbers out un—

The entire 992 pages, all 51 districts, all in-person voting is zero, and that’s not possible.

I filed—I filed my vote in person in the machine. I witnessed my wife do the same, and there still says zero.

So there’s so many shenanigans.

Um, the election commission has become beyond a complete joke, and the elections in Hawaii are a travesty to the world.

Um, I think we should go to Cuba or some third or fourth world country and get some lessons on how to run elections.

Um, maybe we should plan a field trip for the Election Commission and the Chief Election Officer.

Um, this is just beyond tyranny—this is beyond treason and people need to go to jail.

I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Dicks.

The next testifier is Brett Kees, followed by Tara Ross.

Good afternoon—good morning, Chair Curtis, Commissioners.

Congratulations to the new two commissioners.

I hope you do your due diligence and read the law.

Uh, I’m going to change things up here in accordance with HRS 1-8.5, Elections Review Program.

The Elections Commission shall develop and implement an elections review program to:

1. Review the operational performance of the elections.

2. Make recommendations to the Chief Elections Officer on methods to improve elections.

3. Establish policies for the administration of an election observer program to include ensuring the validity and reliability of election results.

4. Conduct the biannual evaluation of the operation of elections.

5. Submit the findings and recommendations from the biannual evaluation to the legislature not less than 20 days prior to convening of the regular session held in odd-numbered years, which is next year.

6. Adopt rules according to Chapter 91 to carry out the purpose of this section.

I’ve been an observer in the 2022 elections, an official observer again this year.

I was at probably 90% of the daily counting operations at the counting center here on Oahu.

So my question really is, you know, as elections commissioners, my time there, I did not see one commissioner come in to see how the operations of the counting center goes.

I don’t know if a commissioner went to any of the voting service centers here on Oahu or even on your own neighbor island to see how the operations go at the county centers and the voter service centers.

That is one of your responsibilities.

It would be interesting to know if any of the commissioners actually went to a counting center to see the operations or voting service center. I would also ask that you receive and review the state's counting center manual that lays out all the procedures and processes.

Did you—were you—did you review the official observer handout that we all got during our orientation and pre-stuff that we had to do before the primary started?

I know each county has it differently.

Hawaii County has a very extensive program guidance for how they do their pickups of the voting— the ballot boxes.

Did you guys know that’s out there?

So I would just ask that, you know, you need to do your due diligence if you want to be able to provide proper information back to the state elections office.

You need to know what’s going on at the counting centers and the voting service centers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Tara Ross, followed by Jerck.

Okay, Aloha, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, so Aloha, Tara is here, and first of all, you’re trying to gain public trust.

There is a wrong Zoom number on the agenda.

It’s listed as 81115 21349.

The public voice is being left out.

There are many people trying to get in right now.

So I suggest you stop or pause—not stop, but you pause the meeting right now, update it with the correct number that I found—it's on your agenda.

If you click on where it says if you're having issues, click on this link, and then you’ve got to click on the boards and commissions part there.

Oh, also, suddenly there’s the right number link.

It’s 844 8920 2559.

And when I got in, I clicked on it—the chat is disabled; there’s no way to reach you!

You know how many people's voices are being left out right now?

So after I'm finished, can you please do a really quick executive session, pause to update this and repost the agenda and post it correctly on your website?

Number one.

Number two, you can either disprove why this word came about petitions, because it seems right now that you are proving yourselves with your actual action.

So we heard, and we saw, your um, your way of leading and just shutting people’s voices down as the Chair—not letting people in; your commission is speaking out against this corruption.

And then three, as people mentioned, the drop-off places—I went to drop off mine.

I was thinking, do I go to the WWA one, or do I go to the Kapole one—luckily, I went to the Kapole one.

I went there, and then I was talking to the people there.

And as soon as I got there, I found out that, oh no, there’s only—not three places—there’s one!

That was, um, stopped or dropped.

I said, “Oh, it wasn’t on there,” just like it wasn’t displayed to the people what was displayed to the people.

We need more transparency and accountability throughout the process!

And again, these boxes are in public parks, open to everybody; they’re not being watched.

And then four, I was watching in that meeting in which Scott Nago was being questioned, the whole committee was addressing him and letting him know with facts the issues; and this is the oversight committee for him!

They were all saying no!

We have concerns, and yet, you know, they all heard him—they passed it through.

So when are the people’s voices going to be heard to stop this obvious, apparent, documented corruption?

We need five—we need in-person voting.

We need in-person voting!

We need in-person voting!

This electronic system is intrusive to people’s privacy and personal information, and there are lots of issues with it.

It was recorded in that meeting.

So again, there are one, two, three, four, five ways to disprove that this word is not true.

Mahalo.

Thank you, and please update this.

Please update this, Chair!

I move to find out if there’s an issue with the link?

Well—

Second.

The next speaker, please.

The next speaker?

Um, you're out of order!

We’ll have the next speaker, please!

The next speaker is Jerck, followed by Cherylyn Wells.

Hey, can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, okay!

Thanks, everybody, for having this commission meeting!

Super important here in the Big Island!

We’ve been working hard to try to get the right people into our offices.

Um, a bunch of good people ran this primary election, seeing how the state of Hawaii is failing the people in the state of Hawaii.

You know, Mr. Curtis, as a Chair, there are a lot of things that we see you do that question the corruption itself, you know?

But right now, the primary I really think should be a redo because the fact that this commission is right-break laws, hindering voters from voting—that's a crime!

It’s a serious crime!

You know, like—you guys got to take this real seriously, man.

I mean, yourselves, you must tell yourselves that what’s happening in Hawaii is really bad right now.

It’s bad!

And for this kind of politics to be supported by anybody—shame on you guys!

Yeah, like, we need the primary to be redone.

The fact that the Big Island is not called the Big Island because it’s small—no, it’s big to not put back the voting polls in each district.

There are people that are ready to go to work in these polls.

You know, and that’s why I think that the state of Hawaii shouldn’t be dictating or making rules and procedures for County elections.

This should be two different elections!

The state of Hawaii shouldn’t have nothing to do—it’s two different governments!

Right now, what we’re seeing is the state of Hawaii making their legislation to try and get the jurisdiction in the counties, which is not what it’s supposed to be doing.

Okay, the County government is the host government for each county; the state of Hawaii—they are the illegal occupation!

Okay?

Now, our county vote should not be—our ballot should not be on the backside of the state’s ballot!

That in itself is unconstitutional!

Right?

That tells us that we do not have chain of custody of our ballots!

Right?

To see the numbers of this primary—totally cheated!

Totally cheated!

There is none of you over there on that board that can convince me that this is a secured and fair election! None of you!

So much good people—the numbers that came out, the council members here in our county—none of them should be holding their spots!

They all secured their spots and put in the primary without having to go to the general—that’s ridiculous!

John—hey John Hendricks—he should be arrested along next to you, Mr. Curtis!

Thank you very much!

Not right!

I mean, I don’t know what you do to thank, but man, you guys got to start doing something for the people because, you know what? You’re not voted in!

You guys are hired!

Time's up!

You guys shouldn’t be making decisions!

Okay, thank you!

Next speaker?

Chair, I’d like to be recognized!

You’re out of order; next speaker!

Excuse me, this isn’t right!

This is not right!

Don’t you guys—aren't you interested in hearing from everyone that wants to speak?

How long will it take to get that right link up?

Can they do it while we’re talking?

Can you do it while we’re talking?

Thank you!

The correct link's up on the website; the next speaker, please!

The next speaker is Cherylyn Wells, followed by Ika.

Well, hello, commissioners!

I think you could easily have had another 100 people on this call had you not sent out an agenda with an incorrect Zoom link.

If you have not yet watched the full one-hour interview on Rumble with election observer Austin Martin, who witnessed machines at an election station confirming their connection to the internet, who saw election passwords lying out in the open on sticky notes, and who reported these and more illegal vulnerabilities to a county clerk, only to have Scott Nago then revoke Austin's election observer status for the crime of doing his job to safeguard the integrity of our elections, then I strongly recommend you listen to the rest of Austin Martin’s evidence.

I have provided both you and a federal investigator with clear evidence of federal election laws being broken with two examples of Scott Nago's failure to maintain control and access to our past vote records for 22 months, regardless of who has physical custody.

This failure is a federal felony, but more than that, it violates the fundamental right of the people to determine the integrity of our elections.

To quote Mr. Nago: “The agency does not maintain the records; we no longer have the system.”

Upon seeing my testimony, the federal investigator is now also calling for the dismissal of Scott Nago and the beginning of an investigation into his actions.

Now that you have been made aware of the evidence of a felony, you have a legal responsibility to act and to report this to the appropriate authorities.

Today, you are the gatekeepers to two very different futures for the land and people of Hawaii. One future begins with the restoration of a government truly of, by, and for the people—with accountability for failure to follow the law—with renewed support for the spirit and substance of our constitutions.

The other future is akin to a second Queen Liliuokalani moment, but one in which our people do not face an invasion by physical troops, but an infiltration by digital vultures who can create a Frankenstein creation of our elections with some parts added and some parts removed.

As one recent example I provided you, somebody did a quick analysis of the primary results on August 11th and found multiple vote count inconsistencies.

Mahalo.

Thank you.

Point of order!

What’s your point of order?

Is the link fixed?

Can you clarify that for everybody? Is the link fixed?

I don’t—it was fixed before the meeting started.

The next speaker, please!

The next testifier is EA, followed by iPhones at 10:03 this morning.

Good morning!

My name is EA, and I was a County Council candidate for District Six here in Hawaii.

There are a couple of things that were brought to my attention.

First of all, blank votes!

The County of Hawaii threw away 49% of votes that were sent in vote by mail in the county elections.

They threw away 95,000 votes in the state elections, and the reason being is because they said they were blank votes.

People didn’t vote in those elections!

I find it odd that people wouldn’t vote.

They would vote all over but not vote in their own county.

When I drilled down to the bottom of it, they explained to me that they put the ballots into a machine that counts it, and if it’s not completely blackened out because an elderly person or a person didn’t completely black out the box, that voting machine will kick it out as a blank vote.

So the question is: how many people's votes were thrown away because we’re using machines instead of hand-counted ballots?

I proposed that I had put up a hand recount in my district. I have over a thousand people that signed that petition, yet I have no recourse.

We fought a revolutionary war over politicians that believed they were above the people.

Politicians used to be tarred and feathered for the things that are happening today.

We fought a civil war; we told that it’s our civic duty to vote, yet the county throws away 48% of votes.

And then when we bring it up for recourse, we have no recourse, and we’re out of order!

What I would like people to understand is that politicians have families just like the people.

Learn from the Revolutionary War, so if we want to go down that road, I don’t think that's a good idea.

I’ve spent time overseas in the GWOT; I’ve seen third-world elections, and I can say that the elections here are worse than the elections overseas.

I spent time in Iraq; I left my blood in Iraq. I left my friends in Iraq.

So I come back because I don't like to—I don’t like seeing what’s happening here!

I run for office, and just so happened the incumbent who did no campaigning got the exact same amount of votes, literally to the percentage!

She got the exact same amount of percent in two elections without campaigning at all and people leaving the district moving into the district, yet she got the exact same 4% of votes!

So I would question these types of elections, and then we have no recourse when we do ask questions!

So to me, it’s just odd—you guys either want us to have faith in the elections or we don’t have faith anymore, and we just have a third-party, banana republic!

And if it’s going to be that, just say it’s—I’m sorry, just say it’s going to be that!

So that’s all I have to say!

Thank you for your time.

Thank you!

The next testifier is iPhones, followed by Steve Yoder.

iPhone, could you state your name?

Hello?

Hello?

Gotcha.

Hi!

Um, you know in the recent—uh, the recent videos that we were watching, um, you know, you guys voted to remove that—

Um, you know, to take the vote...

You're hard to understand. Please talk into your phone!

Can you hear me better now?

A little better, yes!

Thank you!

Yeah, we can’t understand you.

I guess something is wrong with the home—

Can we try to get on later or something?

Sir, we can’t understand you!

Okay, um, I guess—

I’m going to try and go somewhere else.

And thank you!

Thank you!

The next testifier is Steve Yoder, followed by Zoom user.

Steve?

[Music]

Unmute.

I still can’t hear you, Steve!

Can’t hear you, Steve!

Think he tried to—sorry, Steve, I can’t hear you.

Don’t know what's happening, Steve—but we can’t hear you!

Now you’re muted; now you’re unmuted and still silent.

Sorry, Steve, lost you.

Can’t hear anything!

We go on to the next speaker, please!

The next testifier is Jessica Prayah, followed by Tamara McKay.

Jessica?

Aloha, everyone! My name is Jessica Prayah.

My last name is actually Kadoo, but a lot of people know me as Prayah.

I basically have been working with the Office of Elections and going into major errors for the last, I want to say, two and a half years—unanswered emails, unanswered documents, everything else.

I don’t always feel compelled to speak, and I do come in and I testify.

I am just so happy right now and so grateful to all of you guys for actually doing an in-person meeting for once, because I’ve been wanting to look you guys in the actual eyes.

Because I’m watching through Zoom and I’m seeing the faces of you guys consistently, and I don’t know what the Chair is consistently looking at down below, but it’s rather rude and, to me, a little bit inappropriate at the same time.

I don’t know if you have a cell phone in your hands or you’re checking time or whatever it is.

Yeah, so maybe you should put that on the table instead of, like, looking down.

At the same time, I just wanted to say thank you so much to everyone who showed up!

Keep speaking out!

Keep showing up to these meetings because you are being watched, you do need to understand!

We do understand completely what you guys are violating.

You have been called out so many times, Chair.

You have been completely inappropriate!

Um, to me, I called you out the last time with your demeanor.

You know, um, your job is to keep decorum.

And so for me, I just feel like your guys’ faces look so just miserable and unhappy that you don’t want to be there; you don’t want to be in that position.

You really shouldn’t be in that position!

Also, the issues with Scott Nago have been an ongoing issue for I don’t even know how long.

So I just wanted to reassure all the people who are testifying: I’m listening, we’re all listening, and more and more people are finding out the corruption!

And I’m just so happy that more and more people are speaking out, and for that I yield.

Thank you!

The next testifier is Tamara McKay, followed by Wellen Christian.

Tamara?

Thank you!

Um, Aloha everyone, and thank you for allowing me to speak today.

After hearing numerous testimonies, a common theme seems to have emerged, such as a deep disappointment in some of our current sitting officials and concerning disregard for the Hawaii revised statutes.

It’s crucial to remember that the people's tax dollar supplements these officials' incomes, and these positions are meant to be the voice of the people and to act in the best interest of the people—not to disregard our voices or the laws that govern us.

In my personal experience, I had a conversation with a lead member over in Hilo regarding the committee selection of participants, and I was told individuals were chosen based on a system where those who have been trained over the years are prioritized, with little regard for the spirit of rotation.

This approach raises questions for me: if we are to continue training the same individuals, are we truly fostering participation and inclusivity, or is there an ulterior motive at play here?

I did reach out to Scott Nago, and I wasn’t really satisfied with the response, and I’m very disappointed that we are not including additional people in every party to participate in the transparency of our voting system.

Furthermore, many of us have repeatedly called for a return to in-person and paper ballots.

We know this can be done because we did it!

This method ensures transparency and trust in our electoral process, and the community deserves to have their voices heard clearly and openly.

I strongly urge Mr. Nago to meet with the leadership of all political parties involved to find a solution that respects the will of the people.

If he cannot or will not do this, then perhaps it’s time for him to step down or be removed, as there is a growing lack of confidence from the citizens of the state of Hawaii.

It is your responsibility to answer the concerns of the people and all those questions that were presented today.

With that, historically, obstacles or defiance to the body or the people are to be excused because everyone knows that truth has no fear.

I encourage you on the board, Scott Nago, and all of our elected officials to be representative of the people with transparency and truth.

With that, I yield.

Thank you!

The next testifier is Wellen Christian, followed by Jen C.

Good morning!

Can everybody hear me?

Yes!

Okay, I’m not sure if you can see me, but that’s okay.

There go my name—

My name is Wellen Christian; I was a candidate for the primary for District 27 in Honolulu.

There are several things that I’d like to address, and I know I have three minutes, so I’ll try to make it quick.

First and foremost, the behavior that I saw in the June meeting with Chair Curtis was unbecoming!

You did not have the quorum; it was unprofessional; it was flat-out rude.

And with that said, that already should say that you are not speaking up for the people or representing the people!

You must be removed from office, however it needs to be done.

I hope the other district chairs hear me and hear the people, because they all have the same sentiment.

For those that are fighting for the people who are on this commission board, we applaud you and we thank you!

I would love to be on this board—show me how to get on it, and I will get on it!

Now we go to the elections.

This is the primary ballot.

This was my mail-in ballot that I got, and if you look at this first section, it says that you must choose a party.

That is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional!

How do I know?

Because this is our Hawaii Constitution.

This is Article Two and in Section Four.

And I’m going to read it:

"It states verbatim that the legislature shall provide for the registration of voters for absentee voting as prescribed for voting in all elections. Secrecy of voting shall be preserved, provided that no person shall be required to declare a party preference or non-partisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election. Secrecy of voting and choice of political party affiliation or non-partisanship shall be preserved."

Already, the State of Hawaii has committed a crime against the people.

You require, it says, "must choose a party," and that is not so!

So all of you have broken the law!

Each and every one of you who agreed to this, who said that this was valid, all of you have broken the law!

And all of you should be arrested for that!

Secondly, when we have people voting for us and when we have people voting in person, that is the solidification of who they are and they reside here.

These mail-in ballots—everyone said in 2019 that the mail-in ballots would be sufficient enough to bring in more voters—that is incorrect according to the numbers: 30% came out this year, whereas in 20—I believe 2022 it was 50%.

Correct me if I’m wrong; it might have been 2020!

Regardless of what year it was, those numbers have fallen tremendously!

So that’s the second thing.

The final thing is every citizen—Section One, Article Two:

"Every citizen of the United States shall have attained the age of 18 years and have been a resident of this state not less than one year next preceding the election and be a voter registered as provided by law shall be qualified to vote in any state or local election."

The problem I have now is I’m seeing a lot of people who are not American citizens that are voting.

And we need to correct that!

What’s happening now is this has just become a corrupted situation, and it has been for decades.

We all know that!

Let’s call it like it is!

But we need to correct this!

If you’re not in that seat to correct it, please remove yourself.

Thank you!

I yield!

Thank you!

The next testifier is Jen C, followed by Noella.

Hi, this is Jennifer Kwan!

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you!

Okay, I’m going to read my testimony; I submitted it via email also.

My name is Jennifer Kwan, and I've requested an inquiry from the Board in previous meetings with no response or further instruction on how to resolve my request, which is for ballot signature verification for my father, who voted in 2020.

Because of his traumatic brain injury in 2019, his driver's license was suspended, and he suffered cognitive disability from his accident. Stroke-like symptoms and memory loss prevented him from proper normal function.

So I questioned how he was able to cast his vote in 2020.

So what I did was I requested a copy of the signature verification on the envelope from the county clerk, but they did not have any access or the records—they could not provide it for me.

So I testified at various meetings with no response.

Um, the chain of custody for ballot procedures are very inadequate in my opinion—there are no images of envelope signatures on file and no way of tracking down my father's ballot envelope that I have heard of so far.

So I would like to personally witness my father’s signature to ensure that voter fraud has not been committed, and I would like you guys to please advise on the next steps before the records are destroyed.

I highly encourage you to keep the records preserved because there are so many issues with what’s going on, and I would just like for this to be resolved accordingly.

Um, I also have another point if you could answer this also in public forum: do you have any plans for the signature match done manually in case of an EMP pulse or a major hack that could occur on your systems?

I would hope you would have a plan for it because, uh, seeing how all of your systems are electronic and internet connected, uh, and something happens during the voter season with impending war coming on right now, do you have a backup plan?

Yes or no, and what is it?

Because I’m sure the public would like to know what that plan is!

Thank you!

Thank you, Jen.

The next testifier is Noella, followed by Wendy B.

Good morning, can you hear me?

Yes!

Oh good morning, everyone!

It’s nice to see us all doing our civic duty!

Um, I’m very concerned about what’s going on with our elections.

My number one point is I have called the Office of Elections, and I asked them if they are going to be using this ERIC system.

The gentleman that I got on the phone would not give me his name; I was very polite.

He kept me on hold for 10 minutes; there was a lot of talk in the background, but it was muffled; I couldn’t hear anything.

And then the gentleman got back on the phone— it was a very uncomfortable person I was dealing with.

And I said, “Could you please tell me again, are you using this ERIC system?”

I am not comfortable with it.

Uh, he then said, “Well, you have to call the voter registration at City Hall.”

I then called City Hall, spoke to a gentleman there, which I will not name, but he was kind enough to give me his name.

But I had to give him all my information first before he would answer my question.

And then I did ask him after giving him my voter registration, he needed to verify it—that’s cool!

He then said to me flat out, “I don’t know what the ERIC system is.”

And I was really shocked at that!

I personally do not want my information given out to a third party somewhere in Texas, which we all know is run by a left organization!

There is no safety in that!

I have been compromised through various medical records, etc., in the last several years, four times now.

The reason why I’m saying all of this is that if you do use the ERIC system, if someone can please tell me, and everybody else in this room through the airwaves, is it going to be used?

Because at this point, I have to

Followed by [Music]

Shami Flores [Music]

Is that, hello? Can, can everybody hear me? Oh yes, of course. Hello!

All right, good morning, commune members and Chair Mike Curtis. I'll make it real short regarding the latest and past meetings voting to remove Scott Nago. It remains obvious that we're going about it the wrong way, from the wrong angle. With all the testimonies and still nothing, it's c standing in the way. The majority vote was to remove Scott, but Mike Curtis refused to take the vote. His total disregard for the laws and due process for this committee are documented and frankly ridiculous. Mike's own words, and on record, say that this is his regime. Absolutely no fear of retribution for his treasonous actions because of this regime, as he calls it, goes all the way to the top.

Undoubtedly, we call on the committee to focus on removing Mike Curtis from his chair and the committee entirely, along with Scott Nago. Furthermore, Mike Curtis should be criminally investigated thoroughly for corruption and treason. He's obviously serving elite entities under the Soall regime and is highly likely being protected and compensated in the past. Someone brought up white envelope and bribery, and Mike made light and joked about it. This is serious. Mike is abusing his position and acting like Venezuelan president Maduro. I call for action for the removal of such a corrupt regime that it clearly serves because it's clearly not the people he serves.

It's a papete here. Mahalo, I rest. Thank you.

Forest, the next testifier is Shagi, followed by Kiani Hle.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and share my observation and just make comments to raise public awareness. Back in 2012, I was one of the official election workers and attended an orientation held by I believe her name was Miss Ten. I questioned and I asked a question about the hackability of digital devices and the system that's been used, because I used to work in the IT industry.

But anyway, her comment was that even including the tabulation system, no one has access to it. And I asked her, even the companies that have access to it for maintenance purposes? She said nobody, absolutely no one has access to it. So that's point number one. That should— that's not true. I know that just being in the IT industry.

Number two, regarding the drop ballot drop-off boxes at this Honu city hall, I was one of the last persons to cast a ballot in person, not in a box, but I actually filled out my ballot inside, and at 7:00, I think it was, that's when the election was closing. People were still dropping off their ballots, driving by, and the large drop-off box was filled to capacity and so they had to roll out a smaller drop-off box to accommodate additional ballots coming in. When about—some 30 minutes later the election was called. And I know, being the election worker, I know that it has to go through a process and I don't think many of the ballots in the boxes were even opened or counted. So, that's just an awareness I wanted to make to everyone that's on this call.

Then the third is just the behavior of some of the members of the election commission, and I'm speaking specifically about Chairman Curtis. I did watch a video of you speaking with Mr. Ral Kushi, and you specifically used very dishonorable, disrespectful language, quote, “shut up.” That is not something that I'd like to hear or have my children hear. That's not a language that I, or our school teachers, say don’t use those kinds of languages. Is that how you speak to your colleagues or people that you should be serving? And that seems to be characteristic of how you treat your business and your position.

So I just thank you so much for the opportunity to speak up today. Thank you.

The next testifier is Ky Lani Hle, followed by F K.

Aloha, aloha. My name is Kil Lani Hle. Usually I really don't even know what to talk about anymore because every time I come here I hear the same thing from everyone, but nothing ever gets done. Our questions are never answered. Those faces that face you, you guys have the same straight face like you don't even care. And it's very frustrating. Part of the duties of this commission is to obtain information from the public, to conduct investigations, and evaluate the activities of these elections, but we don't see any improvements. We don’t have our answers. We don’t have our questions answered. It’s very frustrating.

I don’t even know what to say anymore. There are so many flaws that need to be addressed that we have yet to see improvement in. Also, I don’t get why we have to re-register to vote in person if they choose not to vote by mail. Why are we having to re-register to vote? That doesn’t make sense. I echo the voices of everybody who has spoken before me. Wendel Elento, he made a good point, he made many good points. Wallen Christianson, she made good points. Everybody made good points, but yet we never get answers. We don’t get any improvement. It’s very, very frustrating.

Also, the layout, the ballot layout—what Wallen was talking about—yes, that’s not only unconstitutional, but the way you guys designed the ballot is so confusing. I am a candidate in this election, and my friends told me that their friends did not select my box because they thought that I was the only one in my race because of the way you guys put the ballot layout. You guys separated all the parties. It looks like those people in those boxes are the only ones running. I had that question over and over again.

Also, this is another low voter turnout. This is so horrible. Over the past six years, the highest voter turnout we've seen was in a presidential election, and that was 69.6%. That is total voter suppression, if you ask me because Scott Nago is not doing a single thing to make sure people come and vote. People are so confused. They don’t have trust in the government. They don’t have trust in this elections commission. There are only four commissioners that have truly represented the people and have been the people's voice.

I want to encourage everyone in this meeting to reconsider who they are voting into office because these commissioners are appointed by the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate. And these commissioners, they vote who is the chair, so please reconsider who you're voting into office. And to those commissioners, those four commissioners, please know that we are grateful for you to keep fighting because we are 100% behind you. I yield. Thank you.

The next testifier is Q K, Aloha, followed by Lono M.

Hey, Aloha. Aloha, can, I hear you if you're talking?

What's that name again?

Q Koha. U Koha.

Cannot hear you.

Next speaker.

The next testifier is Lono Mack, followed by Steve Theer.

Oh no, Ling, once somebody, point of inquiry please Chair, what is the point of order? A point of inquiry please? Okay, um, we'll wait until after the speakers. Who's the next speaker?

Next speaker is Steve Yoder, followed by iPhones. Steve Yoder, are you with us now?

It won’t let me unmute. Can you hear me?

No, you're on there. Oh, you can hear me. Okay. Boy, it's like a salmon swimming upstream to spawn, huh?

My testimony basically is this: I wrote it down so I get it right. According to the website elections.hawaii.gov, the mission of the Office of Elections is to provide secure, accessible, and convenient election services to all citizens statewide. I don't believe convenience means mailing. I believe that's on the day of, in their precinct, their local neighborhood. Voter ID verification to vote. But beginning with the 2020 elections, as you know, Hawaii’s elections were conducted by mail.

It's obvious today that mail-in voting is not only flawed but I believe is suspiciously corrupt and biased regarding the results. The testimonials from those attending the Zoom meeting today are revealing the flaws regarding mail-in voting as well as the absurd cost in doing so as compared to the cost of voting prior to 2020. In my opinion, the Board of Elections is suspect, and those who are in control not only can’t change our mail-in voting law—that can only be done by the legislature—but they seem to really not care to change nor pressure legislators to hear from the Hawaii electorate.

We are told to trust mail-in voting, yet the verification of that trust, the procedure for voting integrity, is inaccurate, unacceptable, and many of the Board of Elections maintain an incredulous attitude towards those testifying. The Board of Elections attitude and performance, at best, in my opinion, is nonfeasance. My question to you Chair Curtis and the rest of you on the Board: My question is, do you have a process of contacting our legislators, and do you perform on our behalf, sharing our abhorrence to mail-in voting versus in-person precinct voting the day thereof? Are you guys doing anything? Are you communicating with the legislature? And I’d like to know that. Thank you, I yield.

Thanks, Steve. The next testifier is iPhones, followed by Marson W.

Hello, hello, gotcha. Hello, hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, my name is Dave. I tried to get on earlier, and you know, we’ve had so much positive testimony of all truths, and it’s basically all for correction and change, and basically, though, the main problem we have in this change is we got to take little bites at it. And the first bite is to remove Mike Curtis because he’s the roadblock, who’s blocking up everything. We need a bypass. We need to get rid of him, then we can take care of Nago and start working to correct this corruption that we have here.

I’m just going to encourage everybody to sing the same song and call for his resignation, to leave, and to replace him with somebody else with more integrity that we can count on. You know, we have the majority of four good people who are trying to correct this and, you know, work for the people, but we’re not getting nowhere. And the problem is Mike Curtis and Nago is after. So if we get Mike fixed up and get somebody of integrity in there, I feel we can make progress and start climbing the ladder bit by bit. But until he’s out of the way, it doesn't matter what we talk about, what we bring up because he’s totally corrupt.

And that’s all I’m going to say, and I just hope everybody considers that and calls for his resignation or removal. Thank you.

Thank you. The next testifier is Marson.

Hello everybody, my name is Marine. I'm originally from Poland. I'm an immigrant to this country. I've been in the United States about 20 years. Eight years I've been living on Kauai. My question is, what are you guys doing? You know, that's where I grew up in Poland, that was under communist, under Russian occupation and there was no transparency. It was all lies. It was all propaganda, basically. Exactly what I'm seeing here.

You know, Scott Nago, Mike Curtis, you know, why? Why don’t you be open about what we’re doing here? How our elections are being held? What's up with all the mailing voting and stuff like this? It's not working. You know, we have the lowest turnout of voters. And Texas, just today, they removed over a million voters from their registry because that was illegals, that was people who are not eligible to vote, felons and stuff like this. Why don't we keep track of that on Kauai? Why can't we be everybody on the same page?

So yeah, pretty much I just wanted everybody here to know my take as an immigrant living in the state, and before Hawaii, I lived in Texas when everything was double-checked. Everybody was voting with ID, and I think we're all on the same page on this meeting and everybody is shooting for that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, there are no more testifiers.

I would like to…

There's testifiers, yeah, okay? Please excuse me, there is one more testifier—Deb. Okay, we’ll get him next.

Your name, please?

Karen Petzer.

Karen, thank you. Chair Curtis, Commissioner Uster Camp, Commissioner Kino, Commissioner Kushi, Commissioner Heis Turn, Commissioner Young, Commissioner M for touching, Commissioner Papal Liu, you are our commission, you are our [Music] commission, and I suspect it's not lost on you that your responsibility is to serve us. And you’ve committed to duties as commissioners, and the duties include, taken from the website elections.hawaii.gov: hold public hearings, investigate evidence of any violations and complaints, hold hearings for receiving evidence of any violations and complaints.

I think what I'm confused about, I'm new to these Election Commission meetings, but what I'm confused about is why we have so many people providing testimony one after another, after another, with legitimate verifiable evidence. And I believe, Chair Curtis, you were the one who said election integrity issues are baseless claims. The evidence that has been presented is verifiable. These are also people who have personal experiences with seeing election integrity violations.

So I guess my question is, why do we give you as a commission any credibility? Why do we? We as a group are passionate. We're willing. We're capable. We are offering help. We are offering solutions. We're asking appropriate questions. We're defining the issues very clearly. So why is it that Wendel Alento can give us statistics that include zero investigations and zero hearings when those are your duties? Why do we give you any credibility?

And I will end with this: Ephesians 6 verse two says it best: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities.” Please stand, if you feel inclined to, stand against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places. That is what is weighing, and which side are you on? Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Tesy, we don’t have anybody else signed up then. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you for having a public hearing. I know I have three minutes for a second—Adriel, I was going to give you another three minutes if you want to stick around but I’m sorry to interrupt.

Go ahead.

No, no problem. Great for a hearing in person. Mr. Young and Mr. AER Camp, I don't know if congratulations is in order. I've been a part of these hearings by way of Zoom and in person for the last two and a half years.

Excuse me, sir, could you identify?

Gary Cordy.

Thank you for that, Gary. C-ter, former governor candidate, father, grandfather, citizen of the state since 1981, an active participant in my civil responsibilities. Many have mentioned that these same iterations, the same conversation come across this table, but never is there any time for you to actually respond, or maybe there's not, and maybe it's not an appropriate time, given the confusion in the electorate out there, the mistrust, the cynicism, the apathy rests directly with the voting process in this state.

I walked a thousand doors. The people say, “Why should I vote? My vote doesn’t matter.” We've heard from Mr. Nago and that office that these new electronic voting is going to increase voter turnout. It's going to drive down costs—both which are not true.

So I'm going to reserve the rest of my full three minutes to ask this question: I would like you to respond by a raise of hands. Are you willing, as a commission, to entertain by vote and present it to the legislators a return to an in-person one-day vote with a verifiable signature and a piece of ID? So I'm going to just hold back and give you a moment to think of this, and I will preface this by saying one thing: Our constitutional government, our Republic, demands that its leaders are virtuous. They're not beholden—though you're appointed—you’re not beholden, and I’m asking you to exercise self-government with virtue.

So, I yield my time for you to vote. If you don’t, if this is a no vote, thank you.

Thank you, Gary.

Thanks, there. Yes, Ad, are we done with the speakers signed up?

Yes, then I’ll give Adriel three minutes and then I’ll give you another three minutes. You want to testify?

No, not before.

Okay, I’ll…I’m Shelby. I’m Shelby Pikachu billionaire.

Could you take your mask off, please?

Sure.

Um, it’s actually on the US senator ballot—all these are my fellow candidates, and I actually earned the right to wear these glasses, okay, because they’re fully recognized. Thank you very much.

So I would like to prove a fraud for all of you guys out here. And it's strange to talk to your Grandpa, Grandma, Auntie, Uncle. Tell me about the good old days when Jesus was here because apparently, there’s major fraud going on. I sent the elections commission an Excel spreadsheet. If you—everyone who’s watching online on Zoom, you guys can follow me because I wrote it down in my journal, but it’s also on a Microsoft Excel sheet if you go on page five.

The total numbers, we're looking at the numbers for you guys on our social media, you have a total of 83,968 total registered voters, meaning the post office sent that out. Your total people participation is 271,345,666,603. That’s how you get your subtotal number. However, when we break down the parties: Democrats melt in 197,000—they have 73% of the market. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is my leader for We the People party, just quit.

If you combine Democrats, all parties, which are Republican, 55,551 plus 2,593, you get 8,144. We the People is 1,13 plus 38—that's 1,151. We got 60,000 people: Republicans and RFK Jr. combined. There’s no way we can beat the stacked deck—it’s going to Vegas, and we’re losing.

How can I prove this? If you look at all the US senator CID RS, Adri, Maisy Hono got 17,631. Ron Curtis got 14,271. The next number is 4,287, 8,481 for blank votes, over is 145. When you add up the US senator total Democratic votes, it’s 23,315. However, if you go back to your own stats, Igor knows Democrats have a total of 19,744: mail-in 2,14, walk-in—that's 19,955 maximum total votes.

How the hell do the Democrats in us and Amaz get more votes than total people in the Democratic party? You’re over by 3,732. Your stats are wrong. Not only in her party, in the Republican party, and my party, in all the parties for the US senator, you're over. Republicans total is 5,144 when you had Bob McDermitt 27,961. Lambs 8,931. Amaral 7,627. Dolan 40,46—3319, 275 blank, 4900 over—106.

You got 58,892. Your total Republican party is 58,144. You are over by 781 votes, even with me. I'm not even a registered voter here; my address is 36 South Green Street. Right there, you would never mail me a ballot. I could even vote for myself, but I still pulled the numbers—the party is still going.

And here’s my party numbers: total 1,155. Total, I pulled 977. Blank 187, zero overage. However, the total of my votes plus blank is 1,164. The total JFK and Robert’s entire party is 1,155. How the hell do I go over at 1,164 with blank votes?

That's in all parties—Green Party, non-partisan. You guys go back and run the numbers—something's wrong in your Excel sheet, and I put it in an email to you guys. Why am I frustrated? Because what's the point to do everything here? The numbers are the numbers. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ad.

Um, Commissioner Andreon just entered the meeting.

Him, Commissioner Edon's here. Good, thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to talk again. My name is AD. I was a candidate for this primary election. When I got into the process six years ago, most common response I got from people about why don’t you go into corruption? Just cheating, it’s rigged. Um, I didn’t want to believe it. I’ve gone through two election cycles. I watched the numbers, looked at what’s accountable, what’s not accountable, what we can access as voters.

I do have a degree in database management. I did physical security in my profession as a military officer. I did many of these things, looking at elections or the systems that put this together, and I cannot find information that allows me to say yes, we can verify these numbers that you're telling us. When I walk this entire state, going to each island and county and get the response from people, I’m not sure how you get 76,000 votes when I talk to my fellow members in my party about who they voted for.

I’m not seeing that name recognition wade in this election. We have multiple reports on the other side: name recognition didn’t help anymore—big names fell. What is the story here? What are we telling our people?

And I start to understand why people say elections are R: because where is the transparency in things like this? You might have a possible answer of why election data was published before was accessible to members of the media without the public or a separate path to their access to that data.

But I'll leave you with my final paragraph that I didn't get to finish because, at this moment, I'm still waiting for the credit data file we commonly know as the AB file for the August 10, 2024 primary election. Usually it’s available upon trust, but 17 days after the election, I'm still waiting for the final list of about to return to the counties. Ultimately, elections of public officials are determined upon consent to the government. That consent is not only a number of the B cast but also the trust in how it’s been counted.

Now we have in our laws, HRS Hawaii Right statute 1624 still provides for the public keeping of paper ballots as well as the order and method to do so. In Hawaii Right Statute 1625, the Election Commission can do much to restore public trust and confidence in our elections by returning to tried and true methods of both of these statutes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, the next testifier is Lono Mack followed by Deborah.

Lono: Aloha, commission. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is L. Willie Mack, and I am here to address an important issue that has not only affected my candidacy in the 2024 elections for United States Representative in Hawaii's second congressional district, but it also raises significant concerns about the integrity of this election process.

On June 4, 2024, I appeared at the Civic Center in Kyua Kona Election Division office with my completed nomination papers to the Hawaii Office of Elections at 4:15 p.m. These papers contained the required number of signatures; it included my signature notarized. I have a filed sheet of statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission. I have financial disclosures completed; I have every requirement that's listed for a federal candidate, and the office of election denied my nomination paper.

So the reason for them denying my nomination paper was initially due to the use of electronic signatures or digital signatures, whichever you want to call them. Before I get any further, I'd like to shine a little bit of light and possibly open a discussion to what exactly is a digital signature? You know, is a digital signature a picture of a handwritten signature? Because that would be a digital signature, I would say. Is it a stored digital file which can be accessed to a document later? Because that could be a digital signature. Or is there another definition, electronic signature?

An electronic signature is a mark, a signature, something that signifies the person's acceptance of the document that can be verified. So it doesn't necessarily have to be handwritten. That is another definition for an electronic signature. But there’s no Hawaii law that properly defines any of this, and nor is there any Hawaii law that forbids the use or the filing of nomination papers with any form of electronic signatures.

In fact, according to Hawaii Administrative Rule 37755, election documents may be created or converted into electronic format, and these electronic documents are considered equivalent to the original. So with that being said, it means the Office of Elections, whether it is the clerk, the chief elections officer, or any of the administrative staff, they basically have the right to create electronic documents.

We use electronic documents. The statewide voter role is built upon off the Department of Motor Vehicles; they store an electronic signature, and it’s used to compare, and it’s used as a reference to compare to voter registration applications: the very thing that they tell me is not allowed, they’re using on the other side of the desk.

Now I'm not here to criticize anything or to say anything negative. I'm just saying, like, I just want them to allow my nomination papers to be filed. It is going through in court, and I just want to have a re—you know, it's a big burden. You know, it's a big financial loss for me to spend money traveling around the state for nothing.

And your time's up.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. The next testifier is Deborah, followed by CeCe.

Deborah: Aloha. Al me be heard?

I was a watcher at the Lahina voting center on August 7th and August 8th, and I would like it to be made known that voter identification was not being asked for, even when voters would extend their ID to the clerks behind the computers. They were told, at least by one person, I overheard say no need, go vote.

I asked the Maui County Clerk, Moana Luy, if she was checking for ID for illegal immigrants since my ID had been asked for when I voted. She said no, it's not necessary. I said, well, how will you know if they’re illegal immigrants or US citizens? I said, I think it's law that you should ask for it. She says it's not a law. And, um, here are my suggestions to you, Deborah. Go research it! I'm an attorney. Did you know that? I said, yeah. So since you know the law, why don’t you just tell me?

Her professional response was no, and I’m going to have you kicked out for interference if you keep interfering. Now, you should know there were no voters in the room at this time, just her staff and US volunteers. She also restricted me from recording the names of voters, as you guys know I have the authority to ask for under HRS 111-77. She restricted that from me again, threatened to kick me out if I didn’t do my job, and when I referenced the statutes she stood up and said, I don’t care about the statutes. I’m going to have you kicked out, go sit down.

The other thing I would like to make—Oh, let me say this: as a voter, I want the security of knowing that voter ID is being verified. I want that verification! And then also, I was an observer in the county room and I was overseeing, or not overseeing, but observing the duplication process on my shift; a lot of online military ballots came in from Canada, from the US states, from Europe, from all from the islands, and all of them were identical. Everyone from all those places all voted exactly the same. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

So I want this known because I think there’s a problem here. And I also want it known that at the Civic Center, the closest parking stalls were blocked off from residents from coming in. They had to go park up the hill and walk down when it really wasn’t that necessary.

So, um, I guess that's all I wanted to say, but oh, one more thing: Moana Luy, County Maui County Clerk in charge of these election days, who’s also an attorney. I would think she would want a secure election and would want to follow the law. Thank you.

Thank you, Deborah. The next testifier is CeCe, followed by Nichette.

CeCe: You’re muted.

Hello, this is CeCe.

Hi, okay.

I’m submitting testimony for agenda item eight: primary elections metric election results. I’m taking my information from the statewide summer report dated August 11th of '24 at 7:15 a.m.

I direct your attention to the political parties listed, showing count irregularities. No Label is listed as a party with 1,975 mail-in and 50 in-person votes, totaling 2,25 votes, yet there is no person on the whole ballot that was listed as representing that party. Secondly, there was no one listed as representing the Solidarity Party, but the mail-in votes were 79 and in-person votes for 88 for a total count of 87 votes. No one was listed for the Socialism and Libertarian Party, but 84 mail-in and 6 in-person votes for a total of 90 votes were counted; that’s 2,22 ghost votes.

To keep this brief, there were four other parties: the Green Party, We the People, non-partisan, and Libertarian Party—they had candidates on the ballot, and their actual vote counts listed in the three-column reports were recorded. On the last printout for the statewide results, they reported those votes more than were actually listed on the three-column report.

So these seem to be tech machine errors, and having worked at the elections before, I assume that zero P zero reports are not being performed and recorded on all the voting equipment each election day. So I have witnessed Hart InterCivic strictly handling the county equipment only. I highly recommend a forensic audit of all vote county equipment and tabulators before any ballot gets counted in this year's general election.

I respectfully request an answer to the recorded errors from the Hart InterCivic and Scott Nago. Thank you.

Thank you, CeCe.

The next testifier is Nichette, followed by Daniel Gabriel.

Nichette: Um, aloha!

Aloha! I got in late because the Zoom thing was not correct. Um, and I'm just so discouraged and disappointed that we, the people, have somehow been put into power over us and we’re supposed to be in power over you. And we’re saying to you, you got to go back to paper ballots. You got to give me a little place—a school or something close to my house—like it used to be. I need to be able to run in, uh, cast my ballot in person.

And there is a way to actually count all those ballots, handwritten ballots, that is faster and extremely cheaper to do. And there’s an absolute way to do it. So this is just totally, I feel like somebody’s lying to somebody when they say it’s cheaper to do the mailing ballots and putting stuff in a booth. Plus, I've seen myself personally guys go up to those ballot boxes and throw in hundreds of ballots at the same time. I’ve also witnessed some of the unions; I will go, and they collect the ballots of all the union members and vote for them, and then they put ballots in the trunk of a car and drive it to the ballot box and they put them all in.

And I just know that this is real. It’s—I'm—I know it's real. Um, and the fact that you guys have now created that everybody in the whole Honolulu area has to go to one horribly trafficked area in the middle of town on a weekend, of course, because it was Saturday, and there is no parking anywhere, and then we have to walk and walk and walk just to do it.

I feel that that's on purpose. You guys are doing this on purpose. The TV lady out in front of there even said, oh, well, what do you think about this new way everybody's voting? You want to say anything?

And I said, yeah, it's obvious you're trying to stop people from voting in person and that you're also not allowing us to monitor the boxes because one person, one vote, one envelope in a ballot box—this is crazy that you don't monitor those ballot boxes. And then who knows what happens after they hit those machines? It's been proven over in country and state and state and state—all over the world, actually—that after a vote is put into one of those machines, who knows how it comes out the other end?

So these are real facts, and I wish you guys would answer us and would give us the respect to tell us what to do, what we're asking you to do for a change, and you sit there with these smug faces. It’s really sad you don’t say one thing back to us. It makes my heart break that you’re that inept, and you have these jobs, and you think you have so much power because you're going to get your comeuppance one way or the other if you won't go back to written ballots in ballot boxes. I rest. Thank you.

The next testifier is Daniel Gabriel, followed by Mayori.

Mr. Gabriel: Hi, my name is Daniel Gabriel. I will not thank you for hearing my testimony because it is your job. You’re paid by our tax dollars to hear us, brother. And it is, all right. So here’s my testimony: The system is clearly not transparent. There are some corrupt actors in the process. I demand that it goes back to the paper ballot, one day of voting with proof of identification.

I personally observed my wife; she was able to vote with an expired license. You can’t even go to the bank with an expired license. Why can you vote with an expired license? So what is really going on behind the scenes? You guys sit there and you guys look like children in a principal's office that have clearly done wrong and you've been caught red-handed, but you refuse to do anything about it.

Wendell pointed out that you guys have not done anything that your job entails in terms of investigation nor hear us publicly in person until now, and that needs to change. So I demand, as a voter and as a candidate, that this goes back to the original process where every school is shut down on our voting day.

We can go in, in person, in our district, in our precinct, to get our vote in legally with identification, with overseers, counting the votes by hand. I do not trust the computer system that is owned by a company in Texas which has been sold to a company in Spain. It’s hogwash, and it needs to end.

The people responsible for this corruption and criminal action need to be tried and/or put in jail because the evidence is clear. As an accounting major, I was taught one thing, and that's ethics: and that the numbers don't lie. You may be able to choose numbers that look good in your situation, but the numbers do not lie. There are extra votes out there that came out of thin air. There are stories and testimonies time and time again of corruption happening at the ballot drop-off boxes.

And another thing I'd like to point out—we are going to do a mail-in ballot when we have a USPS system that is running—where is that money coming from to run these ballots and move these around? Tell me how that works. Thank you. I rest.

Thank you.

The next testifier is Mary Healey.

Hi there, everyone. Um, I just want to—I just want to say thank you for hearing my testimony. Um, as you can hear in a lot of the previous testimonies, there is frustration, and it is well known why there is a severe problem in the mail-in ballot system, especially in Hawaii. And not just that, but we want to have more transparency and accountability in our elections.

And as all of you know, we are very thankful that we have the right to vote in this country and choose our elected officials. And we would just like to make sure that there is no unreliable data in the machines in the ballots.

We want to have access to those paper ballots that are on island, wherever they may be, you know, wherever they're being stored, whatever locations on that very small island that all the ballots come to. We want to know where they are and look at them and have the peace of mind to know that the right people are getting into office and leading us based off of what the people want—we, the people.

And so, you know, we don’t want any more guesswork. We don't want to be hindered any longer. More and more people have become aware of the situation, and we’re just—we’re ready for you to acknowledge that this is happening. So, thank you for listening to my testimony. It’s always a pleasure to speak with you over here, and I look forward to the changes that we all know are coming. God bless.

Thank you, Mary.

Wendell Alento and Andy Crossman have their hands raised, but they did already testify, Chair.

Then I would ask you to…

What is your name?

My name is Doug Pein.

Doug, could you please come up and give us another three minutes?

Wendell's requesting a minute before I do that.

Okay, Wend.

Thank you, Chair. In Robert’s Rules of Order, and it’s so important to write this number down, it’s 9:34. That’s nine colon thirty-four. And it says, it is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous oral communication is essential to the deliberate character of the meeting.

And so just as you enjoy in an open, hearing right now people at the hearing—you can talk to each other—and that’s what simultaneous communication means for those who are in electronic meetings. Because this 9:34 is out of the section for electronic meetings, it’s asking—it actually says it’s essential for a chat room to be open and available for us to communicate simultaneously with each other.

And it also gives you records of the conversations, also questions we may have for the meeting, and it actually makes the meeting go smoother. I yield. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Wend.

So anybody else?

Oh, please come. Thank you.

Thank you, Karen. Let me bring you back around really quickly to that stack over there. That's 16,990 pages of information that were provided by the Office of Elections that were used in the certification of the 2022 election.

In 11-1-155 HRS, it says that you need to consider all of that in your comparison and reconciliation prior to issuing a certificate of election for the election being certified as being valid.

I want to point out one fact: the fact that there were more mail-in votes reported on the 2022 general election statewide precinct detail report than were reported for any district precinct in the post-election manual audits. The number went up, and in that stack of documents right there for official observers, for chain of custody, 46% of the documents are missing the required witness signatures as well.

Sixty-eight percent are missing equipment certification that's required by statute and by Mr. Nago. Also, per HRS 11155, it requires that for a certification of election, it shall not occur until after the time for bringing an election contest.

So let me ask you this: how was it possible for Mr. Nago to sign a certificate of election for the governor and lieutenant governor on November 28 while there were four court cases still pending before the election was certified?

Mr. Nago signed these certificates and that one that’s being held up on the same day that DAG Nakamura attested in the Hawaii Supreme Court that HRS 11156 expressly precludes delivery of certificates of election when election results have been contested and a final determination is pending.

How was it possible for Mr. Nago then to pass off this endorsement of an overage and underage report as a certification of election on December 16, 2022, without a comparison and reconciliation result, while contested election cases were still pending?

Mr. Nago testified to Judge Tang during the Hawaii Republican Party versus Nago hearing in the First Circuit Court on February 10, 2023, that he did not use the actual paper ballots in conducting the required audit.

How is it possible for Mr. Nago and the Office of Election to have a position on the conic of products that are different from those prescribed by the legislature and as written in statute?

Commissioners, no certification of election results by district and precinct was ever compiled, certified, and released for the 2022 general election. Mr. Nago did not certify the 2022 general election in accordance with HRS 11155 and 11156.

And with this maladministration, how is Mr. Nago still employed in his position as Chief Elections Officer? Mr. Curtis, in your July letter to Civil Beat, you said that voter fraud allegations were reviewed in a majority of states and found baseless, including Hawaii.

Let this testimony show you and those your own documents that election integrity allegations are not baseless claims. The integrity is quantifiable, and Mr. Nago openly admits and did not attest to certifying the 2022 general election without due diligence and contrary to statute.

Thank you. Any public officer's willful failure, neglect, or refusal to act on any provision of law concerning elections is by definition election fraud, HRS 193. Will this commission continue to be complicit in the maladministration of elections by Mr. Nago?

Mr. Curtis, I politely demand your action or your immediate resignation. I yield.

Thank you for your testimony.

Will you vote now? I’m asking you, will you vote now?

You’re out of order.

May my entire board out of order? Next speaker, please…

Um, Andy Cson and Walling Christian have their hands raised; they both have testified.

Okay, Andy, I’m going to testify again on this issue here on a different issue than I testified before about the violation of the Sunshine Law with the whole Zoom link debacle of what occurred today.

So basically, the Sunshine Law, in section 92 D7 requires that there is notice posted no less than six days prior to the meeting on the state calendar. It also says, in section D of that section, it says no board shall change the agenda less than six calendar days prior to the meeting.

So this Zoom link was changed the day of this meeting today because yesterday it still had the zoom link that was in the agenda, of which the agenda has not been updated. The agenda is still incorrect, however the website has been updated, but the state calendar has also not been updated.

So this entire meeting is out of order right now. This entire meeting is out of order. So this also makes it very difficult for people to attend because when they got notification from the Office of Elections and the notification via email, it was sent out a link to the state calendar, and the state calendar is still incorrect. It sent out a link talking about the agenda; the agenda is still correct. The only thing that's correct is the website, and it's very dubious to me that it was changed on the day of the meeting.

I think that this is completely unacceptable. I’m GNA, I'm going to use some kind words here.

So basically, what I'm really concerned about is that if anything consequential happens in this meeting that this will be used as an excuse to throw the entire meeting out of order, much like what happened with the May meeting already, where it was assumed that the agenda was out of compliance with Sunshine Law and the May meeting was cancelled due to that, also a very dubious circumstance.

So what's really going on here? Is this board really about hearing from the people and making things transparent and doing things correctly by the Sunshine Law? Or is there something else going on where this board appears to be limiting the ability of people to participate in this kind of a meeting?

And I don’t expect that I'll ever get an answer to that because there's never any answers to anything. This entire commission should be ashamed of the chair of this commission and the way that he has completely gone out of line on the parliamentary procedure and sunshine law and everything else that would make any sense for anybody that's trying to do the right thing. I yield.

Thank you.

I recognize I'm out of order.

Yes, you are. The speaker to solve the problems. The next speaker please.

Um, Walling Christian, please.

Christian: Sorry, can you hear me now?

Yep, gotcha.

Um, I forgot to mention two important things that I’d like to bring up. One is a question on the ballot. The—there was a deceased representative by the name of Mark Nakashima, who passed away in mid-July. God rest his soul, and condolences to his family.

But his name was still on the ballot. I've been trying to research the law to find out because he had no opponent. How is it that a dead person, not any offense to him or his family, but how is it that a dead person still can obtain votes? That needs to be addressed, um, for whatever reason, because it will definitely happen again. A lot of our representatives are elderly. They are up in age, and anything can happen—even to a young candidate. I'm not trying to strategize against one specific age group.

That's number one; that is very important that we address that. Secondly, I applaud the gentleman from Kauai because I did some research on Texas, and yes, he is correct; they deleted over 1 million votes of people who were not supposed to be on that voter list, and that is what Hawaii needs to do.

And let me show you how simple this will be: After this primary election, what needs to happen, commission, is you folks need to swipe out, need to clean out every voter that's on that list. And every time we come up to a general or primary election, we need to re-register, verifying where we live in what district, what precinct, with a valid ID and some type of utility bill, whatever it may be—American citizen—living in the district, and we are alive, and we have not moved to other places.

As you all know, Hawaii is very expensive. People are falling on hard times; they’re unable to afford rent, their mortgages. People are moving left and right with the drop of a dime. So you want to figure out how to fix this?

Because in 2022, my brother had passed away, and he was living with me, and he still got a ballot mailed to my home, which I did not fill out. I destroyed it because he's not alive to vote. Imagine all the other people who are receiving these ballots at homes, and they want a certain candidate, so they're filling it out for their dead loved one. That is a problem.

So the easiest solution would be to scratch the computer system, get everybody to re-register. I don't think the people would have a problem with re-registering every time we have an election because that also shows that there is a truth to who they are, where they live, and the district and everything else of where they're going to vote.

So I wanted to just bring those two important factors up, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Christian. Are there any other testifiers? Then I’m G to make a comment that most of this stuff is legislative, like the mail-in voting, is legislated into law. We need to change that law if you want to go back to in-person voting, and that’s what I think is appropriate.

I would offer Scott Nago three minutes to answer anything that he’d like to answer in this because there's a lot of testimony that does not apply to the office of elections; it applies to registration, the county clerks, and the legislature. The legislature is responsible for putting us in this position; they're the ones that made the law. That's why we do mail-in voting; because it's legislative law. I yield to Scott.

So I’d like to echo what the Chair said; by law, mail-in voting is a statutory requirement. The office does not—the chief election officer does not have the ability or the statutory authority to change that. So to simply say that I want to go back to polling place or election day, it would take a legislative change, like the chair said.

Also, by statute, the state and the counties are responsible for working together to provide the election. The state is responsible for printing ballots, counting ballots, and voter education. The counties, each individual county, is responsible for voter registration, mailing and receiving ballots, places to deposit, and voter service centers.

So a lot of the issues with in-person voting and voter service centers would be the county responsibility.

As far as me certifying the election, prior to going through the audit, we believe we met the requirements of the law when we certified. I don’t recall that. Excuse me. Mr. Chair? Point of privilege.

Uh, you’re out of order.

Thank you.

Are we going to enable the chat?

This very moment is the exact reason why we should have the chat enabled while Mr. Scott Nago is giving his testimony. The public should be able to share in the chat their different comments and feedback as Mr. Oranto referred to earlier.

I disagree. I’ll have discussion when there’s a motion on the floor.

Right, I make a motion to enable the chat.

Second.

Out of order.

There’s a motion that’s been seconded and thirded. Mr. Nago, continue.

So regarding the certification of results, we believe we've met the statutory requirements. I don’t remember the exact timeline of when I signed it, but I believe—and we believe that the statutory requirements we didn’t do anything out of it—

Excuse me. You're out of order.

Let me ask a question.

The question is: I just want to have that in writing.

It's on the record on the phone.

You got it.

You got it recorded?

He’s saying he’s not sure of the date; that's what he said.

Okay, but we have—I’m asking, did he go back and look at the dates on the certificate so that he can be sure of the dates and reply in writing to this question?

How can you issue the certificate before the election is certified? That's my ask signature—please sit down.

I'm just going to leave it there for him to study it. My second question is: People are asking to go back to the precincts and to vote same day. I believe you have the authority to do any voting method that you want, and you can make that change.

And you don't need the legislature. That you have the authority. And I would like to know from the Attorney General—does he have the authority to—and I don’t have time to look up the statute right now, but Scott Nago has the authority.

And can we, as the Elections Commission, advise Scott Nago to do that for the next election?

No, I’m saying that you need to bring those legislations back because there’s people that are against the way things are done, so can it be evaluated?

That would be my request, actually. That this be a motion formal so that otherwise, each time someone asks, they will expect an answer. I’d like to answer questions from the commission, not an individual.

Okay, so we’re asking, does Scott Nago, the Chief Election Officer, have the authority to change the voting method in the state of Hawaii?

If that's a request from the commission we can go back and particularly review it.

Okay, I do note that the Elections Office has a separate counsel who is advising Mr. Nago, and you have a separate counsel advising the commission.

But I am asking that questions to our office from the commission be done as a group, not by an individual.

Okay, so we're asking if the AG—does the Chief Election Officer have the authority to change the voting method in the state of Hawaii from mail-in voting to in-person voting?

I would respectfully ask that this be a commission request.

It is, I'm asking you right now, but I'm asking, because you're an individual member.

I’m asking on behalf of the commission—Chair, asking on behalf of the commission whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method in the state of Hawaii from mail-in voting to in-person voting?

Yeah, I can turn that into a motion.

No, we’re asking the AG a question, but that would be my request actually.

That this be motioned formally.

I would make a motion to have the deputy attorney general answer if Scott Nago has the authority to take us to what’s the wording?

Sorry, to change the voting method to in-person day of voting, ID and no machines, hand-count paper ballots in the precinct.

I second the motion.

Discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Any abstentions?

Who said no?

There are four no votes.

Please, can we go back to discussion now?

We're in the vote.

Why would you vote?

Can we just repeat the motion just so that I have it clear here?

It’s to have the deputy AG give his opinion if Scott Nago has the authority to change the voting to in-person in the precincts, voter ID required, hand counting the paper ballots.

And I seconded the motion now.

Commission discussion?

Yes.

I would like to ask a question. So all this motion is, I'm sorry, this is commissioner Papalio. All this motion is to get an answer from the AG because the AG is hesitant to answer the question coming directly from the chair, am I correct?

The AG wants requests coming from the commission, correct, that—that's what I'm understanding, not just the chair.

So why would we want to say why would we ever vote no on getting the AG’s counsel?

And I would hope that if the AG is representing the commission that would include us individually if we have questions.

So I'm really urging all of us unanimously to please say yes, AG, give us the opinion on this. Please answer us.

Is there any other discussion among the commissioners?

Mr. Chairman, this is—

Yes, I'm sorry.

Before the vote, I would ask the commission secretary to restate the motion.

Okay, the motion is to have the deputy AG give his opinion on the Chief Election Officer having the authority to change the voting method to day of in-person voting at the precinct, voter ID required, from mail-in voting.

That's changing the method—is that clear, Mr. Kada?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, any other discussion from the commissioners?

Mr. Chair, for a roll call then, I just want to—I want to add to commissioner No.

Thank you, Mr. He said yes.

Out—giving him time to express himself.

Chair, that’s right.

I’m calling—he said yes.

I don't think any other discussion has changed any votes.

I would ask for the roll call.

Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Commissioner Papal Liu, you're muted.

Yes, my grandchildren were awake, so I muted myself. I apologize.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Commissioner Curtis?

Yes.

Motion carries. You’ll give us an opinion.

Thank you. Anything else, Scott?

Questions?

Any other questions for the Chief Elections Officer?

Yes, I have a question, this is commissioner Papalio, please. We have seen Scott Nago, in his role as the chief executive officer, go to the legislature to push for things that he believes would help his office or voting in Hawaii, and he has worked very closely with the legislature in order to do this.

And so is it my understanding, Mr. Nago, you have worked with the legislature to pass some laws that you would like passed for election?

If you mean by every session, do we have bills introduced by the legislature on our behalf or at our request? Yes.

And okay, that's wonderful because the chair was mentioning that some of these things that are being brought to the Elections Commission are better answered at the responsibility of the legislature, and it’s wonderful to know that we have someone who has worked with them so closely that maybe he can help us to address these items that are coming forward in these hearings. So I just want to make sure everybody is aware that you do have a relationship with the legislature to bring bills forward that maybe the commission will be able to work with you to get the bills brought about and maybe passed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Papalio.

Any other questions?

Yes, as it relates to auditing and the HRS 1642, I just—I find it odd that you go to all the islands and conduct the audit of yourself, and nobody else can do that audit. And people want to check the paper. The commission made a—adopted a motion to use the voter verifiable paper audit trail in conducting audits.

Okay, so I believe you parsed those words and used it a little bit but also used the ballot images. Is there any reason why the counties, for that week-long, can’t use the voter verifiable paper audit trail and count all the races in the precinct the way HRS 1642 was originally written and get that done in a week-long process?

And that you don’t have to be there to audit yourself? And I think there are some little things that are done to make it come out well on your behalf.

And I'd like to have the counties to be empowered. There are enough observers to do that, and empower them if they want.

And that’s what these people in this meeting have been saying—they want to check the paper; they don’t trust the computers. And that would go a long way in getting voters' confidence.

Was that a question?

Yes.

What was the question?

Why does he have to conduct audits himself, and why can’t the counties individually do the HRS 1642? Everybody used to do it in their own precincts before. All we’re talking about is 10% of the precincts.

So the reason why we conduct the audit is that the state conducts the audit, as I said, in statute: we are responsible for the ballot counting system, and part of that is the auditing.

Now if you want the counties to conduct the audit, you would have to ask the counties, but they're not statutorily required to.

So it would be the counties agreeing to do that and not—I'm not going to put them on the spot by saying, yes, they'll do it, because it's up to them.

But statutorily we are required to—we are required for the county of ballot, which would include the audits.

Just like the counties are responsible for voter service centers and places that deposit.

So does that mean you have to be there personally, or can a representative from the state go to each island for a week and conduct it with observers?

And it’s just odd that you’ve got to be there at each island personally, and then that makes it difficult because you have to do all the work.

There’s not enough time to do a proper audit, and I’m saying that we can do this. There are plenty of qualified people who can do an audit; they can count a precinct and it does not require you to be there.

And they can come up with their answers, so can that be done?

Because you have the authority to make that happen.

I mean ultimately I’m responsible for the audit, that's why I’m there, but I mean we can look at ways to facilitate what you want.

I think it’s what the people want. Could you give us an answer on that, please, in five days?

Like I said, I have to go look back. I have to talk to the counties. I don’t know—

Take the counties out of it; we have enough observers to conduct an audit.

They can count a precinct, and it does not require you to be there, and they can come up with their answers.

So can that be done?

Because you have the authority to make that happen.

I have to go back and look at it, yeah.

Any other commissioner questions of the chief elections officer?

CH.

Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Dylan: Mr. Nago, I wanted to ask the question: Can you confirm whether or not you received a letter from the commission regarding investigating why a United States Hawaii was a registered voter with a vacant address and was able to record a vote-by-mail record in the previous election?

Did I receive a letter from the commission?

Not from the commission.

There were letters, but I don’t think it was from us.

I don’t believe I received a letter from the commission.

Do you receive a letter at all regarding investigating this issue right now?

Because there’s a voter registration issue, I’m not knowing the details and not wanting to speak for the particular county: I can’t really say anything.

So the counties are responsible for voter registration, correct and maintaining the roles?

Correct.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dylan. I have one more question, Chair.

Yes, sir.

Do you require ballot box collection chain of custody from the counties before you receive the ballots?

So when you receive ballots, do they tell you how many ballots they're giving to you?

When I handed out from the island of Kauai, they did—they have a spreadsheet of all the ballots that they collected, and then it tabulates to a total.

So you can see how many ballots were collected at each Dropbox from the post office, from voter service center, the office office, and then at the end of it, you can see how many ballots they've turned over to the state.

So does the Big Island, does Maui, does Kauai do this? Have chain of custody?

So it’s required by HRS 11177 453 to have ballot box chain of custody. Do you do you look at this, or do you require it to accept those ballots?

We accept the ballots that—so what you're looking at is when they—when the counties go out to collect ballots from their place of deposit, they bring it back to the central location to have the signatures verified.

We expect the chain of custody we have is from when they give us those ballots that they verified to the county center.

So do they provide a number when they hand it over to you?

Yes, well, I believe most of the counties do. I believe Kauai provides a trade custody.

So can—is there right now, none of the counties except for Kauai have given us chain of custody documentation per collections?

We requested that for in all of the rest of the meetings since January to get that from none of the counties have supplied that.

I've requested it from the counties, the UIPA, and none of them—they don’t even know what this is.

So I'm asking—to certify this election: are you looking to see if they have chain of custody documentation?

And there’s a nice little question and answer on your website that says, “How do we know elections officials don’t throw away our ballots?” and the answer is that you fill out chain of custody forms and reconcile that count daily.

So this fly has produced the reconciled daily count. Does Maui do it? Does Kauai do it?

And that’s part of what you're supposed to oversee; you're supposed to give them the forms. And only Kauai has the forms!

I believe the forms that we are—that that law is referring to is the ballots received, not collected from the places of the deposits.

So we do have the forms for all the ballots that were received into the system, but not the ballots in transit, not the ballots that they pick up from—the people are talking about ballots in transit.

So we have the B received, so that we know what was received, and then match that to what was counted by the time it gets to you.

You're talking about prior to that, I understand.

So the accountability and security of ballots: the chief elections officer, a designated representative, shall maintain a complete count of all mark-sense ballots. All ballots shall be safeguarded to prevent mishandling.

So all mark-sense ballots, the clerk shall maintain a complete and current count of all mark-sense ballots issued spoiled and received in their county.

The accounting of mark-sense ballots by the clerk shall be recorded on forms prescribed by the chief elections officer.

We have not seen that, and I want to know: are you enforcing that from the counties?

There's a reconciliation form I believe it's called an absentee reconciliation form.

A what?

Absentee reconciliation form that all the counties use to fill up that—that’s not the form they’re describing; they’re saying whenever you handle a mark-sense ballot that there’s a chain of custody. They’re talking about accountability of number of ballots mailed—the number of ballots received—the number validated.

So received means when you get them from the Dropbox.

Received means you accept it as voted. You accept what? Accept the envelope as voted?

I'm not seeing a difference there. Some of the requirements are that when they get the ballots, they have to account for it.

And if there’s no chain of custody, you can’t answer your question in the Q&A on the website that says How do we know election officials aren’t throwing away our ballots?

And you're saying we go to the ballot box, we throw it in a van and drive around the island, and we show back up at the, at the Honolulu Halley with some ballots and some may have fallen out, some may not.

That's the whole purpose of this form is when they—

And Kauai does a great job of this; they go to the ballot box, I went with them, they count how many ballots are in the ballot box, they sign it off, they put a seal on it, and then they put it in the van.

And then when they get to the county, they unseal it, count the ballots that were in there, and then put it into a pile. But you're saying the other islands don't do it, and you don't require it!

I say I don’t know what they do because that is their process.

Okay, but this law says that you’re in charge of this. That's—you’re mistaking chain of custody with ballot inventory.

This is clearly a defining issue.

It’s right here that is required by the statutes, and there's a documented process that needs to happen, and it needs to be acknowledged that these counties, and that this commission, takes that into account while certifying and voting.

So if we don't have a record, if that was a hundred-dollar bill, people would go to jail because we don’t have proper documentation.

This is much more important than a hundred-dollar bill.

Would you like to put that into a motion to request that information from each of the counties?

Yes, I’ve formed it and they haven’t given it to me either, but I move to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

Second.

Second.

Discussion?

Ask for a roll call.

Hey, Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Kino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

Hi.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Air Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Commissioner Papal Liu, you're muted.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Commissioner Curtis?

Yes.

So we’ll ask for the counties for the documentation of their chain of custody with the ballot and turning it over to the state.

Be a summary like this; do you have this sheet?

He doesn't need it. The counties do, but that's the one why so you can see what that looks like.

Moving on to communications and correspondence. Are there any emotions?

I'm sorry, I had my hand—oh, I’m sorry, Ms. Papalio, go ahead.

I was just going to, in this motion that we just passed, Ralph was saying that it is the form that’s supposed to come from the Chief Operating Officer.

Am I correct, Naga?

Yes, negative, it's from the counties, the form.

No, no, no, the law—the Chair, the form is to be provided by the Chief Elections Officer.

Okay, correct—the form has to come from the Chief Elections Officer to the counties, and then the counties do it.

Correct, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is Kuada from Maui.

Yes, sir.

I have a question. Um, regarding testimony, has public testimony been closed?

We—depending on what you want to talk about.

What do you want to talk about?

No, I'm just asking; I don't recall the public testimony was closed.

Yes, public testimony was closed when we moved on to Mr. Nago and communications and correspondence.

Thank you very much.

Unless somebody has a burning question, I have a motion to make about testimony.

Okay, I move to have all the testifiers' questions answered in writing by the chair within 15 days of this meeting and have the answers posted online.

I don’t do that; be responsible for making sure they’re answered.

So do I have a second?

Second.

Read the motion again, please.

The motion is to have all testifiers' questions answered in writing by the chair within 15 days of the meeting and have it posted online.

Seconded. Discussion?

Yes, Chair, go ahead.

The common theme today was that people testify, and then you say next, and they never get an answer to their questions.

So people are asking the same question over and over and over, and I think for everyone, it would be expedient if we just posted the answers online and replied to people's questions in a timely manner.

Now, we made that recommendation to Scott Nago, I think in February, to reply to people's questions within 14 days and to post the answers online. He has not done that, and we’ve advised him as a commission to do that.

And I think for the public trust that we should answer questions and post it online. People can—if somebody asks the same question, you can refer them to it’s answered online and that can save a lot of time.

We did three hours of testimony. The same question comes up again and again and again. Let’s answer the questions, otherwise we’re going to be here for three hours, and testimony’s—that’s just not necessary.

Yeah, discussion.

Peter, my only concern is that for 14 days—14 or 15—

Fifteen. Fifteen, sorry, fifteen days.

What if he just physically can’t get to a question on the 15th day?

It seems to me that that's rather punitive. Could we either extend it a little bit or build some flexibility in?

Yes!

So at least reply that we got your question.

Okay! Alright, and then we're answering it?

Most of the communication that goes into the Office of Elections or the Elections Commission doesn’t even get a reply saying received, so that would be great to start there.

But yes, if—if, but let’s get this stuff answered. Sure, I’m full agreement with that.

Yeah, it was just for some flexibility, that’s all.

Yes, other discussion?

Can I ask AG of the—what’s the responsibility of the Elections Commission in this?

This is advisory.

Yeah, so the commission may ask the chair to do something, but actually that’s not a power, so it’s not like you can require the chair to perform these kinds of activities.

It’s okay to make the request, but it's sort of like you can’t compel action, so I just want you to be aware of that.

Thank you.

I agree with the intent to this and I agree that I’ve asked the Office of Elections to respond to people that have made complaints that we’ve resolved. And I’ve asked the Office of Elections to report that resolution to prior complaints of individuals relating to the commission as well.

So I’ve asked the Office of Elections to perform the clerical duties of administrating this commission, but I ain’t going to do that.

I’m not going to look up every answer to everything and respond to anybody.

If somebody wants to put a response, I may or may not sign it, but I’m not—you guys ain't paying me enough for this, and I ain’t going to do that.

You can advise me to do it, but I think the Office of Elections should respond to every inquiry one way or another.

That you received the inquiry, the status of the inquiry, or it’s pending. The Office of Elections should respond to every testimony here today, every question that was raised today. The Office of Elections and Scott Nago should address it one way or another.

I think the Office of Elections should respond to every inquiry as a courtesy. My office did. Whether good or bad or indifferent, I would always acknowledge the input the way we’ve acknowledged the input of everybody today.

Everybody has an opinion, as do I, and that’s what this hearing is about. We’re expressing our opinions, but I’m not going to answer every question that anybody asks.

Would you like to amend my motion, Chair?

No, you make your motion and advise the chair what you want to do, but I’m telling you, it’s the Office of Elections administrative staff that should be responsible for that, and that’s who I’m going to pass it on to.

Let’s amend the motion to make the Office of Elections do the work instead of the chair.

You could make that request directly as well.

Okay, let’s make this an action item, then.

You’re still asking for a vote on the motion?

Yes.

So I guess that’s the motion now?

The motion has been established!

Let’s get the vote.

Okay, let’s see if there’s a motion in the second, then I would ask for a roll call.

Commissioner Andreon, yes?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino, yes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We will get that to the Office of Elections.

Are there any other comments or discussions?

Yes.

I motion to adjourn the meeting.

The motion has been made to adjourn the meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Goodbye.

Thank you.

and have the letter answered by the new Deputy Attorney General.

What second is this? The one we just voted down? What are you asking?

I move to remove Deputy Attorney General Leong and have this letter answered by the new Deputy Attorney General. I have a set from June 23rd, and there was a second to the motion.

Motion dies for lack of a second. Anything else, Ralph?

Yes, we um, I moved to sanction Deputy Attorney Leong for insubordination. There a second?

Motion dies for lack of a second.

Anything?

I move to have Deputy Attorney Leong answer the question that we already adopted a motion on to answer. I don't know why we have to do this twice, but we asked in the last meeting for Deputy Attorney General Leong to answer some questions.

What were the questions? What are we talking about here?

It was the motion that was made in the last meeting. So during the March elections commission meeting, I introduced a motion that's not the one. There's several that were in there. We made a motion to have him answer the letter that was sent with Stella cam regarding a number of issues. The commission made a motion; it was adopted, and he said he did not know about the letter. During the meeting, I said I would send him the letter in the communication, and he received it and said we have to take this up in the next meeting. I'm like, we already made a motion and adopted it that asked him to answer that, and I don't understand why he can't just answer it and we're playing these games with it.

Let's just see, have you already answered this?

So actually, Chris and I did look at the issues or questions raised on the March 27th, 2024 letter, and we are prepared to answer the questions.

Okay, can you answer them in writing, please?

Well, let me give you the answer, and then you can ask. First of all, obviously, this is a commission that is appointed by different interest groups specifically to represent different viewpoints. Consequently, 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. You each may have different viewpoints which are deserving, but our role is not to represent an individual but rather to represent the commission as a whole.

Consequently, we have asked that we not answer questions from individual members because we don't want to have one individual member play us off against another. But we would be willing to answer questions from the commission as a whole, which you did at the last meeting, vote as a commission for these questions. But we also want to be clear that the answers are given to the commission as a whole, not to an individual member. So we're not going to be, you know, ask one person—will not be sending us a question, we'll answer that one person without informing everyone.

So we'll receive only questions from the commission and then giving the response to the commission with that understanding.

Let me respond to the request from the last meeting. You may remember the March 27th letter. The first question: What is the proper method to get communications distributed amongst the elections commission in accordance with HR 31705?

The issue, though, is that a commission member cannot communicate with two or more other commission members without violating Sunshine Law. So the issue there then is how do you distribute a communication to all members? The answer is you really can't. You can't send an email out; you can't send the letter out; you can't organize a phone call. The office of information practices has been very clear about these kinds of serial or hub and spoke type of communications.

What you can do, however, is send the correspondence to the commissioner or the S.A. correspondence to your executive officer, executive secretary of the office of elections within the office of elections, who can then gather and prepare them for presentation to the board as a whole. Because the communication would violate Sunshine, unless it is at a board meeting, you could have all of these communications gathered, submitted as part of the board packet and included for all, and, of course, the public would have to see what the communications are.

So you would send it to the office of elections; they would have to gather all those communications and then put it together as a board packet, which would then be available to the public at the same time as it is made available to the commission members.

Confirm the second question you asked, which is related: How as a commissioner do I get confirmation that all commissioners have received communication that was intended to be shared amongst the commission?

So you would only get that when the board packet becomes available. When you get the board pack and everyone else gets to peek back, you can see whether or not that communication was available to all others.

Should I pause there for a second?

Please, um, you know it might be easier if I go through all six and then I'll come back to every individual if I could.

The third was could you please share all communications since you have been assigned to the elections commission between you and the office of elections and between you and the chair with the rest of the commission?

So we've had no communications. No communications with the office of elections. We are unaware of any substantive communications with the chair on matters outside of the responsibilities of the chair.

So, there's that. That's our response.

Fourth was: I would also like to know if it is your opinion that the regularly scheduled commission meeting held on March 19th qualified as a special public hearing as required by HRS 117.5 P6 closed pren and was properly noticed per HRS 923 and HRS 927.

So, HRS 117.5 P6 closed pren requires a public hearing. It does not require a special public hearing. So that term does not exist within the statute.

But to answer what I think the intent of the question was, the March 19th public hearing was properly noticed per 923 and 927.

The fifth question was: Did the regularly scheduled elections commission meeting on March 19th meet the requirements for a special public hearing per HRS 117.5 P close P 6 Clos pen and for an open meeting despite its listing as an exec session agenda item?

So the March 19th public hearing met the requirements of HRS section 11- 7.5 br6 close Bren. Again, there is no requirement for a special public hearing; there's a requirement for a public hearing, and it was an appropriately scheduled public hearing.

Your second part of that question dealt with the fact that there was an executive session during the public hearing, which is allowed pursuant to statute, and we conclude that the fact that the discussion—personnel matters or the evaluation of a state employee—was correctly performed in executive session, and we saw no particular rules, or I'm sorry, no particular provisions in chapter 11 to indicate otherwise.

The sixth and last question you asked is also, as you may recall during the March 19th Election Commission meeting, I requested that you provide your counsel in writing as to the restriction you stated on not allowing the commission to question Mr. Nago in public.

I believe her counsel was confusing to the commission, and both Commissioner Papal Lio and I requested you provide this counsel in writing and with a law that states we could not question Mr. Nago in public during this meeting in accordance with the HS 117.5 P 6 class PR.

So once again, the issue in this is that it was held during the executive session meeting. This particular basis for executive session was to consider the qualifications and evaluations of a state employee.

Unlike other provisions for executive session, in this case, the right for privacy is owed to the employee. This, of course, is a statute that does not apply peculiarly to the elections commission; it applies generally to all commissioners.

So when a commission or board meets to discuss about an employee, about a state employee, and wants to talk about whether they should be suspended or hired or demoted or evaluated, that discussion, the employee has the right to keep that information in an executive session and hold it confidential.

So it's not subject to, um, I want to say ridicule, but, um, you know, they’re entitled to their privacy on the issue. So, and different from other types of reasons for executive session, that right is owed to the employee.

So the employee is allowed to open the executive session up, but not the board or commission itself. So because Mr. Nago did not waive that right, that's the reason that questioning and that you would have was properly held in executive session rather than an open meeting.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

So the statute specifically says that his evaluation will be public, and so that's the question there. Where everybody else?

I agree with you that employees—that would be the normal protocol—but Mr. Nago's position is a public evaluation of his job performance and that the testimony from the public be taken into account to decide whether he keeps his job or not.

And so that's the difference, and I'd like you to put this in writing, please, because I do not believe that you are interpreting that statute correctly.

We just asked Mr. Nago questions; we were not asking any personal questions to him; we were asking only job performance questions. And we were prohibited from asking any job performance questions like do you keep chain of custody documentation? Those types of questions we were not able to ask him while we evaluated him for his job, and I wanted to ask that question, and I was not allowed to.

So I want this in writing, please, that says that specifically we can't ask him questions about his job performance when we're evaluating him.

So once again, I think what you're saying is you can ask him in an open session, not that you can't ask him in an open session.

So you could ask the question in a closed executive session?

No, but we just asked those questions in the open session. We weren't evaluating his job performance.

Right now we are, but we're not taking a vote on it. But those are the issues that we have and we were kept from asking this line of questioning: Are you following the law? Is the audit being done properly? Is chain of custody being kept? Is signature verification transparent? All of these things that would probably add to somebody's decision-making process we weren't allowed to ask.

So my understanding is that the evaluation occurred—a public meeting didn’t necessarily say that it would be an open session.

So that's fine, just put—finish it was a public hearing; it was properly noticed. The public did have the opportunity to submit any testimony that they wanted to submit regarding Mr. Nago, and so it did qualify, I think, as a public meeting even though the questions by the commission and the discussion and comments by the commission were in an executive session.

We did not go to executive session.

You could have.

Right, but I just—I asked, did you just put that in writing what you told us, please?

So all I'm going to say then, I'm going to repeat what I said before: if you want something—if you want us to go further, then ask us in writing. We ask that that come from the commission.

I don't understand that you did ask us to answer your questions, and we did answer the questions. If you further want in writing, we do ask—I do ask that this be a motion from the...

So that's what I thought we did in the last meeting in writing to answer the question in writing. We already made that motion, so we'll look up in the meeting minutes; you can try it again.

Okay, but it's already done.

Then that's already done. Was that with five votes?

Yes.

I don't think so.

Well, let's take the time right now to research the meeting minutes.

Are there any other discussions?

Did you say that regarding—can I ask a question of Deputy Attorney General?

Sure, go ahead.

Sorry, tell me again your last name.

So my—Ye.

Ye.

Um, in the First Circuit Court about a week and a half ago, you appeared on behalf of the commission, is that correct?

So I'm happy to answer you the question of what my name is; just let you know I am the Deputy Attorney General for the board, and we don't provide advice and counsel to members of the public.

So I won't—so I will—I will—I'm just sort of laying that marker down to let you know that I won't be answering any substantive questions.

It is true that our office represents the election commission, and therefore we did represent them in a recent court case.

Okay, so to that point, how is it possible that your office, the Deputy Attorney General's office, answered a question in First Circuit Court with a motion to dismiss on behalf of the elections commission when this board is the elections commission and they didn't know anything about it?

So again, I'm not going to answer substantive questions about the relationship between our office and the elections client relationship. That is not—is legal advice.

I'll ask the question. I’ll ask the question. So let's back up; I'm going to go back to the meeting minutes, and I believe we already asked for this to be answered in writing.

So I'll send you the meeting minutes, and then will you answer it in writing?

If that's what the meeting minutes said, that is part of the public record and already requested.

Your response is up to you.

Are there any other issues in communications and correspondence?

Yes, sure.

Yes, sir. On my June 26 communication, we asked Deputy Attorney General Leong to help us move forward a rule that said that we're going to pursue adopting a rule in accordance with HRS 11753 to require the county clerks and the chief elections officer to individually certify under penalty of perjury that the chain of custody was maintained in accordance with HRS 31776 and HRS 3170453.

So that's exactly the exchange that we just had with Mr. Nago. The motion was adopted by the elections commission to put that wording into the administrative rule.

Again, Deputy Attorney General Leong said that he was unaware of any of the issues, and so I sent him all of the pertinent information, and he wrote back saying I can't do this until the elections commission makes a motion.

Well, we already had made a motion, and this is a stalling game by the Attorney General's office.

Wait, the motion was to enact a rules change?

Yes, we made a motion.

Understood to pursue adopting a rule in accordance with HRS 11753 to require the county clerks.

We already adopted that motion.

I know, okay, so we've already made that statement, and I sent a letter.

Any response?

So Deputy attorney is advisory, not mandatory. We can't mandate these things, and we cannot rewrite rules ourselves. There's a process for rewriting rules, and if you want to rewrite a rule, bring it in writing what the rule you want to change and what it wants to be, and then the commission can consider it.

We already did that; we did that in the last meeting.

You don't have the language of the rule that you're replacing, and the language of the rule?

That all of that was supplied in the...

We don't have the authority to rewrite rules.

Yes, we do under 11-75.3 and under 11-85. We have the authority to do that.

Is that right?

Well, I can respond, and if I could be more specific. So, you know, Commissioner, I did receive the language of the rule because I wasn't aware of it at the last meeting, as I told you, and I told you by email that we would need to take this up, you know, I would need to review it first and then take this up at a subsequent noticed meeting, which would be today.

And so I did review the rule that was supplied to me, and you know, there is a legal problem with it, so I can't approve it to move forward.

Specifically, the problem is that this—the elections commission cannot create or amend a rule that is in chapter 177.

The elections? Okay, there are two separate sets of rules, right?

There’s one—there's chapter 170, which are the rules for the elections commission; there's chapter 177, which are the rules for the office of elections.

And according to rules for the office of elections, as well as HRS 11-4, the only way that an amendment to a rule amendment to chapter 177 can be made is if either the chief officer initiates the proposal or any interested person or agency may petition the chief officer for the adoption amendment.

So, you know, there is a path for this; I just have to advise you that the elections commission cannot initiate or amend.

So by not responding in a timely manner, you stalled out.

So the clock was run out. We wanted to get this—this was made three, four months ago; we wanted to get this into the rules prior to the election, so you effectively ran out the clock.

So congratulations on that.

So what we're asking for is that we want chain of custody documentation being met, and so we thought that putting it under penalty of perjury would have helped that out.

But if that's not the way, we wanted to get this for this election because they're not keeping chain of custody documentation under the 11-8.5 elections review program.

We can adopt rules in accordance with chapter 91 to carry out the purpose of this section; we're to establish policies for the administration of an election observer program to include ensuring the validity and reliability of election results.

So chain of custody is right in there with ensuring the validity and reliability of election results.

So how can we move this forward so that in the general election all the counties have chain of custody and somebody's responsible for it?

You just said that you could recommend to the chief elections officer rule changes, and he just said there's a path forward on this in accordance with 11.85. Help us, the commission, because we already voted to get something.

We want to know—the people want to know—the chain of custody documentation is being kept under 11.5. How do we have a way forward with that?

Everybody thinks it's important. We already discussed that, so help us move forward with that. Any ideas?

Well, 11-8.5 does allow you to adopt the rules to carry out the purposes of the section, which is to develop and implement an elections review program.

So, uh, you know, I don't have any specific...

So we need to move this forward in a timely manner.

So is there some way we can set up a special committee to move this forward? Can we communicate with you?

What would the process be? Because we're not stuck on this one way, but the intent is that the counties provide chain of custody documentation from the collections of the ballot box and the United States Postal Service?

Is that already the practice?

It's not—we haven't received any documentation. I would have to go back to the chief.

Okay, we have not received any documentation except from the county of Kauai, and I just got it yesterday for the 2024 election.

I UIPAed the Big Island, Oahu, and they have not provided that information.

So rules changes, I think I have to go through Mr. Leong.

Could you give us the procedure if we want to initiate a rules change?

Attorney?

Yeah, I just want these guys looking at this. What else do you have?

BR, um, I didn't—I don't think we should move on from this. I've got plenty, so I don't think we should move on to this until you guys confer; then I'll ask for the next one.

Chair, if we have a minute while we're waiting, I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, so I just—correct me if I heard right—the elections commission was represented by the AG's office in a case, that's what I understand.

And so that would be—myself, personally?

As a commissioner?

The commission as a whole.

The commission as a whole?

Am I named independently?

You're named as a member of the commission.

Okay, I would like to please request that the AG's office let me know anytime they are representing me and what the case is about.

I do not give my sovereignty away. I want to know what's happening if it pertains to me individually as a commissioner on this.

Understood.

Please, you guys come up to any conclusions?

Yes, please, sorry.

We, I mean, you know, if we can find a way to—yes, we'd be happy to do so.

But under the laws as it's written, this is 8.5—the statute allows you to pass rules for specific matters.

It does not look like those specific matters include that—what you're asking for.

That seems to fall within the jurisdiction of the office of elections.

So for the office of elections to pass a rule, you could petition them to change the rule, but that would be up to them.

So, you know, we're trying to see if we could find a way to interpret the statute, but just our best opinion is that it does not include that—that ability.

Thank you.

So how do we get accountability with it?

Do we have to go through Mr.—then petition the office of elections?

What else you got?

I got plenty of stuff, so let's get on to Commissioner Pap, want a question about representation?

Okay, so you're killing our motion to require chain of custody information, is that what you're telling us?

No, you already made the motion; we've required it. That's our advice.

So that'll be another subordination if Mr. Nago doesn't do that, then?

Or the clerks?

Yeah, it's Mr. Nago's responsibility to ensure that chain of custody documentation is being kept on the forms that he gives to CS.

I think our election staff should be encouraged rather than—well, we've been asking about this, and it's been—I think they did a good job on the primary; I don't know about you, but go ahead, what's next?

Despite what everybody just told you, in spite of everything that I've heard from—

Yes, Ralph, what you got?

Okay, it’s a question for Deputy Attorney—I want to ask it privately. What else do you have for the commission in the form of a motion?

Give me a second; got four hours so far, but you can have a second.

So a lot of this stuff's written in, and we've requested that correspondence be answered. If this stuff was answered, I wouldn't have to do it here.

Understand, so I need to do it here because I want this to be answered.

What's the question?

I'm just going to skip this one because it's related to that, so do any other commissioners have any questions or input?

I have an input, yes, please.

Um, as Commissioner Papal Lima requested, I would like to be also informed—oh yes, absolutely, sure—if there is any legal action occurring concerning me.

As a—I'd like one.

So I move to ask the Deputy Attorney General how they can represent the commission in court without advising the commission that they're representing us in court.

Do I have a second?

Second.

A question—repeat your motion.

I move to ask the deputy attorney, huh? Can we just ask them how can you represent us without us knowing it?

So none of you were served in your individual capacities; in fact, none of you were individually named. I believe it was only against the commission as a whole, which is essentially a claim against the state.

The Attorney General's office, by law, represents the state of Hawaii. There's no one else who can represent the state of Hawaii but us.

Uh, I think you are right that it is a good practice to make sure that you stay informed of lawsuits that are filed against you, and we will do that.

If there's any lawsuits that are filed against the commission, we will let you know, but as to what is our authority to do so—the authority—no question about the authority.

Mr. V, finish, please.

The authority is based upon the statute which says that the state of Hawaii shall be represented by the Department of the Attorney General.

So the question there is, who is the elections commission? Is it Attorney General's office or is it these nine members right here?

And so if we're not briefed on it and we don't have a motion on it, how do you act? How do you know how to act on it?

So the conduct of a case rests within the Attorney General's office, so, um, we don't go to individual departments, for example, to say can we assert this defense or would it be all right if we oppose this person?

Uh, but you are right that we will go to a department frequently to certainly let them know.

Um, I'm a little surprised you were not aware; only normally service of any complaint must be served upon the agency as well as the Attorney General's office, so I'm—and this occurred before you may remember you have changed attorneys.

So this occurred, I think, prior to our start, so I was a little surprised that the commission was not aware because the commission should have been served with the complaint itself, so that may have been an oversight on our part.

Um, but with respect to the manner in which the state is defended, that is ultimately within the purview of the Department of Attorney General's office to decide how.

I will also note that we were successful in dismissing the elections office—I'm sorry, the elections commission—from the case.

Yes, we're just asking under what authority?

So, yes, so I move to the chair.

Excuse me. Thank you, I appreciate you answering that and letting me know that.

However, I believe—and I'll ask Chair Curtis this—were you aware?

Were you notified, and then it stopped with you, and then we did not hear from?

No, I have to apologize; I'm watching my grandchildren in San Diego.

Yeah, news to me too; thank you.

Okay, thank you, because I would hope if you would get notification of that, that you would, of course, pass that on. I'll let you know.

Thank you both very much; my grandchildren have been wonderful for the last four and a half hours, by the way, so I could do this meeting.

Next, okay, heard the requests. I move to censure the chair.

Okay, have a second?

Second for discussion.

Discussion.

CH—first of all, I have to apologize for telling Ralph to shut up at the last meeting; that was inappropriate, and it won't happen again.

So serious grounds for censuring a chair against presiding officers or in general—usurpation or assumption by a presiding officer of dictatorial powers—not conferred upon him by law, by which he harasses, embarrasses, and humiliates members, or specifically, he refuses to recognize members entitled to the floor.

He refuses to accept and put on canonical motions to vote. He refuses to entertain appropriate appeals from his decision; he ignores proper points of order.

He disobeys the bylaws and rules of order; he disobeys the assembly's will and substitutes his own. He denies members the proper exercise of their constitutional parliamentary rights.

So, um, in addition to the things that happened in the meeting, we made two motions in the last meeting. We asked Chair Curtis to forward the testimony or the letters from the public that are sent to us so that we don't have to try to read them all at once just before the commission members.

I had to write every week for six weeks before we started to get some correspondence released to us. We got way too much information to wait on it; we can read it as it comes in.

And the other thing that I asked from the chair was to share with us the communications that he's having in relation to the commission business, and he has not done that either.

So that's why I'm asking to censure the chair. The chair has got to be open—everything should be transparent in these meetings. Every letter, if you're talking to the Attorney General's office, it just needs to be transparent, so the rest of us know what's going on.

And we made a motion to have to do those things. We started getting communication because of my pestering, but we still have not gotten his communications with the deputy AG and with others that relate to commission business.

Other discussion? Call roll call please.

Commissioner Andreon?

Sorry, I had discussion; I don't know why my mic keeps getting muted or un—

Okay, Dylan, what you got?

Yeah, I'm going to vote in favor of this motion. Unfortunately for me, this isn't the first time I've experienced putting a motion on the floor—it being seconded, and then just completely dismissed for no reason.

I think a lot of the motions we put in on the floor are for the public. We had someone testify today on how there should be open communication with the chat function, and I called for a point of privilege and then was completely ignored.

Times when I try to add discussion into a motion, I also get completely ignored.

So—

And we've experienced other members of the commission being completely muted, as in Commissioner Kush's case.

So chair, I appreciate you giving your apology in front of everyone today, but I do support the motion for censorship. Thank you.

Other discussion? Would you ask for a roll call?

Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kino?

I.

Commissioner Kush?

Hi.

Gu no?

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner AER?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

Obtain the motion; dies.

What else you got, Ralph?

I move to discuss the investigation into signature settings that we've already initiated in the last—

So we initiated an investigation into signature settings in the last meeting.

Um, I sent out a letter, and to the counties, Kauai replied, and they said that they don't tell us what the signature settings are on their new machine, but if it's done by hand, the method that they do is, the standards that they use is that if a reasonable person thinks it's a match, then it's a match, and if a reasonable person thinks it's not a match, it's not a match.

And your motion?

So, your motion?

My motion is to assign a special master to the investigation.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion.

Yes, Chair.

What do you mean by a special master?

I don't—somebody to run with the investigation.

The right now, I sent an initial letter out on signature verification; there is no transparency in the process. The county said the public cannot witness; there's—nobody can know what they're doing with signature verification.

Concern from the public is that envelopes are being stuffed, and the only way to catch that would be to make sure that signatures match the envelope and the registration.

Right now, we have no way of knowing that, and if it's not transparent, it's not credible, and I would like somebody more qualified than myself to run with this investigation and get answers for the public because nobody trusts the system that you're not allowed to look at it.

It's got to be transparent, so I'm asking for a special master to be appointed, and they can run with the investigation.

So what's a special master?

They're somebody who will see the investigation through representing the commission!

So we're going to hire somebody?

Let's see if we can get somebody to do it for free, but if we’ve got to hire somebody, we will.

Their discussion?

I think you're muted; what were you saying?

Maybe one of the other commissioners would be interested in looking into them?

Other discussion?

Ask for a roll call, Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kino?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Hi.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner Oser Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

I.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

I'm going to say yes.

What do you got?

Anything else, Ralph?

I move to have Scott Nago give us the legal definition of a ballot image and explain how a ballot image is created.

Second?

Discussion.

Yes, Chair. So I've been asking Mr. Nago for months now to give us a definition, that legal definition of a ballot image.

Right now, Mr. Nago is performing the HRS 1642 audits using ballot images. If we can't define what it is, how can we use it for audits?

And when I spoke to him personally on Kauai, he said he can't define a ballot image.

Well, if you can't define it, let us know.

But a ballot image should not be used for audits.

And if you guys—Anita and I went to Kauai, and we watched the audits, and they have a computer monitor like that one over there, and they pull up a ballot image, and then you have people with a tally sheet behind a computer counting the computer images, and that whole system is absurd.

I don't know why we're doing that.

There's no question that the computer is counting the ballot images correctly; the question is, is a ballot image the same as what the voter put on his piece of paper on his ballot?

So that's a question, and if I'm—I’ve been asking repeatedly over four times to get a definition, and I would like him to define it.

Um, and so that's my motion; I hope everybody votes for it.

There's no reason why we can't vote for this.

Is there any other discussion?

Ask for a roll call.

Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kena?

I.

Commissioner Kush?

I.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Oser Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Motion carry.

Did the motion carry?

Yes, motion carry.

Yes, okay, motion carry.

Next, I move to have the Deputy Attorney General answer the question of ballot constitutionality in this meeting and follow up in writing within five working days. Do I have a second?

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair. So as the testifiers testified, the Constitution Article 2, section 4 talks about voting, and the two new commissioners, I was hoping you guys would do that in public, but you just took an oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Hawaii.

Okay, it's not for us to decide if the Constitution is correct or not.

What's your motion?

You're addressing the motion.

I'm—this is discussion of the motion. Discuss the motion and keep—

That's what I'm doing.

Okay, please don't interrupt me while I'm talking about the motion.

As long as you're talking about the motion, talking about the motion, the people—

Okay, I'm talking about the motion, so the oath of office that you take is to uphold the constitution of the state of Hawaii, to defend and, uh, support and defend the constitution of the state of Hawaii. It's not for us to decide whether the constitution is correct or not.

So what question did you want to ask them?

What question did you want them to keep on entering?

Interrupt me, chair?

I will say it again: I move to have the Deputy Attorney General answer the question of ballot constitutionality in this meeting and follow it up in writing.

So there was a lot of people who were asking the question we're supposed to uphold and defend the constitution of the state, constitutionality, which means that you don't have to choose a party.

Is that the constitution says, provided that no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election?

Okay, so the question is whether the ballot that was circulated is valid because it asked for the voter to choose a party, correct?

So the question is whether that—where's the ballot?

I'm asking if it's constitutional. That's what I said.

So by requiring the choice of a party at the beginning of a ballot, does that invalidate the ballot according to his constitutional argument?

So it's not my argument; I'm just reading what the Constitution says.

So I'm asking the Deputy Attorney General—there's been lots of questions on that. Is it constitutional to put that on the ballot when the Constitution expressly says that you can't ask that?

And I would like you to answer that, and there's no reason why there should be no votes on this. We should all say yes; we want you to answer that.

It's a very important question.

We're not here to decide whether the Constitution is correct.

We'll have to get to—

Okay, so my motion is to—I got—does anybody want to talk against the motion?

In that case, I'll ask for a roll call.

Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kena?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Oser Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Motion dies.

What’s next?

R, I move to place Scott Nago on probation for not complying with motions adopted by the commission to respond in writing to all inquiries within 14 days of receipt and to post all the responses publicly.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair.

So we have advised Mr. Nago on a bunch of things, but specifically for this one, we have advised him—we adopted a motion to advise the office of elections to respond in writing to all inquiries within 14 business days of receipt and to post the responses publicly, starting on approval by the commission.

So this was back several months ago; I think this was in February.

And with Mr. Young's advice, we just said, okay, if you can't reply to the person right off the bat, just tell him you got his letter.

So that has not happened, and you can see there were so many people testifying that we send you letters, we ask questions, and nobody responds.

So I'm saying at some point we got to get accountability from Mr. Nago, and I'm saying, let's put him on probation, and it would be nice if he took some of our advisement to heart, and it would make these things a lot easier.

Other discussion?

Ask for a roll call then.

Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kena?

I.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

I'm going to say no, but can I explain my vote?

Yes.

I come from an HR background, and the problem is, I have a problem with the word probation.

That has some legal implications, and there's no time limit on probation.

There's no level of, um, discipline and disciplinary action, and that's why I have to vote no; thank you.

I like—in concept, I like what you're saying, but from an HR point of view, that has I have real problems with it, that's all.

Maybe you could help me take it up later.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Next?

R, I move to have Scott Nago tell us about the 22-month rule and follow up in writing within five days.

Is there a second?

Second.

I discussion?

Yes, Chair.

So in the last meeting, Scott Nago testified that the documents, the ballots, could not be touched for 22 months, and he said that the ballots had to be locked up for 22 months, and then after that, you could look at them.

And we asked that specifically. I don't think you have that right, so I’d like Mr. Nago to reply to this, reply to us, or maybe he can speak to it right now.

My understanding of the 22-month rule is that the ballots are preserved for 22 months, and if we need to within that time, if we need to go back and look at the ballots to review anything, that's the time period that we can look at it.

And then after the 22 months, they can be destroyed?

Am I misguided on that, Mr. Nago?

Could you clarify for us, please?

So the 22-month rule is federal law. The federal government requires us to maintain custody and integrity of the ballot for 22 months in case they need to go back to it.

After the 22 months, we can open them up, and we can review them, but we have to maintain the integrity for 22 months per federal law.

Thank you.

Okay, I just got a question, please.

You're saying we can't look at the ballots; we have to maintain the integrity for 22 months pursuant to federal law in case the federal government wants to go back?

Federal.

Okay, I completely disagree with your interpretation of that motion.

You're addressing the motion?

Yes, I move to have Scott Nago tell us about the 22-month rule and follow up in writing within five days.

Seconded.

Any other discussion?

I have a question.

Yes, Ms. Papal.

Um, so you're using maintain the integrity—maintain the integrity can mean a lot of things. It can mean that you keep it in your control; it can mean what you're saying is we keep it taped up and don't open it, or it could be that we just make sure that we have it; we haven't gotten rid of it; it is under our control.

So if anybody needs to look at it, they can.

So are you saying that the federal government can go in in those 22 months and look at it?

Yes.

Can one of the—so like, um, let's take, say, for instance, there's a person out there named Jamie; maybe she wants to have a look at a ballot in her precinct or her district; she wouldn't be able to do that because you were maintaining integrity.

But if Joe Blow from the federal government came and wanted to look at it, then they could, correct?

So where do you get the definition that maintaining the integrity means it's off-limits for the people in the state of Hawaii but not off-limits to the federal government?

Where does it state that?

That's in the federal law.

And I think the feds only access it if they have a purpose and a reason, like a court case.

Is there any other discussion on the motion?

Yeah, I'd like if you could include that when you do your answer in writing. That would be wonderful because I'd like to see that; thank you.

So again, I just ask if there's all yes votes and that we should be able to ask this question and get it in writing.

I believe it's mistaken; thank you.

Other discussion? Could you read the motion again, please?

He—um, to have Scott Nago tell us about the 22-month rule and follow up with it in writing within five days.

You don't have a problem with putting it in writing?

All call, please.

Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Aye.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER?

No.

Commissioner Papal?

Is excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

What you got, Ralph?

Next, I'm so sorry; I need to leave here pretty soon. I've been on for a long time with these two little ones.

Um, I just want to say congratulations, Peter and our two new guys; welcome to the club.

It's going to be fun, and I'm glad you're both here, but I need to go, guys.

I'm so sorry; thanks for coming.

It's almost six o'clock, so thank you.

Thank you.

No, we're getting over this meeting.

Yes, R, can we ask to answer Claire McAdam's question in the correspondence?

So my—the biggest thing with this correspondence is we put it in here but nobody answers the questions, so I'm going through these one by one so we can get the questions answered.

So Claire McAdam wrote a question to—who did you write it to?

The elections commission, and I would like you to answer her question on—want me to read her letter?

What's the question?

Let's ask Claire; what's the question?

It was an email I sent because I received an email from someone at NPR just asking if I—to talk to them.

And I was asking what's the procedure here as regards speaking to the press as a single commissioner on my own right?

So what was a motion, Ralph, to answer her question?

Okay, so rather than a motion, the question was as individual commissioners, what can we say to the press?

And I would ask you guys that question.

The question, basically, I don't think there's a particular rule.

Um, you would speak on your own behalf on behalf of the commission because in the absence of a motion, you would not—but I don't think there's any restrictions in what you can say, provided that there's nothing that you are using that would be confidential, such as things that are held within the executive session.

Thank you; does that satisfy?

Satisfy, Ralph?

Yep, thank you.

What's next, Chair?

Could I just—I'm sorry, yes.

Um, we only have the room till 3 am; I just wanted to make everyone aware.

Okay, so that's your bathroom break.

Okay, what you got, Ralph?

[Music]

So, um, this is related to the letter from Rose Jinch. I move to advise the chief elections officer to have elections in person one day in the precincts, hand counting paper ballots.

Is that within his authority?

It is.

Well, we'll find out. Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Seconded?

Yeah, Dylan seconded.

Okay, Dylan, discussion?

Yes, Chair.

So we've all agreed here that that's the best way to get our elections—pressure again.

You supported the motion?

We did?

I did not agree to that, Chair.

You should speak towards the motion.

You spoke in favor of having paper ballots—we know that ballot images cannot be trusted, and don't know that—we accepted that in the last meeting that they could be manipulated.

So I'd like to advise the chief elections officer, in accordance with what everybody was asking us to do, to have the elections put back into precincts.

One-day election hand counting the paper ballots—and that was seconded by Dylan, correct?

Okay, discussion, friendly amendment?

Yes, please.

It's a legislative issue. Can we insert that we ask the chief election officer to forward a recommendation to do this to the legislature?

Yes.

Okay, so the amendment can be seconded.

Second.

I'm sorry, it has to be seconded by the person who made the second, so it has to be accepted by the movant and then accepted by the person who made the second.

His motion was to amend the motion, and the amendment was seconded, so we're discussing the amendment to recommend that the chief election officer recommend to the statutory body that's responsible for having us doing same-day written ballots, is that about right?

Yeah, in the precincts.

So, so the amendment was to forward this recommendation to the legislature?

Yes.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Extensions?

The amendment carries unanimously.

Back to the original motion that we ask Scott to recommend to the legislature that we go back to written ballots, same-day voting—is that the gist of it?

Ask for a roll call.

Information?

No roll call, please.

Okay, Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kena?

I.

Commissioner Kush?

Hi.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner amp?

No.

Commissioner Papal?

Is excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

What's next?

Did it pass?

Yes, did it pass?

Yes.

So I move to have the chair and secretary acknowledge receipt of documentation sent to them and then tell the sender what action will be taken with the document.

Who's the secretary?

We don't have a secretary.

To the board?

To the commission.

Yes, we do; we could refer to the office of elections. They provide the assistance and social support.

Again, do I have a second?

Did you second?

Can you motion so I can record it?

Say it again, please.

R, I move to have the chair and the secretary acknowledge receipt of documents sent to them and then tell the sender what action will be taken with the document.

And that was seconded?

For lack of a second, Dylan just seconded it.

Dylan, you seconded that one?

I did.

Discussion?

So again, the public is expressing that they need acknowledgment that when they send a letter in, that somebody has received it.

But it goes into a black hole, and I think that's just common courtesy.

And you can say received, I'm forwarding it to Mr. Nago for action, whatever it is, just acknowledge—people didn't even know that you’re receiving documentation.

So I'm just asking for that common courtesy to do.

Discussion?

Wouldn't that be covered in a prior motion?

I'm not sure.

Well, let's address this one.

So the motion was to have either the chair or the office of elections respond to any inquiry that you received it, is that correct?

Yes.

Other discussion?

I think that could be problematic if we have people flooding the office where correspondence is of the sort that we see just in this meeting.

We could have basically the same text repeated a hundred, a thousand times, and people need to be able to get their work done.

If the goal is to basically flood the office, it could be a real problem.

In concept, it's great if they get two or three letters a month, but if they—if it's much more than that, I don't know if that's going to be workable.

Yeah, thank you.

Other discussion?

Maybe there can be some program where there's an instant response, like many times you send out an email and you get it; there's an email instant responses—a programmable instant response that it’s been.

Any other discussion?

Roll call.

Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Aye.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Is excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Ooh, four; motion dies.

What's next?

R, I move to ask for this—no, that already got, sorry.

I'm going to skip that one.

Okay, so I move to have the office of elections follow HRS 1642 as it is written by auditing a random sample of not less than 10% of the precincts employing the electronic voting system verify that the electronic tallies generated by the system in those precincts equal hand tallies of the paper ballots generated by the system in those precincts, counting all races on the ballots in accordance with HRS 111-125.

No ballot images.

Second?

Discussion?

Yes, Sheriff.

Yes, so we went to Kauai and watched the audits being conducted. The way they're being conducted right now is fractionalized.

So HRS 1642 says that we randomly select 10% of the precincts, and we hand count the paper ballots.

What was done was we randomly selected how much percent of the precincts, which is two on Kauai, and then two races were picked to audit.

So at the end of the day, Niʻol was chosen—there were 11 voters on Niʻol and of the votes that was chosen, it was for the prosecuting attorney; there were six votes for the prosecuting attorney.

So we spent the time to look that up and then the other race, I think, was 153 that was picked, and the gentleman that was just here, Pikachu, was on the ballot, and he got two votes.

So we spent three hours checking eight votes, and if there's going to be fraud or manipulation, that's not going to catch it.

And the way the intent of HRS 1642 was to randomly select 10% of the precincts and hand count the paper ballots, all the races on the ballot, to make sure that the computers are counting correctly—no ballot images.

The conduct of the people are standing behind a computer screen counting ballot images, and again, there is no question that the computer is counting the ballot images correctly; the question is are the ballot images what somebody put on their ballot?

Is that the same? And that's the answer that we want to know.

What I heard on the other islands is that not all the paper was counted, so in this case, we actually counted the ballot, so that checked out, but it's a fractional piece, and you can't do a real audit fractionally.

It has to be a complete precinct, and we have a week to do this.

And what I was asking Mr. Nago before is we have people on those islands that can conduct that, and the excuse is that we don't have enough time.

We have plenty of time to do this, so I'm just asking to recommend to Mr. Nago that this is done without the ballot images and we count all the races on the ballot with the paper.

Other discussion?

Roll call please—Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Aye.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Is excused.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

What you got?

Anything else?

R, is the Deputy Attorney General going to ask her the—I'll do this.

Mr. Nago is going to answer this question.

I move to have the Deputy Attorney General answer in writing the legality of writing a certificate of election for the governor and lieutenant governor prior to the 2022 election being certified.

Is there a second?

Second?

Discussion?

So this is the same question we asked Mr. Nago: the certificate of election for the governor and lieutenant governor was signed on November 28th; the election was certified on December 16th, and we're asking the statutes specifically say that a certificate of election cannot be given until the election is certified.

On the day that Mr. Nago signed a certificate of election on the 28th, the Deputy Attorney General’s office wrote to the state Supreme Court and said specifically that it is illegal for Mr. Nago to do this.

And so I would just like the Deputy Attorney General's office to weigh in on this, and it is an important question.

I hope there's no vote—no votes on this, so I hope everybody votes yes.

Thank you.

Discussion?

I think part of the discussion has to be the facts behind this. There have been a lot of representations made about what was done at any particular time and what the definition of certification is and so forth.

And given that this is a new issue, I think the AG would have to weigh in on both the facts and the law if it were to do that.

Concur; that's what we're asking—concur?

That'd be great.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, what—sorry, it wasn't clear for you asking to answer that; you said Scott, and then you said the AG, and it wasn't clear to me.

You're asking—we've already asked Scott that, and we're asking the AG to weigh in.

Other discussion?

Roll call—before roll call, can I just have you repeat the motion so I can have it recorded properly?

I move to have the Deputy Attorney General answer in writing the legality of writing a certificate of election for the governor and lieutenant governor prior to the 2022 election being certified.

Roll call—Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Aye.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No, because I think it assumes facts that we haven't established to be the case.

Commissioner PAP?

Excuse.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

The facts will come out; what you got, anything else?

R, yes, I move to recommend to have the Chief Elections Officer certify that the statutory requirements of HRS 11155 are met prior to certifying an election.

Is there a second?

Second?

Discussion?

So what we've seen in this box of letters and what people are saying is that there's a lot of things that are written in the statutes that aren't being followed: chain of custody, signatures, and we're just asking as a commission to remind Mr. Nago to look at all of these items in order to certify an election.

So if there’s no ballot box collection, chain of custody—not a little bit—if there's none, I don't think he should be certifying the election.

So we’re advising him to follow 11155 as it is written because it’s not being followed right now.

Other discussion?

Ask for a roll call—Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal?

Excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Four. What else you got, Ralph?

One last one, thank you.

I move to have the over/under report be compared to how many ballots the county collected and handed the state by precinct using the chain of custody forms generated from the counties.

Second?

Discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, the over/under report is established to—it's supposed to compare how many ballots were counted and how many votes were counted. In 2020, the island of Kauai had a 3,379 ballot count discrepancy, and we never resolved that.

We just say it was miscounted, this, that, but this spreadsheet that the county of Kauai produced should be the basis of the over/under report.

We can't have an over/under report of what the computer counted and what the computer produced.

We need to have an independent count to compare those two items, and right now, we're not comparing what the county—the county is not even declaring how many ballots they're giving to the state, and that's—it’s been completely centralized.

In the old days, a precinct would count all of their races, report to District; the district reported to the County.

Right now, they're just giving a stack of ballots to the state, and then the state says, "You gave us this many ballots."

It should be the other way around—it's basic accounting principles.

They should—the county should report, as they're giving to the state, how many ballots they're handing over.

Other discussion?

Ask for a roll call please.

Commissioner Andreon?

Aye.

Commissioner Kena?

Aye.

Commissioner Kush?

Aye.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Is excused.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

What else you got?

Anything else?

R, what happened to that motion?

It died; didn’t get five votes.

That's all I have.

Can I ask second that motion?

Aino?

Oh, okay.

I think they were saying at the same time; we got five minutes left for Scott's primary election metrics.

Yes, I'm going to have to apologize on that because we just wrapped up the election, so I have to go back to get the more finite numbers from the counties of how many B received, how many...

So I'll have to get back to you on that, okay?

Are there any other questions for Scott before he gets out from under the hot seat?

I have a quick question for Mr. Nago, Chair.

Yes, Dylan.

I understand in response to Mr. or Mrs. Deb Wier's two-year-long request, we're finally doing that audit in District 37.

Did you receive her request to preserve the ballot box for the record for this—for District 37 past the September 8, 2024 date?

Yes, I did, and I believe the commission also made a motion, and I also did say that I would not destroy those records.

Okay, great; I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you so much.

That's the end of my agenda.

We'll adjourn the meeting.

Supp, to vote to—yes, right off the door—nice sitting beside you.

Okay, nice to meet you again.

Extinguish.