Elections Commission Meeting - January 15, 2025

Thank you, Commissioner Kushy. Can we test your audio and video, please?

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Commissioner Young. Can we test your video too, please?

Say once again.

Oh, I just wanted to test your audio and video. I can see you now. Thank you.

Testing, testing, testing. Are we supposed to be able to see everybody on this view right now?

No, there was an issue with people exposing themselves with the view, so we blanked out everybody. We'll allow the speaker, whoever the speaker is, to be present.

It's 10 o'clock. I'd like to call the meeting to order. I'd like to ask for a roll call, please.

Is that Jezelle?

Yes, it's me. Thanks.

Okay, Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Commissioner Andreon?

Here.

Commissioner Aino?

Here.

Commissioner Kush?

Here.

Commissioner Kada?

Here.

Commissioner McAdam?

I'm here.

Commissioner Amp?

Here.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

I don't think I see her in here.

Okay, excuse for now.

Commissioner Young?

Here.

Okay, you have quorum, Chair.

We have a quorum. Approval of the written minutes of the October 8th meeting. Would entertain a motion to approve?

Here. I reviewed the written minutes, and there are a few places where there are some things missing.

Okay, I'd like to put the minutes on the agenda, and we can make or amend them on the floor. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve, and then we can amend them on that motion.

So first, I would entertain a motion to approve the written minutes of October 8, 2024.

I canose that motion.

So McAdam moved to approve the minutes of October 8th. Is there a second?

Second.

Oh, second.

Third.

Thank you.

Now, Ms. Aino, you had some corrections, some additions.

At some points in time, there were some occurrences that were not recorded. For instance, I didn't record the time, but it was sometime before the 10:35 time slot where Mr. Nago was asked by you and answered regarding agenda item number four.

I think it was sometime after 12:48 p.m. in the minutes. 11:07 was the last that I recorded, and 11:23, we were adjourned.

And these are for the minutes of October 8th.

I'm sorry, this is regarding December 18.

I got a question. Was there a letter sent in to the OIP on the Sunshine Law violation?

There were two Sunshine Law violations, and if a letter was sent, I referred to the written minutes and the recordation as a response.

I'm not sure. I'd have to go check on that one.

So following the meeting, we're talking about the minutes of October 8th. That's what I'm referring to, Chair.

Are there any amendments to that?

I'm entertaining amendments to the minutes of October 8th.

Hearing none, I would ask for a roll call vote to approve the minutes of October 8th.

Okay, Commissioner Andreon?

You're muted.

Dylan, you're muted.

Hold a thumbs up for yes and a thumbs down for no.

Okay, no for Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kush?

No.

Commissioner Kada?

Yes.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Amp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Still excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

And Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Okay, so the minutes of October 8th were approved.

Now we're on the minutes of December 18th. Would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of December 18th?

I move to amend the minutes, Chair.

Let's get the minutes on the agenda, and then we can amend them.

Would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of December 18th?

I move to approve.

Second.

And moved and seconded to approve the minutes of December 18th. Are there any amendments?

Yes, Chair. Changes.

Okay, Ralph.

So the end of item four should be item five, and the topic was whether to request ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties.

The Chair said that the only thing we can do with this item is resend it.

The Chair said, "I will entertain a motion to resend ballot box chain of custody documentation from the counties."

Commissioner Kush made a motion to subpoena ballot box chain of custody from all the counties for the 2024 general election, including Dropbox and USPS collections.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Andreon.

The Chair stated that the motion was out of order and that Commissioner Kush was not recognized and that the Chair would only entertain a motion to resend requesting ballot box chain of custody documentation or go on to item six.

Commissioner Kush stated the Chair was violating Robert's Rules of Order 1.4a by not allowing full participation of members and that the Chair was dictating what motion was to be made.

A discussion ensued, and the Chair had Commissioner Kush removed for obstructing the agenda.

That was at what time?

That was for item number five.

Okay, I believe that was approximately 12:58 p.m.

Well, 12:58, 1:16 was the time from the prior action, so I don't see the timing there.

The second thing is in our investigations, I asked the Attorney General whether we had subpoena power, and the answer was no.

I don't think, as I understand it, we don't have subpoena power. We don't have the authority to subpoena and require the attendance or the response.

So what do you want to change here, Ralph?

Well, the point of it is that you were allowing only one motion to be made, and I made a different motion that you had asked for.

I motioned to subpoena, and you said that I was out of order and that the only thing we could do was resend asking the counties for chain of custody documentation or move on.

Then I said you were violating my rights under rule 1.4a, and then you had me removed.

The minutes are saying that I was repeatedly making motions, and that's not true.

I made the motion once. You told me I only could make the motion you wanted or move on to item six.

So you recorded that you were removed from the meeting for obstructing the agenda?

I want it reported that you were only allowing one motion to be made, and that was to resend the ballot box chain of custody from the counties.

When I made a different motion, which was to subpoena the information, you said I was out of order and that we were only going to entertain a motion to resend or move on to item six.

I said that you were violating rule number 1.4a by not allowing me to participate.

We had a motion and a second on the floor, and that's what the meeting needs to reflect.

The minutes need to reflect that as the true reflection of what happened.

So how would you word that to amend the minutes?

I will just read it, what I said, so I can send this in.

So is that a motion to amend the minutes?

Yes.

Or change it?

Yes.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair, go ahead.

So we're voting on this because we've been voting. The commission has been voting to change the minutes of what is really happening.

The statutes say that the meeting minutes are to reflect accurately what happened in the meeting.

So somebody can't be required to go look at the video for three hours or four hours, whatever it is, that they can read the minutes and get a true reflection of what happened.

I'm just asking to have a true reflection of what happened in the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other discussion?

Are we dealing with every addition separately? Because I have several I wanted to make note of.

Yes, each amendment is discussed separately.

Is there any other discussion on Ralph's motion to amend or change the minutes?

We entertain a roll call.

Okay, Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner Amp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Still excused.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

No.

Motion missed.

Aino, what changes or additions did you have to the minutes?

Okay, it was approximately sometime before 10:35 where Mr. Nago was asked by you to answer that question regarding the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General that was not included in the written minutes.

It is shown in the recording, but as Commissioner Kush has said, why would we require interested persons to go through all of the video when they can view it in the written minutes?

So I would want to add the fact that you asked Mr. Nago, you were asked his opinion about that item number four, and he answered it, but it's not reflected in the minutes.

And there are several other places, but you're saying we're treating everyone separately, each amendment or change?

Yes, I'd like to address individually from these written minutes.

So item four, what did you want to add or subtract from item four?

To add Mr. Nago's response to your question to reflect that in the minutes.

And the question was his opinion on whether, let me see, is that for the Chief Election Officer, whether he has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of in-person voting?

And he answered no, but it doesn't reflect that in the minutes.

Okay, so the first paragraph of item four of the minutes December says whether to request the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion on whether the Chief Election Officer has the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of in-person voting at the precinct with voter ID.

The question was asked of Mr. Nago, and he responded no.

So that would be your addition to the minutes?

Yes.

Okay, you got that, Jezelle?

Yes, I got it.

Okay, I'd like to need a second.

I need a second for that.

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair?

Yes, go ahead.

So chapter 92-9 in the minutes says minutes shall give a true reflection of the meetings of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants.

So what the commission is voting on is not to have a true reflection because it doesn't meet their opinion.

So the opinions are different from what really happened, and they may be against something happening, but if it happened in the meeting, it needs to be reflected in the minutes.

And for my case, you just voted to not have the true reflection of what happened in the meeting, and you can go back and listen to the recording.

And as Ms. Aino is saying, go back and listen to the recording, but we're asking for a true reflection of what happened in the meeting, and that should be a simple yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're discussing Ms. Aino's motion to include Scott Nago's opinion and the answer of item four.

Is there any other discussion?

Can we hear any opposition?

Discuss question.

If there are interested parties that are going to be voting against this, I'd like to hear their insight as to why.

If not, we'll all be voting yes.

It sounds like that's why we take a vote.

The motion is to amend the motion to add to the minutes that Scott Nago was asked this question in item four, and his response was no, he does not have the authority to change the voting method from mail-in to day-of.

Yes, ma'am.

If there are no votes, those of us who express yes votes would appreciate the Commissioners' reasons for voting no, not just the no, but explain why they're voting no.

Thank you for your request.

Is there any other discussion on this motion?

Ask for a roll call.

Okay, Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kada?

Yes.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Amp?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Sorry, I muted. Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Okay, are there any other amendments or changes to the minutes of December 18th?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

What item are you addressing?

There are so many here. I'm trying to limit my additions.

Hold on just a minute.

At 12:45 p.m., the Chair offered to skip over items four through nine, and at that point, this is when Commissioner Papal Liu's motion was not noted in the minutes, which included Mr. Kush's comments on Robert's Rules of Order.

So I would like the Office of Elections to include her motion, which was not noted at that point in time.

So what specific part of these minutes are you addressing?

So I see Ms. Papal Liu made a motion to reiterate item five to get it passed in a legal meeting, but the motion died for lack of a second.

I show that at 1:18.

What other motions did she make?

It was around 12:45 p.m.

Okay, it was just before I made the motion to resend the request, but that her motion at that point in time was not noted in the written minutes, nor the discussion.

I show a motion that wasn't seconded.

I don't see a motion that was seconded and discussed.

Why would it not be noted even though it wasn't seconded?

It should be shown in the minutes.

There was one at 1:18.

Excuse me, no, that's way before 1:18.

That's approximately 12:45 p.m.

I show time up to 1:04 on page seven, and then the individual testimonies.

I don't see the timing on that.

I see Commissioner Papal Liu joined the meeting at 11:18.

I don't show anything.

I don't show it on the minutes.

What motion did she make?

It's not shown in the minutes, but it is recorded in the video.

That's my point.

Okay, it's in the video but not recorded in the written minutes, and it died for lack of a second, or was it voted down?

I did not write the specifics, but I just wanted it included in the written minutes, and that was at what time?

Approximately 12:45 p.m.

It was in between your offer to skip over items four through nine and before my motion to resend the request for the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion.

That was on page six.

On page six, the bottom.

Okay, I got page two.

12:48 is when we re-motioned to—oh, the 12:48 was the request from the Deputy Attorney General to give an opinion regarding that we just discussed.

I don't—yes, my point is, Chair, it's not shown in the minutes, but it is in the video.

Okay, and that was at 12:45, between 12:45 p.m. and 12:58 p.m.

Sometime between that, I show 12:48 is the discussion on whether to request a Deputy Attorney General.

We'd have to look at the—unless you had specific language, and there Papal Liu had a motion that died for lack of a second.

Understand, is that right?

I believe so, but that should be reflected in the written minutes.

Concur.

We'll ask that that be added if this motion passes, but I don't know how come or where that didn't get picked up.

So is that a motion to add that to the minutes?

Yes, please.

Second.

Discussion?

I'll vote no on this and the presumably the additional efforts to amend the minutes.

The meetings are already four or five hours long.

We're at 23 minutes in, and we're discussing details in more time than those details actually were discussed at first.

I think it's tremendously inefficient to be doing things this way, and I would ask that in the future for any proposed amendments to the minutes that those be set ahead of time, both for efficiency purposes and so that we can actually go back individually and view the video to see if the proposed amendment accurately reflects what is shown on the video.

So while, of course, any motion can be made in this regard, I'm going to object to further efforts to amend the minutes in real time rather than giving us all the opportunity to review things ahead of time.

Thank you.

Other discussion?

Yes, Chair?

Yes, I'd like to add on to Commissioner AER Camp's.

We made a motion to share all the correspondence with the commission.

The motion on the floor is regarding these minutes.

I'm forward, and this is why we made a motion to share it out.

So what Commissioner AER Camp is asking is that we send in the minute corrections ahead of time, and I have been doing that, but my minute corrections do not get sent to the other Commissioners, and I do not get a reply that I even sent something in to the commission.

So I think Commissioner AER Camp's suggestion is really good, but in actuality, those letters do not get sent out, and they're not sent to the Commissioners, and I don't even get a reply that anybody got it.

So we need to change how the commission conducts business.

In the meantime, this is what we're left to, and so I am for her motion, and this has been created by the Chair and the Deputy Attorney General, and this needs to be undone.

We need to get correspondence to the Commissioners.

If I send something to the County of Kauai to all the council members, it immediately goes to their emails, and it is posted on site, and we should be able to do the same thing.

Anyone should be able to send anything to the Commissioner, and we should get it in real time, and that's not happening.

So I am for Commissioner Aino's motion, and this is the way we have to do it because this is what we've been forced to do.

Thank you.

Communicating with three or more Commissioners is against the Sunshine Law.

I cannot forward—I’ve been told that I cannot forward correspondence to the whole commission, even though it's public record.

I tried to get the attachment, the package to be cumulative added, that's posted on the website to be available to the public, and the commission, we cannot forward one letter to all the Commissioners without a Sunshine Law violation.

So the motion on the floor is to add the 12:45.

I'd like to add one more comment, please.

The motion on the floor is to add the 12:45 motion that failed for lack of a second from Ms. Papal Liu.

Is there any other discussion on this amendment?

Yes, Chair, yes, Ralph.

So to the point of being able to send this stuff in, there are other commissions and councils that are doing this.

That's not the topic we're talking about.

We're talking about the motion made by Aino regarding adding the one specific motion that Ms. Papal Liu made.

That's what we're discussing.

Yes, Chair, I'm discussing that very thing on the amendment.

You made a comment regarding Papal Liu's motion.

I would entertain a roll call on this motion to amend these minutes of December 18th.

Okay, Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kush?

Yes.

Commissioner Kada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner Amp?

No.

Commissioner Papal Liu?

Excused.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

No.

For a point of record, those minutes were just approved.

The next order of business is performance evaluation, or I'm sorry, I'd like to open public comment right now regarding the performance and evaluation of the salary adjustment Chief Election Officer and the biannual report of Elections.

If you have any issues to take to the legislature, I'd entertain testimony, and I'd entertain testimony on the performance evaluation and consideration of salary adjustment of the Chief Election Officer.

And we have several hands up.

Jezelle, could you herd these guys one at a time?

Yes.

First, if you would like to testify, please click raise hand under reactions on Zoom.

If you are joining us by phone, press star 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 three minutes to testify.

Once your time has expired, you will be asked to conclude your remarks.

The first testifier is Andy Crosslin, followed by Jamie Deweer.

Aloha, Commission.

Aloha.

I'm testifying today on the performance evaluation of Scott Nago.

This has been an ongoing issue for a number of years now, so for everybody that's been on the commission for longer than Mr. Young and Mr. AER Camp, they would be very aware of the malfeasance that has been perpetrated by Scott Nago.

I will attempt to give a brief summary of some of those things here in my testimony today so you know basically what we've got is that Scott Nago is constantly inverting the hierarchy of the Office of Elections, the Elections Commission, and the counties.

What is really the correct hierarchy of the system is that the Elections Commission is up top, and to be very clear, this is in the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

The Elections Commission is up top, then the Chief Election Officer, then the Office of Elections, and then the counties.

This is very clear when it states in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that the Chief Election Officer is an employee of the commission.

So what that means is that any advice that is given by the commission to the Chief Election Officer is given as the Chief Election Officer as the employee of the Office of Elections.

Sorry, the Elections Commission.

And so there has been numerous advice that has been given by the Elections Commission to your employee, Scott Nago, to take certain very specific actions.

For instance, the Elections Commission made a motion and approved overwhelmingly to not accept Hawaii into the ERIC program, the Electronic Registration Information.

But anyway, even the Chair, Mike Curtis, supported that, and Scott Nago even went to the legislature and was deliberately and knowingly insubordinate to the Elections Commission and even testified to the legislature that he supported us joining ERIC.

So that is just one example of very many examples of Scott Nago being insubordinate to this Elections Commission.

And so I also want to just help everybody understand that the Elections Commission is a very important role.

All the Commissioners here, you have a very important role, and you have been entrusted with the security and the administration of our elections.

And you do advise the Chief Election Officer, Scott Nago, but that advice, let me be clear again, is as his employer.

So what I would like to see today is for the Commissioners to take a motion in addition to an extremely poor evaluation of his performance.

I would like them to take a motion to fire Scott Nago and immediately start advertising and interviewing for his replacement.

I yield. Thank you.

Mr. Crosslin.

Okay, the next testifier is Jamie Deweer, followed by Chris Neff.

Ms. Deweer?

Aloha, Chair and Commission.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

I had planned to testify on another agenda item first, but I'll go ahead and state my reasons why Scott Nago should no longer be in that position of responsibility.

I'm going to cite HRS 3177 453, which is accountability and security of ballots, HRS 3177 61 security ballots and election supplies, as well as HRS 31774 453 accountability and security of ballots.

So I was an official election observer this past primary and general election, and while these observations took place at the signature verification center, which is run and managed by the county elections, the Chief Elections Officer of the state has oversight and responsibility for each county.

There's been some reply and response that, well, the county does their own thing, and then the state does their own thing, putting forth this perception that the state and county are separate.

But the Chief Elections Officer of the state is responsible for overseeing the operations of the county centers.

I observed at the signature verification center.

I was there on two separate occasions.

The ballots coming in from drop boxes, I asked if there was a chain of custody document showing how many ballots were picked up at each, and I was told by Mr. Rex Quila at the signature verification center that they don't have time or the manpower to do that count, which lends to, you know, not accountability.

And the lack of security for the ballots.

On another occasion, I was there as an official election observer to witness the transport of the ballots, and we observed mail PHS with envelopes in them.

When I asked how many envelopes total, I was told that we only had to verify the number of trays.

Each tray didn't have the same amount of ballots, so we were told to just sign and witness the number of mail trays.

That is inaccurate and again leaves another unsecured insecurity of the ballots.

So for those reasons and many others that I have cited at previous Elections Commission meetings, Mr. Nago should not hold that responsibility, and I would give him a performance rating of poor.

I thank you.

Ms. Deweer.

The next testifier is Chris Neff, followed by Nolin Chang.

Mr. Neff?

Thank you.

Like Ms. Deweer, I was prepared to discuss two topics—my concern about election consequences and also performance.

Since you've established this, I'll go to—I had six slides put together.

I'll go to slide number five in my slide deck, which I'm trying to get projected to you.

Aren't you able to see that?

No, sorry.

Okay, since I'm sure you all have an opportunity to pull my file down, slide number five had a title, "Provide Secure, Accessible, and Convenient Election Services to All Citizens Statewide."

I'm sure everyone on this meeting recognizes that as the mission statement for the Office of Elections.

And as such, from my perspective, performance criteria should be based on the mission statement.

I find the words secure, accessible, convenient, and all citizens to be the most important in the mission statement.

And as such, my assessment is based on those four elements of the mission statement.

When I look at performance criteria, one of the things that disturbed me about the December meeting was you went around the horn and asked each of the Commissioners to assess Scott Nago's performance, and you asked him for self-performance.

What I heard was subjective opinion as opposed to objective.

My opinion is that as you look at performance and evaluation, it should be based on objectives and not on subjective opinion.

Now, I have on this file a list of things that I would be most interested in from an objective perspective: the cost of the election, the number of votes versus the goal that we had established for the number of votes, results within 24 hours, irregularities identified, investigations initiated, issue resolution within 30 days, and standards met.

Those are the basic criteria that I think, as a citizen of the state and even the government, should be interested in trying to achieve.

My sixth slide is my takeaway slide as it relates to my vote on the Office of Elections.

First of all, I would say missing from my ability to do an effective objective evaluation is information about the accuracy of the process, the vetting of the candidates, the statistics promulgation.

Things that I believe are important are total state of Hawaii population, total number of eligible legal voters, registered voters, eligible versus regular age, so we're identifying how many people chose not to register that were eligible, how many votes were deleted or adjusted, ballots printed, ballots distributed, ballots not distributed, ballots voted, ballots rejected, ballots soiled, ballots destroyed, and ballots not distributed.

A collection of those would allow an auditor to get to the bottom of whether or not we truly had an accurate record.

Now, with regard to my vote, if we are based on mission, my mission assessment going back to those same four items—secure, I don't know what secure means.

Thank you, Mr. Neff.

I don't know what that is, so I'm not going to vote based on secure, but I will say accessibility based on my observations, I'll give you a grade of C.

Thank you, Mr. Neff.

The next testifier, please.

The next testifier is Nolan Chang, followed by Lee Trent.

Mr. Chang?

Good morning, Mr. Curtis and morning, sir.

My name is Nolan Chang.

I'm the Hawaii Republican Party National Committeeman.

My testimony today specifically focuses on the 2024 Kauai election.

In 2024, chain of custody was a critical issue discussed by your board three or four times throughout the year.

During the November election, not one of our counties adhered to the chain of custody rules in accordance with HRS 3 TAC 177 TAC 453.

The lack of chain of custody resulted in an initial overage of more than 3,000 ballots counted by the state compared to Kauai County, and then I heard there were 19,000 ballots counted by the state compared to Hawaii Island, which is a huge discrepancy.

The Office of Elections violated countless numbers of their own rules.

For example, rule 11 TAC 96 records of primal facial evidence.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that Kauai chain of custody was not primal facial evidence; therefore, there is no chain of custody.

The validity and accuracy of the Kauai election results must be questioned.

Violation of rule 11 TAC 98 forms and materials used in elections—there is no standard form for counties to collect ballots in drop boxes or the post office.

This is a lack of fundamental inventory control.

Violation of rule 11 TAC 108 counting of mail-in ballots—signature verification was not conducted in the presence of official observers.

Violation of rule 16 TAC 43—the procedure for ensuring the security of a container used to store or transfer transport ballots.

Voter verifiable paper audit trails, vote data storage media, and other sensitive election materials shall be as follows: one, made of suitable materials to prevent breakage; two, securable using non-reusable seals; a record shall be maintained to list the seals used to secure such containers and to provide an accurate chronological posting of seals used during the opening and closing of each container.

Election officials shall make periodic checks of the seals on such containers.

Kauai ballots transferred from the County of Kauai to the state county center were transported in unsealed cardboard trays with envelopes exposed on each end of the tray.

Violation of rule 16 TAC 43—the Chief Election Officer or designated representative shall maintain a complete count of Mark sense ballots.

All ballots shall be safeguarded to prevent mishandling or misuse.

Not one county has provided any records to comply with this rule, rule 16 TAC 3 T 177 T 505.

And I'm going to wrap this up in 10 seconds.

Voter service center watchers—Mr. Ralph Kushy reported violations that were threatened to be removed from the counting center.

Not one of his issues was addressed.

So in conclusion, board members, I'm asking the Election Commission Board to follow the rules, the rules of the Office of Elections, to adhere to your chain of custody process.

Two, we want to see your transfer documents.

Three, we want you to count the ballot envelopes and compare it to the final ballot count.

Four, we want strict adherence to your own inventory control rules.

And regarding Mr. Nago's performance evaluation, I want you to ask the thousands of people who on November 5th were waiting for hours in line in the rain what they think about Mr. Nago's job performance.

Mahalo for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chang.

The next testifier is Lee Trent, followed by Electra.

Lee Trent?

I see Lee Trent, but you're muted.

Hi, I'm sorry. I just put my hand down.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate some of the committee members that are for the people.

It's obvious just watching this video who is actually working for the people because you are the people.

The three people that I see here on here that are representing for the people, you are representing us.

So I thank you so much.

It's Ralph Kush, Anita Aino, and Dylan.

Thank you so much because it's obvious that you are taking your job seriously and taking us seriously.

So thank you so much for representing the people.

Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Trent.

The next testifier is Electra, followed by Gary.

Electra, could you state your full name?

Yes, my name is Jennifer Hunt.

Thank you.

Yes, I believe that I was going to mention the violation of rule by Scott Nago of HRS 3-17 7453.

It has been addressed here already a couple of times.

I asked for the chain of custody documents many times for the County of Maui.

I asked via email.

I made myself clear when it was not clear, the Deputy Clerk telling me that the daily totals were published on Instagram, and I then had to reply what I was really looking for was the chain of custody that showed things like the sign-off, the numbers of ballots being picked up, and so on.

Just like other people have testified here about, and I was ignored.

I put in a UIPA request for it, and it still has not been addressed.

The problem here is a lack of transparency, and we know this.

This is one example.

We know that the lack of transparency leads to people being suspicious of a process.

And we also here on Maui did not—we were not allowed to view the signature verification process.

So in the chain of custody documents, HRS Part B talks about the clerk maintaining the current count of all marks and spouts issued, spoiled, and received in their county.

And so my question would be then, when those ballots come in through the signature verification, what happens to those ballots that are maybe—they scan them in, the people already voted in person or whatever?

We don't have any chain of custody on these things, and so there's no transparency here.

When I asked to be able to view this signature verification process, I was told that we don't have that.

But here, HRS 1 D154 states that records, etc., disposition—the voted ballots shall be kept secure and handled only in the presence of representatives not of the same party or official observers.

So the official observers are asking for this information.

The people, whether they're official observers or not, should be able to have this information.

HRS is clear when it says that the Chief Election Officer is responsible to have these forms to maintain the complete count, and the clerks shall use these forms.

It's a very simple thing to give the public copies of these forms so they can track along with the ballots.

The fact that they don't have them or they're not disclosing them to the public tells me a lot.

It tells me that there's no transparency in our elections.

They're not secure.

They're not transparent.

Nobody who's paying attention to it believes the numbers that are coming out for the election because of this.

It'd be a very simple process to reverse that attitude or that mentality that people have about it with transparency.

It's clear to me that this board, a few members on this board, don't really care about that because they always vote no.

And why they vote no, they won't say.

Mr. AER Camp said something about the grievances and public not being able to hear these grievances.

Well, these grievances are actually from the public and not from the fellow members of the board, so they should be heard by this board because that is why this board is here.

This interchange between the public and the elections, and so this board is responsible for hearing the grievances of the public on paper or whether in this testimony as we are doing now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hunt.

The next testifier is Gary Cordy, followed by Ry.

Mr. Cordy?

You're muted.

Aloha, thank you.

I just want to testify on Scott Nago's performance.

This evaluation process by the Office of Elections is very important, and I wanted to pose a question, and then I have four points.

One, there must be some type of a review, an accurate performance criteria to determine whether or not Mr. Nago is doing an effective job, whether he should receive some kind of a salary increase, or should he actually be relieved of his duties in its entirety.

And the four points that I would like to make are:

One, Scott Nago required and changed Hawaii's voting process using COVID as an excuse to go away from the in-person single-day county-by-count ballot process to an all-mail-in election process.

His purpose and reason for doing so was, one, it would cost less money; it was going to save the state money.

Well, as it turns out, that has not happened.

The cost of elections has continued to increase each electoral turn, so that's—that hasn't happened.

That's not so.

Secondly, he said that the office—the election process itself would be more thorough and you'd have a greater turnout and higher voter participation.

That has also not happened.

On the contrary, voter participation has gone down.

There is more apathy, more suspicion, and less participation by the general public.

So that second reason to go to mail-in voting has also failed.

Third, Scott Nago said that the mail-in voting process would be accurate, it would be secure, and it would be safe.

The fact that we have these commission meetings that continually and redundantly call to question the authenticity, accuracy, and safety of the ballot process reveals that that has not happened.

And then finally, Mr. Nago included Hawaii ERIC.

I'm not sure about—I have no idea about what his purpose was for that, but once again, it takes the power away from the people.

The most precious component that we have as citizens in this state is the ability to have an honest and accurate vote.

I'm not a commissioner, but if I had an opportunity to place a performance review on Mr. Nago, he would get an F.

And in addition to would he not receive an F, I would require his replacement.

I would require his resignation as of this day.

I definitely oppose Scott Nago continuing as Office Election Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cordy.

The next testifier is Ry, followed by Janet Mason.

Ry?

What's your name?

Hello, my name is Ry Thornton.

I'm the president of my precinct for the Republican Party.

So you guys are addressing election transparency and the security of the ballots.

I run a small IT company.

This is all ludicrous.

There is absolutely no way that you can verify or trust anything on any computer anywhere.

There have been several people who have testified in front of Congress pointing out that electronic voting is easy to hack.

There have been several hackathons all across the country where teenagers with very little experience are often able to rig the vote on these electronic voting machines.

And it doesn't matter if you have a paper ballot if the paper ballot is then put into a computer, as it is in my district.

So again, this entire thing is an absolute farce.

I do want to thank whoever allowed the public to speak and testify here.

That's the first part of transparency on any of this that I've seen.

And I also want to point out that to the five of you repeatedly stonewalling all attempts at transparency or honesty, that includes McAdams and AER Camp and—is this Mike Curtis on my screen right now?

Is that who this is?

Yeah.

You guys are stonewalling the transparency in a constitutional republic.

This is tantamount to treason.

I don't know if you know what the punishment is for treason, but you are all committing treason by stonewalling the public and not allowing—by editing the minutes after the fact, as we've seen in this meeting, by not providing accurate minutes to the meeting, as we've seen in this meeting, by ejecting other Commissioners while they're raising issues, as we saw in the previous meeting.

This is treason.

So you guys should be very, very, very aware and careful about your own personal safety moving forward.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Mr. Thornton.

The next testifier is Janet Mason, followed by Carl Dicks.

Ms. Mason?

Thank you, Chair and members of the commission.

I'm testifying on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.

The League takes no position on the performance because it's a personnel matter, and we do not take positions on personnel matters because we don't supervise these people, and we're not in a position to know firsthand the scope of their performance.

But this is a situation where the public is trusting the commission to use high professional standards for the evaluation.

We want you to look at the broad scope of the election officer's duties and the specific responsibility of the job.

We hope you'll be as objective as possible.

At least two people have already brought this up, and we look forward to seeing the results of the evaluation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Mason.

The next testifier is Carl Dicks, followed by Doug.

Aloha, Commissioners.

Hello.

I've been following the elections here in Hawaii for quite some time.

2016, I would rate as horrific.

2018, worse than horrific, and it continues to slide down.

2018, 2019, or 2020, 2022, and 2024 are all substandard, sub-third world country, sub-fifth world.

I am currently in the process of filing with the United States Supreme Court at the unconstitutionality of our elections here in Hawaii.

In 1845, Congress established a uniform election day to standardize the selection of President electors across all states—one day, not a month prior to this.

States conducted elections over a 34-day period leading to concerns about fairness and potential manipulation.

Does that sound familiar?

And I have a short list of violations that I've accumulated.

This is just a partial list of the constitutional violations.

And then violation 11-2, 11-2 C, 11-17, 11-23, 11-41b, 11-12-42, 11-63, 11-64, 11-65, 11-77, 11-15, 11-40, 11-1-152, 11-1-154, 11-1-1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556, 12-21, 16-1, 16-2, 16-12, 16-12-4, 16-41, 16-42, 16-43, 16-45-1, 16-45-2, 16-45-3, 16-46, 19-3, 19-3-2, 19-34, 19-192, 19-3-38, 19-310, 19-312.

And that's not everything.

That's the performance of Scott Nago.

He should have been terminated long ago.

Years in, I believe it was in 2016, his solution to stacking the deck, if you will, was to run out of ballots so then they come in with mail-in ballots so they could fix that and cover that.

This is—there's supposed to be one-day elections, one day only, to get rid of all this garbage, to get rid of all this manipulation, to get rid of all this fraud.

And without a yield, thank you.

Mr. Dicks.

The next testifier is Doug Pasnik, followed by Andrew AER.

Mr. Pasnik?

You're muted.

There you go.

Waiting to be unmuted.

Thank you, Commissioners.

By HRS 1175, this commission is responsible for public hearing investigations, adopting rules, and evaluating the Chief Elections Officer.

And by HRS 1185, for an election review program to improve elections, which is non-existent.

In the past year, the commission has held eight meetings, nearly 29 hours of debate, and received complaints from more than 200 testifiers and hundreds of pages of correspondence.

What has the commission done?

You've discussed signature verification procedures wherein no observers are present in spite of the law, which requires official observers for all ballot handling.

And you passed a motion in June to adopt a rule to change this procedure, but you never followed through on anything.

There's no rule; there's no official observers during signature verification for another election.

You've acknowledged that ballot images can be manipulated, and you passed a motion in April to advise Mr. Nago to use paper ballots for all audits, but the audits with images continue for the mail-in ballots in our elections.

You've discussed chain of custody concerns for the entire year, passed two motions in April and August to request records from the counties, and a motion in March to adopt a rule to ensure chain of custody records were certified on penalty of perjury, but you never followed through on anything.

There's no rule, and there's no records.

Now, the people in our last election have witnessed an election wherein the number of mail-in ballots exceeds the number of envelopes in a mail-in election, and there's no chain of custody records showing where more than 3,000 ballots in Kauai and more than 19,000 ballots in Hawaii came from.

Maui says they have no records for chain of custody.

Is the commission concerned?

You passed a motion to oppose joining ERIC and then watched Mr. Nago testify twice to the legislature in support of ERIC and tell multiple senators and representatives that the commission only advises him what to do.

You'll recall it took four votes to reappoint Mr. Nago in February and March after nine to one testimony against Mr. Nago's reappointment and after receiving evidence and testimony of past election certification failures.

The commission voted against advising the Chief Elections Officer to certify the election in accordance with the law.

Did any Commissioner even attend or observe County or counting center operations during the last election?

Mr. Curtis, your commission is under three separate investigations by the Attorney General's office for violations of the Sunshine Law and now upon request from Representative Garcia for your abuse of power in ejecting a Commissioner from the last meeting and to one simple question that was asked of the Deputy Attorney General regarding how it was possible to sign a certificate of election before the election was certified.

You rescinded the motion to answer a simple question.

Now you'll debate likely in private a performance evaluation for Mr. Nago and a biennial report that will go to the legislature.

You know quickly forget these issues and concerns of the people.

We have not forgotten them.

Your commission is a sham.

You didn't find the courage to step down, and I pray that the remaining Commissioners see what's obvious to the people and have the moral courage to act and tell the truth about Hawaii's elections.

I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Pasnik.

The next testifier is Andrew AER, followed by—oh, I believe Commissioner Kushy has his hand raised as well.

Oh, Kako, Andrew AER here from Maui Freedom TV.

I am really, really angry right now, so I'm just going to take a deep breath and try to be as polite as everyone else here has been.

Shame on you, Mike Curtis, for not stepping down.

Shame on Scott Nago for not stepping down.

Shame on everyone here who has been complicit in that.

Shame on you, Jeffrey Esquire AER Camp, for trying to use fear manipulation to limit our First Amendment protected speech.

Yes, indeed, it is illegal and unlawful to violate our election laws, and there are indeed legal consequences for that.

And since you guys work for us—not you, Esquire, because you know our founding fathers didn't want Esquires or lawyers in government—but for all the government employees here, you do work for us, and you do answer to us.

And we're going to keep coming very lawfully, very peacefully, but very consistently to ensure that you do your jobs, period.

And we are not going to back down.

We're not going to be scared away, and if you get some Gestapo plainclothes police to arrest or to remove Ralph Kushy again or anybody who's really representing the people, then you know you're going to have lawful consequences.

I yield.

Thank you, Mr. AER.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Kushy has his hand raised, Chair.

Is he in line with the speakers, or is he the next speaker?

He's the next speaker.

Thank you.

Ralph?

Thank you, Chair.

So I'd like to read to you 11-2, the Chief Elections Officer's duty.

The Chief Elections Officer shall supervise all state elections.

Okay, Cambridge Dictionary definition of supervise means to watch a person or activity to make certain that everything is done correctly.

Now I'm just going to talk about the bare basics.

We've been speaking about chain of custody.

We've been requesting chain of custody.

What is the purpose of chain of custody?

The purpose of chain of custody is to make sure that ballots are not either being added or subtracted illegally through the process.

In the Office of Elections website, there's a question and answer under voting security: how do you ensure elections officials don't throw away our ballots?

And the answer is ballots are always transported and processed in the presence of official observers.

Official observers serve as eyes and ears of the public and monitor that election officials are maintaining the security and integrity of elections.

Additionally, I'm going to repeat this: additionally, the number of ballots received and counted are reconciled at the end of each day to ensure there are no discrepancies.

I was at the counting center, and I asked the head of the counting center would he be looking at the chain of custody and reconciling them with his counts, and they freaked out.

And I got a letter from the Office of Elections telling me that I was going to be removed for disrupting the operations.

So that's the sign of what they're doing to anyone who has questions.

I was simply asking for chain of custody, and it freaked everyone out.

Now what's happening, and what we've seen through the documentation that we have received—and we have received less documentation than is out there—so Kauai submitted some of it, Big Island has submitted some, Maui and Oahu have still not given us their chain of custody documentation.

The counties are receiving less ballots than the state is counting.

So through the Dropbox collection and through the postal collection, they are keeping track.

Okay, that number is increasing at the signature verification process where, believe it or not, no observers are allowed to be.

Okay, so that number is increasing, and then when those ballots are taken over to the state counting center, observers are not allowed to count the ballots that are being transferred.

They are told to count the number of trays, and I was at the counting center every single day that they were counting ballots, and I witnessed the transfer of these ballots.

And the observers counted trays.

They were full trays, half trays.

There was a cardboard box; the envelopes were sticking out on the sides, and you could not tell how many ballots were in each tray, and they varied by hundreds of ballots in each tray.

So again, the chain of custody was broken.

Ballots were added into the signature verification, and we believe it's electronic.

Now when it comes to the audits and the counting center, the counting center puts stacks of ballots into the machine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me finish here.

Each stack of ballots, you don't know how many ballots are there when you do the audit.

The audits are done with ballot images, and you never have a physical count of the ballots.

Chair, your time's up.

We need to let you talk at the end, another three minutes at the end of this.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next testifier is Wallen Christian, followed by Shami Okada.

Wallen Christian, please.

Good. Can you unmute?

Mr. Christian?

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

It's Ms. Christian, Chair.

I'm sorry.

Yes, now we hear you.

Hi, sorry.

I'm legislating, so it might be a little noisy.

So get to a quiet area.

I was not a volunteer observer.

I heard many testimonies from a lot of people, and you know, it's unfortunate because the people just do not trust him, and he has failed the people on many activities.

I will tell you this: the boxes, the drop-off boxes, I remember when it was supposed to be collection day.

We drove around and watched, and they did not stand to the 7:00 p.m. time.

What they did was they collected earlier, so those that did drop it off between—and let's just give an example—6:30 until 7:00 p.m., their votes because it was not picked up.

There's just many things that I—you're going to hear.

I don't want to be reactive on what's being said.

However, the number one thing is that I'm not getting any audio.

Is anybody else getting audio?

I hear her.

Sorry.

Sorry, Ralph, can you hear me?

For some reason, we're not getting audio.

Getting odd audio.

Very sketchy.

Yeah, a better face.

How's that?

That looks better.

Sounds better.

I cannot hear anything.

Chair, I can hear loud and clear.

Next speaker, please.

Okay, the next speaker is Shami Okada, followed by Robin McCree.

Shami Okada?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

First, I want to address Mr. Curtis as a chairman.

I'm a 65-year-old woman that was raised in the era that we need to be courteous to other people.

I noticed that you address different members of your committee or board differently, some by first name and others by Mr. So-and-so, Ms. So-and-so.

I wonder why that's so.

That shows—I’m not going to judge your intention, but it seems disrespectful to me.

And now I'm addressing Mr. AER Camp.

Mr. AER Camp, you threaten the public by saying that we threaten you.

But let me make sure you know God does not listen to us.

We listen, and we obey his law.

So as an intercessor, I pray that you will not be stricken, but if you don't do what's right, God will do what he deems right.

So I would urge you to do the right thing and listen and show care for the public opinion.

And I also want to address the issue about the job evaluation of Mr. Nago.

I once worked for a bank, and I'm sure you all do.

If your bank did not have good inventory control on the cash that moves from a branch to wherever it goes, I think you guys are going to be in big trouble.

So they do have very strict control on what leaves the branch or what comes into the branch and use reusable bag reports on what's contained.

And we don't go by how many bags left the branch.

And they have audit departments, they have security departments, they have personnel departments, and they have financial officers that keep track of the spending and then the planning and budgeting.

All of those things are met by people whose jobs are evaluated, and then there's a CEO, the president that oversees those things.

Well, Mr. Nago is in a position to oversee all these important aspects of something that's even more important than the money.

Each ballot is very valuable, and yet his disregard or lack of care on these issues to me tells me that he really doesn't deserve to stay in the job.

So therefore, I urge Mr. Nago to step down immediately and that you as commission members do not give him any raise because I have not seen him do a job or supervise units that are supposed to do a job well.

So thank you for the time.

I yield.

Thank you, Ms. Okada.

The next testifier is Robin McCree, followed by Rosemary.

Aloha.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm at my Rotary meeting.

Oh boy, sorry.

What Carl said about Scott Nago, I'm not sure if I'm saying his name properly, but I ask that he steps down.

And then for the people on the board, I don't know how many of you might be Rotarians, but we have a four-way test.

And the first one is, is it the truth?

Second, is it fair

The reason why we already have our own Elections office is to leave the county to the county, leave the state to the state. The county has more jurisdiction than the state. We don't want the state to have jurisdiction in our county. They've proven time and time again they're not for the people. This is wrong. I would like, I guess everybody on this meeting would like, all those guys that are voting against Ralph, Dylan, Papu, Lio, and Aquino. It seems like these are the only four people that know what's right and what's wrong. The rest of you guys, shame, man, shame on you guys. We want to hear your explanations on why you're voting the way you're voting because it does not make any sense. We're trying to correct the wrong that has already been written by people like you guys. Thank you, Mr. Madas.

Next speaker, I think looks like Mary Healey's back. Yes, the next testifier is Mary Healey, followed by Noella Bonon.

Missy, hello, can you hear me? Yeah, hi. Okay, perfect. I'm here to testify about Scott Nago's performance. I actually started coming to these meetings in February of 2024 because I was really concerned when Scott Nago tried to push HB 132 through. You know, I share a lot of the same concerns as Gary Cordy, Andy Crossin, Jamie Deweer, etc. I've been coming here to try and push the commission to do something about Scott Nago because I feel like he's inefficiently running our elections.

There are several points that I agree with Gary Quter, but most of all, I feel that Hawaii should have in-person voting promoted. I think that I understood during COVID, but we are long past COVID. We are seeing the inefficiencies of mail-in ballots, especially universal mail-in ballots. I just think that Scott Nago needs to be fired 100%.

I'm really sad also that when I went to vote in person, there were no "I Voted" stickers. What's going on with that? Why can't we promote everyone's right to vote in the state? This is the United States of America. Early voting and voting in person should be fundamentally protected.

The issues with chain of custody, the issues with, as other speakers have mentioned, the actual audit process, that's why I even got started in this. I want our audit process to have integrity. I want election integrity in the state of Hawaii. So I'm really grateful, Chair, that you listen to my testimony and that of the other people concerned from the state. I'm really grateful for the commission for hearing my testimony, and I hope to continue to work with you all at changing what's happening with the Hawaii state elections. Thank you.

Thanks, Miss Healey. The next testifier is Noella, followed by Jonathan and Margaret Lim.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for your time. I'm testifying that Mr. Nago needs to go away. It's been going on too long. Just do the right thing, Mr. Nago. You will be able to sleep better at night. A lot of people aren't happy with your job performance, so please, please reach into your heart and just go do something else.

Mr. Kuada, Miss McAdam, Mr. Uster Camp, Mr. Young, Mr. Curtis, I also ask all you folks to please consider why you are here. I know that you feel like you're doing something and you're participating, and that's good, but it's painfully evident to so many of us that you're not listening. You're not going to listen, and the smugness of you people is so not Aloha spirit.

We have a lot of problems with our elections, many, many problems. I don't understand why you folks can't lock arms with we the people. You're just like us. A couple of you sit there with smug looks on your face. What we say goes in one ear and out the other. You probably already prejudged us, but it's because I care about your vote too. I care about you folks, and I would hope that you care about me and the rest of the people in this room and out amongst our islands.

You have such a sacred, sacred thing that you get to participate in on your own volition, yet you work against us. I know you folks can do better. I know you can, Mr. Oster Camp, Mr. Kuada, Miss McAdam, I know you can. I truly, in my heart, Mr. Curtis, know you folks can do better. We're not asking for anything other than following the law under the Constitution of the state of Hawaii and the United States Constitution.

Please, I urge you folks, please sit down, have a sit down with yourselves, and really search in your heart what you are doing here because it's no, no, no. You don't want to work with us, which makes me question, do you truly know what the Aloha spirit is about? I say all of this pono with respect to each and every one of you, but I'm asking Mr. Nago, please step down. Mr. Kuada, Mr. Curtis, Miss McAdam, Mr. Oster Camp, Mr. Young, please step down and let somebody else do the job. Mahalo.

Thank you. The next testifier is Jonathan and Margaret Lim, followed by Bernard Lymer.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Uh, yeah, this is Margaret Lim. I just want to urge Scott Nago to step down. I was a candidate in this past election, and as I was door knocking, there were so many people who told me they don't want to vote because they don't trust in the integrity of our election system. So please step down. There are other candidates who are better qualified who would give the Hawaii state a peace of mind and confidence in our election process. Please step down. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Lim. The next testifier is Bernard Lymer, followed by Cheryl Beer.

Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Perfect. The next speaker is Cheryl Beer, followed by Wallen Christian.

You're muted. Thank you. Thank you. Can you guys hear me? Thank you. I have sat here for meeting after meeting after meeting, and we really get nothing accomplished here. The reason that we get nothing accomplished here is because we have the same four people fighting what we the people are trying to accomplish.

Mr. Kaat, you sit there and you have that smirk on your face constantly. It's arrogant. You're arrogant. Mr. Uster Camp, you're an attorney, and you sit there with a look on your face like you're terrified. The other two, I don't even know why you're here because all you do is vote no against everything. We're supposed to be working together to make things better, but you guys stick together just like the Democrats in Congress. Even if you know it's wrong, you're going to vote and stick together like that. That's not what we're here for.

We're here to secure our elections. Election integrity is the most important thing that we have because elections, the right to vote, is the most important thing that we have as American citizens. If you guys can't figure that out, then you need to step down. If there is a way to recall these commissioners, then somebody please figure it out and let's do it because we're not getting anything done anywhere, anytime, and it's really disgusting.

Why are you here? Why did you run? Please answer the questions we have been asking you. Why, why, why? What is the set purpose of you being here if you're not going to work with the 97 people that are on this call alone that are asking for your help? I yield.

Thank you. The next testifier is W and Christian.

Hi, can you guys hear me better now? A little better. Thank you. Okay, great. Let me try and make this short then. You guys still got some people. We've had too many problems with Scott Nago running the helm of the elections. I too ran for office in 2022 and 2024. I'm not going to blame that on not proceeding because I do believe that it was God's plan for me not to be in so that I can come to these hearings and other hearings and speak up on behalf of the people.

The unfortunate part is that Scott Nago does not listen to the people, and if he's not going to listen to the people, then he doesn't serve the people. Therefore, he needs to be removed. I'm not asking him to step down; I'm asking the commission to do their job and remove him from his seat because we've had too many problems in 2012, 2014, 2020, now 2022 and 2024. It's obvious that he has not done his job according to what his responsibilities are.

So I say it's the commission's job and responsibility to remove him because the people are asking you to do so. As far as for the commissioners who sit there, there are four of you, sometimes five of you, with you, Mr. Curtis, that vote against the people every single time. I'd like to know if the commissioners actually go out to their constituents that they represent and ask them what they want because I guarantee you the answer is no. For the four that do stand up for the rights of the people, I applaud you and I appreciate you, and please don't give up. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Commissioner Kushi has his hand raised again, and Rosemary Y has her hand raised again.

Yeah, so Ralph's the next speaker.

Okay, thank you, Chair. What I have in front of me is a set of goals that Mr. Nago sent to the Department of Accounting and General Services in January of 2024. I'm going to read off some of the goals that are on this paper. It's too numerous to read, but to provide secure elections, to provide election services statewide, to prepare, procure, and control inventory of election ballots for state and concurrently conducted county elections statewide.

This is prescribed by HAR 3-17-7453, chain of custody. This is one of his goals. We do not have any chain of custody documentation that is legit, and we're not comparing the chain of custody to the results. Now, in addition to that, he said that he's going to address election security and public confidence in election services.

Then on performance measure, customer satisfaction measures the number of election complaints and challenges received on the following each election. This data is important to determine how effectively voters have been informed of their rights and responsibilities and how effectively we have served their communities. This is from Scott Nago himself.

Now, I would be curious to know if he actually keeps the matrix of complaints. Now, back to my point on what's happening with the elections. There's no chain of custody, and this is purposeful. Votes are being added during the signature verification. There's no chain of custody again from the transfer of ballots from the county to the state. They're only counting trays, and then when the ballots are counted by a computer, audits are done using computer images, and this needs to be investigated right away.

I ask for the counties to step forward. You know your chain of custody is good, and you know your numbers are not jing. You need to step forward. This needs to be investigated, and if the commission discloses, we have a responsibility to investigate. This is a legitimate complaint, and you've been burying this stuff for a long time now. The public is obviously fed up. We've had everybody against Nago and nobody for it. You solicited all the counties to give testimony; only two counties gave you prago testimony.

So I'm asking the commission, we need to investigate chain of custody. The pieces of paper do not match how many votes they say were counted. We need to count the pieces of paper and compare that and see if the numbers match. So I urge you to take this on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krishne. I think Rosemary Y is the next speaker, I believe. There you go.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to speak to the topic of security of our elections. Time and time again, my information is buried in the minutes and never seen again. I've asked numerous times in public session to either affirm or deny a testifier who was Scott Nago's quote troubleshooter. It troubleshooter who went on record that quote most of the staff are CCP. That is election interference. Nobody has answered it. I've requested it several times. I'm requesting it again.

Scott Nago, I'm assuming that your employee is correct, that you have CCP, most of your employees running the IT department for elections. Unacceptable. I yield. Thank you.

The next testifier is Wolfgang Eer, followed by Nick Eric.

I think we lost Mr. Esther. The next testifier is Nick Eric, followed by Painkillers.

Barely hear you, Mr. Eric. Oh, lost you.

The next testifier is Painkillers. State your name, please.

Can't hear you. Still can't hear you. Sorry, I can't hear you. Still can't hear you, Painkillers. Don't know your name, but we cannot hear you. Could we move on to the next, please?

Okay, the next raised hand is Stefan Casne. Thank you. Sorry, Painkillers, we can't hear you.

Mr. CNE, and we just lost you. We allow one more speaker, Mr. Jerck Maderas.

Mr. Maderas, you're muted too. There, can you hear me now?

Can hear you now. Thank you. So other people are saying that the host is not letting them, not unmuting them. They want to testify, but they can't talk. I mean, I don't know. So Painkiller has been waiting, but he texted me, so I figured I'd try to raise my hand, but letting you guys know. Thank you guys for letting me right back in, for letting you guys know that they can't get in.

Thank you.

Thank you, Raina Laughlin. R. Laughlin once, and can everybody hear me?

Yes. I, um, Painkillers has been unmuted. Hey, Painkillers, state your name, please.

We still can't hear you. Please go on to the last speaker, Raina Laughlin.

Okay, next testifier, Raina Laughlin. R. Off, sorry, I can't hear you, Miss Laughlin.

Mr. or Mrs. Laughlin, can we move on to Nicolet?

Could you unmute Nicolet, please?

Nicolet, you're still muted.

Hello? Aloha, you there?

Thank you. Thank you so much for letting me speak a little bit here. I've been waiting to see if anybody else brought this up, but in the very beginning of this meeting, your board made some decisions, and one of them was to not have to respond to us and not to have to talk to us, the people that are your employers.

You had that you needed to be able to, you know, we, you're forced to hear us, but you're not, you know, imposed upon to actually answer us. I think that's just in the course of people. You know, we deserve to have a conversation with you all on the board, not just to be quote unquote heard and then never to be seen again or even listened to again unless it's another meeting where we have to sit here and listen to all these people say the exact same things over and over again, and then we go to our election and nothing has changed.

So I was very discouraged that none of my suggestions from last year were used at the meeting and at the voting polls. I want to go back to just going down to the street, going down the street and voting. You know, so many things, but there's no way that we people wanted to go all the way down into downtown Honolulu to vote. It was so ridiculous. Plus, this chain of custody thing is out of control.

Of course, we want to tell you guys that you all are fired, of course we do, but I think you really should reconsider and start opening up the conversation between us and you so that we feel like you're hearing us. You ask us questions. Some of these people that talked are very knowledgeable. They know so much about what's going wrong. Why aren't you having conversations with them? Why aren't you sending the paperwork that they're requesting for chain of custody?

These things, see, we can say that until we're blue in the face for another 20 years, but if you have no, if there's no legal way to force you to answer us, then what's the point? It's just ridiculous. This is ridiculous, to tell you the truth. I've spent my whole morning listening, and then here you tell us in the very first hour of the first hour at nauseum that you guys don't want to have that conversation with us, we the people. You don't want to have that conversation with us. You don't want to have to answer to us, and it is very insulting, really.

Many times I felt insulted when I get off my thing because you would just dismiss me, and I could feel it in the voice of the people dismissing these people today too, and the people that they, you know, yeah, go ahead, talk, and as soon as your three minutes is up, we're going to dismiss you and completely forget what you just said.

However, there were some people today that really brought the word home to you, and so of course, Nago's got to go. I would suggest that you open up the conversation between us, we the people, and your board and let us hear your answer to how you're going to fix the things that we're bringing up. Until you do that, I don't know what the world, you know, is ever going to be resolved here.

You've got to get rid of this person that obviously is not by the people and for the people appointed people. I just don't, I don't even get it. Then you bring in a lawyer that calls himself Esquire. Oh, give us a break. Aloha.

Thank you, Nicolet. Miss, we'll give you another try, another turn. Miss Okata, please.

Hello? Hi, can you hear me? Yes, ma'am.

I just texted Raina Lin, and she said that she can't get in because the host is not allowing her. So there's some either the technical things going on, or maybe the host needs to check with others that could help her because some of the participants are not being allowed to get in. It says not allowed to unmute. That's the message they're getting. Thank you.

Thank you. Please do something.

I don't think that's a message on our side.

So the number seven performance evaluation and consideration of the salary adjustment of the chief election officer. Because this is an employment matter, I would entertain a motion to enter executive session to have a direct discussion with Mr. Nago.

Entertain a motion to go into executive session.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to go into executive session for discussion of employee matters. It takes six votes to get into executive session.

I'll ask for a roll call.

We're discussing first, Chair.

Oh, yeah, okay, can discussion? I'm sorry, Dylan, go ahead.

I'll repeat what I said last time. We were evaluating Mr. Nago, and the discussion was around having this behind closed doors or in front of the public. I'm in favor of doing this in front of the public. I know last time when we looked through all the statutes and rules, it's not required that we do this behind closed doors. Scott can be evaluated in public, so I think we should do it in public. I'll be voting no against this. Thank you.

Is there a motion to go into executive session?

There's been a motion and a second to go into executive session. Other discussion?

This is an employee matter, and the employee has an opportunity to go into executive session and discuss with us openly.

Yes, Chair, I refuse to discuss with us publicly.

Chair, I would like a discussion, please, on the motion.

Yes, yes, executive session.

So the rules for going into executive session, this is a public evaluation, and there are no privacy issues that we're going to be discussing. We're talking about purely performance issues. We're not discussing Mr. Nago's sex life or anything like that. We're talking about performance. Is chain of custody being met? Is signature verification transparent? Are ballot audits done correctly? That's all we're going to discuss.

So the public has every right to hear this, and the privacy concerns of Scott Nago on having a poor performance do not trump the public's interest to know. Thank you.

Any other discussion on the executive session?

All those in favor of going into executive, or have a roll call, please.

Going into executive session, and I believe this requires six votes if I'm not mistaken.

Commissioner Andreon?

No.

Commissioner Kino?

No.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

Yes.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Uster Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papimo?

Excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

So that we fall short of the six votes required to go into executive session.

I can ask Mr. Nago if he's willing to participate in public.

Is Scott on the line here?

No, Chair, he's not on.

Oh, thank you.

I'm on the line. The answer to your question is no.

Okay, thank you.

So the public discussion without Scott Nago's participation is to give him an evaluation and consider a salary adjustment.

Are there, I would entertain a motion.

I move to remove Scott Nago.

Is there a second?

I believe he has a four-year term. He was appointed to a four-year term last year. I believe he's an N will employee. You should know that. I believe he's on a four-year appointment.

Do we have a second?

We do have a second for the discussion to remove Scott Nago.

Can I start the discussion, Chair?

Discussion, please.

So chain of custody, the most basic building block. We've been discussing chain of custody in every single meeting this whole entire last year. We don't even have chain of custody from all the counties. How can we reconcile the vote if we don't have chain of custody? That's the simplest.

Everybody I talk to in the public thinks that custody is being kept, and the counties are going and pretending to record votes. Is that committing fraud? Scott Nago is the supervisor of the state elections, and that means that he is in charge of seeing that they get done correctly.

I cannot believe that the rest of the commissioners are not even curious to know if any of the counties turned in chain of custody. Let's put that on the internet and let's compare what the chain of custody tells us. I contend that chain of custody is not being kept purposefully. They are adding electronic voters into signature verification, and this is a very serious allegation.

They're adding electronic voters into the signature verification when the ballots get transferred. The number of trays are recorded, not the number of ballots. Then when the ballots are counted and the audits are conducted, the audits are conducted with ballot images. So there is never a physical accounting of how many pieces of paper we have.

The county's chain of custody documentation is the only physical count, the only check on this entire system, and we don't have it. So I don't know how we can keep him employed, and it's not from a lack of asking. HAR 3-17-7453 says that Scott Nago is supposed to provide the document that the county records this on, and I have asked for it repeatedly.

It has been brought up, and he has still yet to this day given the commission the form that the county is supposed to record chain of custody documentation on. So that alone, he needs to be fired, and needs to be fired today. Thank you.

Other discussion?

Is there any other discussion?

Chair, I'd like to add to Commissioner Kushi's testimony, and I hope our other fellow commissioners will join us in voting to remove Scott Nago. One of the first things that I've encountered with this commission was the attempt to change language with the legislature so that we use ballot images, which is now what we're using because it was a way to circumvent what he couldn't get done.

That, along with the public testimony against enrolling in ERIC and the blatant disregard for the public saying that we shouldn't do that, and this commission, by majority vote of commissioners from both sides here, saying we should not enroll in ERIC, and the chief election officer deciding on his own accord to go against that advice.

I don't know what job, what vocation, where if your supervisor told you to do something and you went opposite of that direction, you would get a raise. There would be discipline; there would be some kind of consequence. The truth is this commission has not held Scott Nago accountable for anything.

Unfortunately, Chair, everything does rise and fall with leadership. I feel like, along with Scott Nago, there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the chair, and the chair needs to change as well for things to really change and for this commission to be effective and see things get done. So I'll be voting to remove Scott Nago today. Thank you.

Additional discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, Ralph.

May I just speak briefly before Commissioner Kushi with your permission?

Go ahead.

Yes, I'd just like to quote Hawaii Revised Statutes 11-1.6, item G. The chief election officer is an at-will employee. The elections commission shall provide written notification of any removal and state the reason for the removal. I'm for this. If it requires written notification, so be it. I'm willing to be a part of that. Thank you.

Well, yes, Chair. Thank you.

So the bigger picture here is that the people are the bosses, and for Mr. Nago not to be willing to sit in front of the public and address the public's concerns, that right there is ground for removal. It's not transparent. He can't face the people and say, "I'm doing a good job." He can't get up here and address my issues of chain of custody, and he's just going to let this get swept under the rug.

I would like him to address my issue of chain of custody. Why aren't we comparing how many ballots we collected to the number of ballots that are reported? It says that it's supposed to be done, and it's not being done. Why can't he address this to the people? It's very simple, and the fact that he can't be up there is very telling.

I hope the rest of the commissioners can see this because if a person who's leading cannot face the troops and explain to the troops what's happening, he's not a leader. He needs to be dismissed. Thank you.

Is there any other discussion?

I'd like to make a comment. How many races in this last year's election were contested for technical problems? How many races in the last election are questionable? He ran the election; the elected officers have been installed, and I don't think any of them have been contested. That's success in an election.

Any other discussion?

Chair, may I make a comment?

Certainly.

Has the Deweer issue in 2022 been addressed? That has been going on for many, many months where Miss Detweiler's request has not been addressed, and Chair, CEO Nago said it needs to wait until after the election. Well, it's after the election. Has that been dealt with? That's another thing. You talk about the contest between Miss Deweer and her opponent that required pay being paid attention to, and this has not been dealt with by Mr. Nago.

Additional discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, sir.

I would ask Mr. Nago to address my concerns with chain of custody right now. He has the opportunity to address this, and I would like him to address it, please.

Mr. Nago, is your option to appear or not?

Scott Nago, think he's already opted out.

I'd like Scott Nago. Are you here?

Yes, Chair, I'm here.

Would you care to answer that?

So I believe the chain of custody issue we've addressed with Commissioner Kushi before. We do follow the statute; we do follow the rules. It's his opinion that we don't, and that is, he's entitled to his opinion.

Could you supply the chain of custody documentation, and is it reconciled with the...

Excuse me, Ralph. Ralph, wait a minute. You can make comments, but we're not discussing with Nago his employment as he won't allow it in public. His opportunity, he can, we can go into executive session and discuss it if you'd like, but that was chosen against. We were just having a discussion; you cut it off.

All right, you have the floor for making a statement.

Thank you, Chair. I was just talking to Mr. Nago, and then you just cut it off. So he's obviously willing to attest this, but what he is saying, he has not given us the chain of custody documentation. So he needs to give us the chain of custody documentation for each county for the collections from the Dropbox and the post office with the backup to it.

Then we need to see how many ballots were signature verified, and then we need to chain a custody documentation for how many ballots for transfer, and we do not have that. He's saying we do, and the law is not being followed. All of these things, when I went into the counting center and I asked for this information, it was not given. Parts of it were given to me on the 21st of November.

Okay, this stuff should be posted on the wall daily in absolutely all of the county buildings. They should post it on the wall so it can't be altered, but we're not even getting it. He can say that they're following the law. Show us the proof that you're following the law. I got FOIAs in the UIPA, and they have denied giving me the information.

I can show you that documentation. The County of Maui says they don't have it, and Oahu is charging to get it. The Big Island is off by 19,000, and Kauai is off by between 611 and 4,000. We don't know what the number is yet.

So what I'm asking the commission to do is let's count the ballots, or let's count the envelopes. Excuse me, we're talking about Mr. Nago's ejection.

Yes, the motion on the floor, and I, and I, that's why I support him being fired because he hasn't shown us any proof of this. Where is it? We haven't been given it.

So can he provide this prior to the next meeting, and then we'll evaluate him? But he's had plenty of time. I've sent all the FOIAs in to you. Don't distribute them to the rest of the commissioners, but let's get that information first before we evaluate him.

I will dare you; he does not have that information, and you can challenge me. Prove me wrong; he does not have it.

The motion is to fire Scott Nago.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Chair, I'd like to make one more comment before we take a vote. I'd like to cite HRS 117.5. It says the duties of the elections commission. The duties of the elections commission are to, item number six, hold a public hearing on the performance of the chief election officer and consider the information gathered at the hearing in deliberations on the chief election officer's reappointment.

So again, I just want to echo, I feel like there's no reason why we can't compel. You are his boss. This commission is his boss. The public is his boss. He should be compelled to give the answers that we're asking to. That's where we get into bureaucracy, and we have to take a make a motion on all these things.

He should be compelled to answer the question that Commissioner Kushi is asking. It is a very basic question. It's within his dereliction of duties of running an election.

I think it's a mishap, Chair, for you to state that there has been no election contests with the election. We've had so many testimonies come forward, and so it just baffled me that you would say that and ignore everything that the public has already said. Thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion to fire Scott Nago?

I would like to hear yes votes that they're not going to vote for this and the reasons why.

I'll take a roll call vote now.

Okay, hear discussion on the yes votes, the dis-no. The discussion is on firing Scott Nago, and we're going to take a vote on that now.

We hear discussion from the other commissioners. You've only heard from one side, Chair. The public should hear from both sides.

I stated that the election was, there were no races that were contested, and the election wasn't challenged in court.

Yes, it was. Sounds like the election passed. The election was challenged in court. There were multiple lawsuits that were all thrown out.

I'll ask for a roll call vote on the motion to fire Scott Nago.

Chair, why are you against us? The opportunity to hear the others. It's obvious that they're going to vote opposite us. We want to hear from them, and the public wants to hear from them.

The discussion was an opportunity for all the commissioners to speak. Several chose not to; two chose to, as well as yourself.

So I'm calling for a roll call vote on the motion to fire Scott Nago.

Well, the vote should be yes from all of us if there's no discussion on a no vote.

Thank you, Dylan. Can I have a roll call vote on the motion to fire Scott Nago?

Yes.

Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Aino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

No.

Commissioner McAdam?

No.

Commissioner Uster Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papimo?

Excused.

Commissioner Young?

No.

Chair Curtis?

No.

So the motion to fire Scott Nago was defeated.

I would entertain a motion for any kind of salary adjustment.

Hearing none, we'll go on to the biannual evaluation of operations of elections, and this is where I see the meat of it. There are complaints that legislation can change and fix, and that we need to address the legislature that just came in session today of issues.

I have a couple of issues. One is the United States Postal Service. The Postal Service just closed down the Keia post office and quit delivering to multifamily units in Point Poo, disenfranchising some. I think the mail limiting our delivery to the U.S. Post Office eliminates other opportunities and really limits us with a declining service.

I don't think the USPS is servicing us correctly. The second issue I have is the unique identifying number of each of the ballots. Each ballot has a unique identifier, as well as on each of the envelopes that are returned with a signature. That unique ID allows technology to track your vote, to track my vote.

It's not a new thing. When we were on ballots, a ballot was issued, and on the poll book, the number of the ballot was reported next to your signature. So they are tracking ballots, and with ERIC and the other technological things, we cannot protect that information.

There's a unique identifying number on each of the ballots that may be required by the machines or may be required by the software, but I don't think our behavior should be dictated by machines and software compliance. I think we need to accomplish our own things, as what you've said is in-person voting by paper. I think that's a good idea.

Another issue that I have is signatures. How often has your $1,000 credit card charge with a line signature been challenged? Mine never has. Signature verification by machine, I don't think is accurate.

ERIC, we voted against ERIC because, again, major corporations are being hacked. We don't have the budget of these big corporations to prevent hacking of ERIC or any of our systems, so we have to be careful and cautious with our electronics.

Again, I don't think machines or programming should change our behavior. I think the machines should reflect our behavior and our requests so that our behavior, like in-person same-day voting, becomes an opportunity.

Are there any other legislative issues that we should be addressing to the legislature?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, Ralph.

So there's both. We're not following the books that are the laws that are on the books. So in our report, we don't even have basic inventory control. So how do we hold, who are we going to hold accountable for this? Are we going to tell the legislature that Scott Nago is not keeping inventory control?

How is this working? I'm thinking that's our job to have Mr. Nago have proper inventory control. That is the most basic building block. But you go, inventory control and reporting is critical.

So all of these statutes that are in place aren't being followed. HRS 11-198, uniform character as far as forms and materials. HAR 11-1-77453, which we've addressed numerous times, calls for Scott Nago to give the counties a form prescribed by him to the counties to document chain of custody.

I've been asking for that numerous times. Still hasn't gotten to us. So can Mr. Nago send us those forms? And then I would like the county, all of them, to send us the forms that they have filled out for the 2024 election, proving that they collected as many envelopes as they say they counted. That's very simple.

We have not seen that. So now this is not, I don't know how we go to the legislature. This is Kago's. We're on the legislature now. What can we take to the legislature that will help resolve some of these issues?

Well, we're going to tell the legislature that the laws on the books are too difficult to follow and that we need to do another type of voting system because none of the laws that are written to secure mail-in election voting are being followed right now. None of them.

So we need to go back to the precincts, hand count paper ballots. The votes are counted where they are cast, and there's no machines. That's what we need to do because the whole system we have is incredibly complex, and Mr. Nago and the counties have proven it's too tough.

Like Jamie Deweer said, they said they don't have the manpower to count the ballots at the Dropbox. That's all prescribed by law, and we can't do it. Let's go back to the basics: hand count the paper ballots in the precincts where they're cast. Thank you.

Now that's a significant point. The laws are too difficult to follow. Originally, the mail-in balloting was to be tested on Kauai, but the powers that be decided to throw the whole thing on the state, and we're learning from it.

So the law that the laws are too difficult to follow is something significant to the legislature that needs to be addressed, needs to be raised at the ledge. What other issues need to be raised at the ledge that would affect voting in the elections?

Chair, I think we need to address an issue that we continually keep coming back to. Again, if the laws are too difficult, what is something that's not being followed? Ballot chain of custody is not being followed, and because we're on this agenda item, I think we should take action.

So I'd like to move, I move to subpoena ballot collection chain of custody documentation from the counties, including Dropbox and post office.

We should inform, we don't have subpoena authority.

Yes, we do, Chair. We absolutely do, and you have the Deputy AG on the call, and he can attest to that.

I would ask the opinion of the Deputy AG on our, the commission's ability to subpoena and require performance.

So that I think would require specific statutory authority. I don't see that in the statute.

So just as a matter of terminology, I think, you know, it's not a subpoena, but I mean, you can certainly make a request of anything you like. We're advisory and requesting as a commission. We don't have the authority to dictate Scott Nago's behavior.

We can advise, like in that ERIC, we advised against ERIC, but his opinion is that the operations would benefit from it. That's his opinion, and that's our advice to him that he chose to act otherwise.

The subpoena power, I've asked that question before because of our investigations. Do we have subpoena power? Can I ask for these things and require their performance?

The answer is no.

It's 92-16. Give me a second, and I'm going to read it to you.

92-16, how power of boards to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and appoint masters. Any board, which term as used in this section means any board or commission of the state or any political subdivision of the state which is authorized or required to hold hearings for the purpose of receiving evidence shall have the following powers in addition to those provided for by any law or in connection to hearing to subpoena witnesses upon subpoena signed by the chairperson, acting chairperson, or any other member or executive secretary or executive officer under the board who is so authorized by the board.

The subpoena shall be served in the same manner. Do I need to go on, or can we say that we have subpoena power?

Mr. Leon, I bet he's looking it up.

92-16, I put it in the chat for us, but I mean, it's black and white, and it's there.

True, Chair.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I think I stand corrected. I had not looked that up before.

So to subpoena witnesses, the subpoena witnesses administer oaths to witnesses and require the testimony of such witnesses on matters germane to the subject under inquiry at the hearing. It just says witnesses; it doesn't say documents.

Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. It's the same thing. Come on, guys.

No, no, it is not the same thing. A witness is a person; a document is a piece of paper.

So what I hear you saying is you're going to vote against this. You don't want the proof that we have chain of custody documentation.

So I encourage you to vote for this. We should be, I'm not going to vote to do something that we don't have the power to do.

How can we make a friendly amendment, Commissioner Uster Camp, so that you will vote yes on this? Because it sounds like you want to, so that we can get chain of custody documentation.

How would you word this motion?

What is the motion on the floor?

The motion is to get chain of custody documentation from the counties, from Dropbox and USPS.

That is on the form that the chief elections officer prescribed, and to prove, and we're going to compare that to the number of ballots that were reported counted.

So the only legal way to get a ballot into the system is to put it in a Dropbox or a post office, but somehow we're getting more ballots in the signature verification than we collected, and we want to see the documentation showing the collections that prove that the ballots came through the system.

The item on the agenda now is the legislative issues. This may, this can, and this is a legislative issue because it's not being followed. You can craft this into a motion that evaluates operations of elections and report to the legislature.

What are we going to report to the legislature? We're going to send them this documentation that proves the election has been conducted correctly.

So that's the letter that I'm going to sign that sends to the legislature, and what's that going to say again, Ralph?

We're going to subpoena the documentation for the collection.

Subpoena documentation? You can subpoena people; you can subpoena the clerk.

Okay, well, do that.

Can we subpoena the staff?

We can subpoena almost anybody, I think, if you have reason and purpose.

Mr. Uster Camp, you might know better than I.

Yeah, I mean, it certainly has to have a good faith basis, and it needs to be part of an investigation. I mean, this is, and a hearing. I mean, it says any board or commission which is by law authorized or required to hold hearings for the purpose of receiving evidence shall have the following power.

So this isn't something that can just be done willy-nilly. It needs to be part of an actual hearing on that particular issue.

So we set something separate for this. We can start with that, and we can't go into it with false premises. It needs to be based on actual documentation and evidence.

So, you know, if we want to do that, we have the ability to have a hearing.

So you can't go on a fishing expedition, correct? You need to have substance behind your subpoena to have the person in front of you, correct?

Correct.

So, and some of these issues may be worthy of investigation and subpoena the clerks.

So, Chair, I'd like to bring up what Mr. Uster Camp said, receiving evidence. Okay, that's getting documents.

So we can do a subpoena to receive evidence.

So that's not what it says, and that's not what I said. It says for the purpose of receiving evidence. It says any board which is by law authorized or required to hold hearings for the purpose of receiving evidence shall have the following powers to subpoena witnesses.

So in other words, the hearing permits the board to receive evidence. The hearing also permits the board to subpoena witnesses, but the hearing and the statute do not by their terms permit the board to subpoena documents unless the attorney general has one at a time.

And please address the chair.

Yes, Dylan.

So, Chair, let's start with that base, right? I'd like to make a motion for the commission to investigate again ballot chain of custody.

I believe there's a motion on the floor.

That was my motion to investigate, to investigate the chain of custody.

Ballot chain of custody.

Second that motion.

It's been moved and seconded that we have an investigation into the chain of custody of the ballots.

M McAdam, yeah, I'd just like to ask, are we looking at all counties here? Are we looking at any in particular? It seems, I mean, seems very broad.

But that's the question that I have for the proposed motion.

So it appears there are four counties, and there are questions of chain of custody among each one. Is that correct, Dylan?

Yes.

Okay, any other discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, okay.

So we voted to have an investigation, and the signature verification process, and that basically got killed. You guys buried it.

So I want to set this up so that this does not get buried. I would like to, after this, have a concurrent motion to request the documents, and I believe we have the power to subpoena the evidence.

So I'd like to make a motion with that, and then we can sort out.

There's a motion on the floor, so you can make that after this motion. I'm for it, but here's why.

But we need to put in place a procedure that's not going to be killed.

Now, if you're talking about the motion for an investigation?

Yes, so I'm happy to lead this investigation.

And who's going to lead it?

Who's going to write letters to the counties, and how are we going to hold them accountable? Because I sent out letters on the signature verification, and none of the counties complied.

Let's stick to this motion first.

Okay, Jazelle, do you have the motion? Can you reread it, please?

Okay, if I'm correct, we're still on the motion to investigate ballot box chain of custody from the counties.

That's correct.

There's been a friendly amendment to it with what Ralph just said.

Sorry, Commissioner Kushi, can you repeat the amendment?

Well, we're not talking about the amendment; we're talking about the original motion. I need to know what original motion is on the floor.

The original motion is to investigate ballot box chain of custody from the counties.

Thank you, Ralph.

So we want to amend the motion.

So I move to amend a motion to request the ballot box collections chain of custody and the United States Postal collections chain of custody documentation as prescribed by HAR 3-17-7453 in accordance with that law and the transfer of ballots from the counties to the state.

There is a second to that motion, that amendment?

I'm sorry, second.

Thank you. Discussion on this motion, on the amendment to the motion to investigate?

Yes, Chair, can I be recognized, please?

Certainly.

So again, going back to HAR 3-17-09, it's an administrative rule, not a statute. That's the rule that states, quote, on its own motion, the elections commission may authorize an investigation without a pending complaint.

Two things about that: one is every administrative rule has to be authorized by a statute. It has to have a statute as its actual authorization. So if we look at the bottom of that rule, it says authorization: HRS 1D7.5.

I would respectfully suggest that this rule is not authorized by HRS 1D7.5. It goes beyond what the statute allows it to do, and I don't believe that the commission has the authority on its own motion to authorize an investigation without a pending complaint.

I would also say it's simply beyond the spirit of what it is we're supposed to do. We're not supposed to be going on fishing expeditions. We're supposed to receive complaints and then look into things. Thank you.

Any additional discussion on the amendment?

Yes, Chair.

Yes, in interpreting a rule or a statute, you're just supposed to use the plain language first. To read this and hear the words, and then to try to say that we can't do this, it's obvious that he's running deflection for this. The people have asked us to do this. Let's do this, please.

If I could be recognized, please.

The people have not asked us to do this. This is something that a couple of board members want to do. So I don't think that we should pretend that there has been a vote of the population stating that we should be doing this.

Again, we are going beyond. We would be going beyond what the intention is of this commission, going into a fishing expedition.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Young?

Yeah, I just have two concerns. First of all, the testimony has actually been very, very compelling and interesting. All the meetings I've been to so far, I don't agree with all of it, but I've learned a lot from it, and people's passions are quite evident.

My concern, though, is that in several cases, the allegations, etc., that we're kind of talking about, potential wrongdoings in the chain of custody, for example, have not been documented. To your point, Chair Curtis, have not, I don't see any time stamps on any of these locations.

But more importantly, I'm fearful that when we investigate, two things might happen. Number one, this investigation could string out for a long, long time. We're not talking something that's going to take a couple of weeks. That's number one.

So my concern is the length of this, and we're going to continue this discussion. But two, I would hate to have fingers pointed at individuals, to include Scott Nago, but left tenants underneath him and observers and voting workers, etc., post office employees, without some way to respond.

Because I think it's, we do the people, we're doing the people wrong by saying that this has not been done correctly.

Okay, specifics for me are real important, and my fear is that we're going to start pointing fingers back and forth. It's going to be a shouting match, all, I mean, outside of our commission here, and that also doesn't solve anything.

So, you know, Ralph, I commend you for this proposal, but my fear is that if we vote for it, it's going to get out of hand, and that's my fear.

So I yield. Thank you.

Miss McAdam, you have your hand up.

Yes, sorry. I guess to sort of reiterate what previous commissioners have said, I think if we have a wide investigation, even with the amendments proposed, I think it sets us up for failure because it is too large.

I think experience, any investigations succeed when they're specific, and I think if we had a specific violation, we could consider, and I think would give us all some time to think about if we could table it for the next meeting that we could look at it and consider it and narrow that down to a specific instance rather than something that's going to cover all the counties for, and which is so wide-ranging and potentially have no end or goal inside.

Thank you, Miss McAdam.

What is the purpose of chain of custody documentation?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, Ralph. No, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that the broadness of what we're talking about, I think, could become too broad and too engulfing of all of our collective energies. That's all.

That's what I'm saying.

So, you know, let me please, please keep your comments addressing.

Let me have, and Ralph, you have the floor.

So my question is, what is the purpose of chain of custody? The chain of custody is already supposed to be kept. The documents should be in the possession of the counties. The last time, the last entry would have been on November 6 when the ballots were transported from the state counting service after signature verification from the counties to the state.

All of this documentation is supposed to be bundled up somewhere, and it's just a matter of emailing it over to us, and then we go through it. It should be tallied on a sheet. It shows where each ballot came from.

In the island of Kauai, they go to Kell Neighborhood Center. They document how many ballots are there. They put a seal on it, they put a time, a date, and they go to the next one. All of that's documented. They have that information, and I'm just saying send it to us.

You guys are making it like there's this big, great big thing of getting these documents, and it's not. All this is a great big thing is that you don't want to expose that this is not being done.

And if it's being done, prove it to us, and that's what the public's asking. Prove it to us. Give us this documentation, and then we go, "Yeah, it's there." But when you don't let us look at it, you're asking for issues. You're asking for problems by not allowing us to see it.

So I encourage everybody to vote for this motion. The people really want us to get our hands on something that we can see, and I just ask everybody, please, this is really simple. When you tell them you can't look at it, it creates distrust.

So please vote for the motion. Thank you.

Other discussion?

I ask for a roll call.

Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Kino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushi?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada?

Yes.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner Uster Camp?

No.

Commissioner Papimo?

Excused.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Chair Curtis?

Yes.

So we'll ask the counties for their chain of custody documentation in accordance with HAR 3-17-7453.

Okay, is there anything else for the ledge?

In that case, I'll adjourn the meeting. That's the end of my agenda. Thanks for coming, thanks for your time, and thanks for the testimony, positive and negative. Aloha.