On July 11, Hawaii state representative Mark Nakashima died. He had been running for re-election and no one had filed to run against him in the August 10 Democratic primary. Nor did anyone to file in any other party’s primary ballot in that district, nor did any independent candidate file.
Hawaii is one of only five states that bans all write-ins in all elections. Because there is no write-in space, when only one candidate files, that candidate cannot be defeated. So, voters in the First State House District effectively have lost their ability to choose their state representative.
Hawaii election law provides that the new Representative will be chosen by the Governor, from a list of three Democrats suggested by the Democratic Party. See this story.
Typical for communist Hawaii.
Sounds like the Democrat national convention.
Someone should get an injunction to require the state to accept write-in votes on the grounds that by not doing so the state is depriving the voters of their power to choose their own representative.
The voters chose the governor, so what’s the problem?
But did they ever have a choice in the first place? Nakashima passing away only revealed the problem, but he was always going to be the winner given how blue Hawaii is.
Democrat governor, democrat representative. Seems like no problem.
Hawaii has been screwed since the Bayonet Constitution. And it just keeps getting worse: Sanford Dole, John Burns, Oren Long, Daniel Inouye…
A lot of people in Hawaii don’t pay attention to politics, even more than mainland.
In 1986 a Hawaii voter sued in federal court to get write-in space on the general election ballot. The voter lived in a district in which only a Republican was on the ballot. The voter wanted to cast a write-in vote for someone else. The U.S. District Court declared the Hawaii ban on write-ins to be unconstitutional. The state appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court. Then the voter appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case and upheld the Ninth Circuit decision. That was a stunning loss for the right of voters to vote for whomever they wish. Twenty State Supreme Courts had ruled long ago that the state constitution required write-in space on ballots, but the U.S. Supreme Court paid no attention to that and said the state had a compelling interest in blocking write-ins, in order to preserve “stability”, a term which the decision did not define. The decision was written by Justice Byron White, who voted against minor party and independent candidate ballot access at every opportunity, from 1968 through 1993, when he retired.
The story says that an unopposed candidate in the primary is automatically elected. Generally, when a deceased person is elected, it is treated as though the death had occurred after the election, creating a vacancy in office. In Hawai’i it sounds as if vacancies are filled by the governor from a list of candidates supplied by the party.
In Texas, a political party may replace a nominee who has died. A vacancy committee will choose a replacement for Sheila Jackson Lee.
A better system is to cancel an election when a candidate dies, and hold a special election.
@RW,
What does it matter if a state supreme court of some other state said that write-in votes were required under that state’s constitution? That other state is not Hawai’i’s boss. The idea that there is a constitutional right to vote for Donald Duck is Goofy.
The worst problem in Hawai’i is that someone who wants to vote for an independent candidate in the primary, has to forego participation in the Democratic (or other party) primary for other offices.
The real solution is to adopt a party-agnostic system like Louisiana, Washington, California, or Alaska.
No, it’s the standing count. No ballots, no need to write in.
@Richard I understand the Federal Government and the Supreme Court not wanting to interfere with how states run their elections, but it seems pretty insane the lengths the parties go to deny access to the ballot. From a strictly historical perspective, how did write-ins work when the Constitution first go into effect? Did anyone record that information? I feel like we need something similar to the Bruen Decision but for voting rights.
NOOO WRITE-INS = 14-2 AMDT VIOLATION
HAWAII CONST. — APPARENTLY NOOOOOO WRITE-INS VIA SEC. 4 – MERE LAW
Article II
Suffrage And Elections
QUALIFICATIONS
Section 1. Every citizen of the United States who shall have attained the age of eighteen years, have been a resident of this State not less than one year next preceding the election and be a voter registered as provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in any state or local election. [Am Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; am SB 41 (1971) and election Nov 7, 1972; am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
DISQUALIFICATION
Section 2. No person who is non compos mentis shall be qualified to vote. No person convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote except upon the person’s final discharge or earlier as provided by law. [Am Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
RESIDENCE
Section 3. No person shall be deemed to have gained or lost residence simply because of the person’s presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States, or while engaged in navigation or while a student at any institution of learning. [Am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
REGISTRATION; VOTING
Section 4. The legislature shall provide for the registration of voters and for absentee voting and shall prescribe the method of voting at all elections. Secrecy of voting shall be preserved; provided that no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election. Secrecy of voting and choice of political party affiliation or nonpartisanship shall be preserved. [Am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
CAMPAIGN FUND, SPENDING LIMIT
Section 5. The legislature shall establish a campaign fund to be used for partial public financing of campaigns for public offices of the State and its political subdivisions, as provided by law. The legislature shall provide a limit on the campaign spending of candidates. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS
Section 6. Limitations on campaign contributions to any political candidate, or authorized political campaign organization for such candidate, for any elective office within the State shall be provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
RESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE
Section 7. Any elected public officer shall resign from that office before being eligible as a candidate for another public office, if the term of the office sought begins before the end of the term of the office held. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
GENERAL, SPECIAL AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS
Section 8. General elections shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in all even-numbered years. Special and primary elections may be held as provided by law; provided that in no case shall any primary election precede a general election by less than forty-five days. [Am Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY
Section 9. A presidential preference primary may be held as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
CONTESTED ELECTIONS
Section 10. Contested elections shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in such manner as shall be provided by law. [Part of §5, ren Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
CANDIDATE/INCUMBENT REPLACEMENT LISTS FOR LEGIS BODY ELECTIONS
Jeff, no government printed ballots back then so no write ins.
Standing count ftw
Replacement lists are fucking retarded.
LONG REPLACEMENT LIST FOR USA PREZ [ EXEC ] — IN CASE OF WARS / MURDERS / ETC
SAME FOR ALL/MOST STATE GOVS [EXECS]
Jeff asked:
“how did write-ins work when the Constitution first go into effect?”
There were no “official” ballots before the so-called “Progressive” Era. Originally, voters wrote the names of candidates on paper, and deposited those paper ballots in the ballot box. (Going back even further, ancient Romans used clay tablets onto which they impressed the initials of their candidates) So, in a sense, all ballots were originally write-in ballots.
With the rise of organized political parties, the parties would print up ballots with the names of their candidates, and distribute them to voters on their way to the voting places. This relieved the voter of writing each candidate’s name, but, didn’t leave the voter any choice but to cast a slate vote, if he chose to use the party ballot.
@Jeff,
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Australian_Ballot_System_in_the_United_States/Chapter_I
This was from a 1917 doctoral thesis so it was soon after the Australian Ballot (government printed ballots) was adopted in the US. The first chapter explains the ballots before that. Originally, ballots might be a scrap of paper that a voter wrote their choice on. In some locations, elections were viva voce, by voice, where a voter would state their preference. Even with paper ballots, there was no guarantee of secrecy.
There were early state court decisions that the names on a ballot could be machine-printed rather than hand written. Political parties would print ballots with their nominees. They would print their ballots with distinctive colors or images so that onlookers could know who you were voting for. The above chapter details how the system was abused.
You could also read the SCOTUS decision in Burdick v. Takushi which is the Hawai’i case where there is no constitutional right to vote for any candidate of your choice, so long as there are reasonable opportunities for candidates to qualify for the ballot. Thomas Jones assertion with respect to the 14th Amendment is contrary to what the SCOTUS determined.
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)
HAWAII — OK TO BAN WRITE-INS
ZERO MENTION OF 14-2 AMDT BY THE SCOTUS HACKS
Hawaii election law provides that the new Representative will be chosen by the Governor, from a list of three Democrats suggested by the Democratic Party.
—-
OK FOR A GOV MONARCH AND TOP DONKEY OLIGARCHS TO RIG/PICK A REPLACEMENT —
BUT NOT A CANDIDATE OR INCUMBENT — TRULY RETARDED AND ANTI-DEMOCRACY
@ JR:
That’s a very interesting document. Thanks for linking that.
Viva via voce
Where is the Retard Party’s replacement list?
Does the Retard Party even have an official VP? I’ve heard George Santos, Robert Stock, Caryn Ann Harlos, and Eric Swalwell.
I think it’s still Santos. Paging Thomas W Jones…
I’m a Santos man myself.
Re Burdick v Takushi
and this recent news
I just don’t understand how the US Constitution’s guarantee of a republican government does not guarantee the freedom and power of the voter to choose who to vote for.
When it comes to tickets, it’s all about tops for me.
@WZ,
Find the part about where the governor of New York vetoed the first Australian ballot law because it did not provide for “self nomination”, which meant the ability of an individual voter to “nominate” or “vote” for any person (i.e, a write-in vote).
Note also that “ballot” does not necessarily imply “secret ballot” (see history of elections before the adoption of the Australian ballot).
I was searching to determine whether New Jersey had adopted the Australian ballot before the 1892 presidential election. The thesis listed about a dozen early adopters, and then said that 35 had adopted by the 1892 presidential election. But then I saw a footnote about New Jersey elections in Chapter IV. Until 1911, the Australian ballot(s) in use in New Jersey was one strip per party, in effect a party column ballot cut into strips.
This led me to do some more searching, and I located old NJ session laws at https://www.njstatelib.org/research_library/legal_resources/historical_laws/session_laws/
The Australian ballot law was in the 1890 session laws. See Chapter 231 (CCXXXI) beginning on Page 361. This is a comprehensive election law, and the first part of the law is about voter registration. Laws regarding ballots and nominations begin with section 35. A separate ballot would be provided for each party. A voter would choose one, vote it, and place it in a secrecy envelope. Multiple ballots in a envelope voided all. A voter could edit a ballot by erasing or crossing out names, and writing in his own choices or using stickers.
In effect a split ticket required a “write-in” vote for a candidate of an other party. While this may be strange to us, it would have been the procedure used when voters voted a party ballot before 1890 and wanted to vote for a candidate of another party.
A voter would vote one ballot and place it in a secrecy envelope (two or more ballots voided all ballots). A voter could edit a party ballot, by erasing or crossing out names and writing in alternatives.
@AC,
Read the SCOTUS decision in Burdick v. Takushi. Hawaii only required a petition with 15 signatures to run for the legislature a short while before the election. Just because a candidate must be identified a short while before the election date does not deny a right to vote.
@AZ,
Would giving John Conyers, Jr. the ability to name his replacement when he resigned be “democratic” or was it more democratic to permit voters to choose Demo Rep Jones?
Retard Party Sex Worker,
When it comes to coming, too.