In the aftermath of a primary election that saw voting disrupted on a storm-ravaged island, the historic defeat of an incumbent governor and the nail-biting finish of the Democratic race to succeed Hawaii’s icon in the U.S. Senate, it would be easy to overlook the Maui ballot snafu as a minor issue amid major drama.
But rather than dismissing the tardy transmittal and public reporting of 800 absentee ballots from Maui as a human error that was easily corrected and did not impact the outcome of any race, the state Office of Elections would do well to strengthen its internal process to avert a repeat of such errors in the general election. If mistakes do occur, the elections office must immediately inform the public that previously reported results are missing a large number of ballots — even if that announcement precedes the release of the final tally.
The lamentable judgment call in this case was to hold off on that public announcement for nearly two days, an avoidable decision that fueled outrage and suspicion amid the already highly charged atmosphere.
While most of the state was able to vote on Aug. 9, two precincts in the Puna district of Hawaii island were closed on primary election day due to damage caused by Tropical Storm Iselle; election results for all other precincts statewide were released that night after the polls closed, as usual.
On Aug. 11, Chief Election Officer Scott Nago set the makeup vote for the two Puna precincts for Aug. 15, over the objections of U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, who by then knew she was narrowly losing to appointed incumbent Brian Schatz in their race for the U.S. Senate seat long held by the late Daniel Inouye. Hanabusa sued, arguing that Puna residents needed more time to recover from the storm, but a state judge on Aug. 14 rejected her request to postpone the vote. The Puna vote proceeded as scheduled the next day.
Late in the afternoon on Aug. 15, Nago’s office announced that the election results to be released that night would include not only votes from the two Puna precincts, but also 800 absentee ballots from Maui that were properly counted on primary election night, but not transmitted to state headquarters. Election officials became aware of the problem on Aug. 13 during a standard post-election audit, but did not announce it until Aug. 15.
They should have announced it immediately. Every election demands the highest standards of transparency, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this one, including the weather and Hanabusa’s court challenge, only magnified the scrutiny. Both Hanabusa and Schatz expressed outrage over the Maui mistake, which election officials blamed on inadvertent human error.
What election officials defend as an efficient decision to transmit the Maui ballots when the state’s election apparatus was up and running for the Puna precincts seems like good sense to a bureaucrat, but it misses the larger point: Election officials, along with the hard work of running an election, must also continually instill a sense of trust and integrity in the process among voters.
The "by the way" notice of the missing Maui votes made skeptical voters even more skeptical. The issue here is not whether those votes were tampered with — they were not. We believe assurances that the problem was limited to the electronic transmission, not the count. The issue is whether the Office of Elections recognizes that ensuring public trust is as important as administrative efficiency. Rapid reporting of any voting discrepancies is both efficient and accountable, the way elections should be.
