The voter could hardly be blamed for often feeling disgust with the whole political process and opting to stay home from the polls. The developments in recent weeks have strained, if not damaged outright, the public trust in the reliability of election routines. And people very well might conclude that some candidates have stepped across the line that is supposed to keep voting privacy sacrosanct.
There are two issues at hand:
» The concern that the general election go off without a hitch in Hawaii island precincts, unlike the confusion experienced in the primary.
» The complaint about candidates becoming intrusive in the absentee voting process; the names of Joey Manahan, elected outright to the City Council, and former Councilman Romy Cachola, who eked out a victory in a race for state House, were invoked here.
First, Hawaii County election officials and staff, especially County Clerk Jamae Kawauchi, have come under fire. Critics have cited mistakes that delayed the opening of polling places, forcing some last-minute intervention from the state’s Office of Elections.
Back-and-forth recriminations have ensued. State Chief Election Officer Scott Nago charged that Kawauchi showed poor leadership in the conduct of the Hawaii island polling. The clerk’s response was that Nago was being "overly critical." And she didn’t attend Wednesday’s primary-debriefing meeting of key parties in the elections operation.
Kawauchi appealed to have Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz take over the oversight of the elections agency, which Schatz correctly refused. State law has required the Office of Elections to handle the operations independently of the state’s elected officials since 1999, so Schatz has no jurisdiction. He did say the Abercrombie administration would monitor preparations for the November general election but urged the warring county and state factions to work together.
We agree, fully. It’s time for both sides to take a breath and unite on the practical goal of making sure primary-election irregularities in Hawaii County don’t recur in November. The voters expect their government to execute the elections process fairly and reliably, and Nago and Kawauchi can at least focus their attention on that critical goal.
Meanwhile, the cases of Manahan and Cachola may directly affect fewer voters but they shine a light on a distinct weakness in state election laws.
Manahan’s rival, Martin Han, alleged in his complaint that Manahan violated the statute that bars campaigning within 200 feet of a polling place. Han charges that his opponent had signs within the prohibited zone; Manahan has denied wrongdoing.
But Han also pointed to another practice, citing reports from voters that both Manahan and Cachola had gone door-to-door in certain precincts to meet with voters about their ballots. Cachola has said he merely offers assistance to voters who, due to language barriers or other problems, can’t manage the ballot.
That is precisely where the line needs to be drawn: barring candidates from assisting with voting or taking custody of ballots in any way.
Current law does not address this question, and it should. Lawmakers should revise the statute before the 2014 elections so that it’s plain that intruding on the voting process when mail-in ballots are used is tantamount to standing in the election booth with a voter.
And that simply should not be allowed. Certainly, many voters could use some help figuring out how to cast their ballots. But the outreach should be provided by disinterested third parties and good-government groups, such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, not the candidates themselves.
Hawaii lawmakers have tried to contend with the state’s persistent low voter turnout by enabling easier modes of voting and even acted this year to authorize online voter registration.
But the law hasn’t kept pace with the technology where election ethics are concerned, and that needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
