09-07-2026, 09:44 PM
Justice Lisa Ginoza wrote in a separate opinion that the court found two problems, either one enough to void the result.
The first was two ballots cast by District 40 voters who were mistakenly issued District 43 ballots and folded into the count with no way to trace how they voted. The court rejected the state’s argument that Souza had to prove which way those ballots broke.
“A tie must be real before it can be broken. Two ballots from outside the district put this one in doubt,” Eddins his opinion joined by Acting Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna.
The justices held that in an ordinary contest, a challenger has to show enough tainted votes to overcome her opponent’s lead. But a tie has no lead to overcome, so any unaccounted-for ballot is enough to unsettle it.
They also put the burden of proving the two ballots were validly cast on the state, not on Souza, relying on a Hawaii statute that treats official election records as presumptive evidence.
“The margin is the filter,” they wrote.
https://www.courthousenews.com/hawaii-su...ouse-race/
The first was two ballots cast by District 40 voters who were mistakenly issued District 43 ballots and folded into the count with no way to trace how they voted. The court rejected the state’s argument that Souza had to prove which way those ballots broke.
“A tie must be real before it can be broken. Two ballots from outside the district put this one in doubt,” Eddins his opinion joined by Acting Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna.
The justices held that in an ordinary contest, a challenger has to show enough tainted votes to overcome her opponent’s lead. But a tie has no lead to overcome, so any unaccounted-for ballot is enough to unsettle it.
They also put the burden of proving the two ballots were validly cast on the state, not on Souza, relying on a Hawaii statute that treats official election records as presumptive evidence.
“The margin is the filter,” they wrote.
https://www.courthousenews.com/hawaii-su...ouse-race/