DOCSLIB.ORG

71278 Federal Register / Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
71278 Federal Register / Vol 71278 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (V) Public Meetings and Tribal Consultations ‘‘Recognition is a formal political act (VI) Procedural Matters [that] permanently establishes a Office of the Secretary (I) Executive Summary government-to-government relationship between the United States and the 43 CFR Part 50 The final rule sets forth an recognized tribe as a ‘domestic administrative procedure and criteria [Docket No. DOI–2015–0005; dependent nation,’ and imposes on the that the Secretary would use if the government a fiduciary trust 145D010DMDS6CS00000.000000 Native Hawaiian community forms a DX.6CS252410] relationship to the tribe and its unified government that then seeks a members. Recognition is also a RIN 1090–AB05 formal government-to-government constitutive act: It institutionalizes the relationship with the United States. The tribe’s quasi-sovereign status, along with Procedures for Reestablishing a rule does not provide a process for all the powers accompanying that status Formal Government-to-Government reorganizing a Native Hawaiian such as the power to tax, and to Relationship With the Native Hawaiian government. The decision to reorganize establish a separate judiciary.’’ Cohen’s Community a Native Hawaiian government and to Handbook of Federal Indian Law sec. establish a formal government-to- AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 3.02[3], at 134 (2012 ed.) (citing H.R. government relationship is for the Department of the Interior. Rep. No. 103–781, at 2 (1994)) (footnotes Native Hawaiian community to make as and internal quotation marks and ACTION: Final rule. an exercise of self-determination. brackets omitted). Congress already federally SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the A government-to-government acknowledged or recognized the Native Secretary of the Interior’s (Secretary) relationship encompasses the political Hawaiian community by establishing a administrative process for reestablishing relationship between sovereigns and a special political and trust relationship a formal government-to-government working relationship between the through over 150 enactments. This relationship with the Native Hawaiian officials of those two sovereigns. unique special political and trust community to more effectively Although the Native Hawaiian relationship exists even though Native implement the special political and community has been without a formal Hawaiians have not had an organized trust relationship that Congress government for over a century, Congress government since the overthrow of the established between that community recognized the continuity of the Native Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. and the United States. The rule does not Hawaiian community through over 150 Accordingly, this rule provides a attempt to reorganize a Native Hawaiian separate statutes, which ensures it has a process and criteria for reestablishing a government or draft its constitution, nor special political and trust relationship formal government-to-government does it dictate the form or structure of with the United States. At the same relationship that would enable a that government. Rather, the rule time, a working relationship between reorganized Native Hawaiian establishes an administrative procedure government officials is absent. This government to represent the Native and criteria that the Secretary would use rulemaking provides the Native Hawaiian community and conduct if the Native Hawaiian community Hawaiian community with an government-to-government relations forms a unified government that then opportunity to have a working with the United States under the seeks a formal government-to- relationship, referred to as the ‘‘formal Constitution and applicable Federal government-to-government government relationship with the law. The term ‘‘formal government-to- relationship.’’ The Native Hawaiian United States. Consistent with the government relationship’’ in this rule community’s current relationship with Federal policy of self-determination and refers to the working relationship with the United States has substantively all self-governance for indigenous the United States that will occur if the of the other attributes of a government- communities, the Native Hawaiian Native Hawaiian community to-government relationship, and might community itself would determine reorganizes and submits a request be described as a ‘‘sovereign to whether and how to reorganize its consistent with the rule’s criteria. sovereign’’ or ‘‘government to government. Importantly, the process set out in sovereign’’ relationship. It is important DATES: This rule is effective November this rule is optional and Federal action to note that a special political and trust 14, 2016. will occur only upon an express, formal relationship may continue to exist even FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: request from the reorganized Native without a formal government-to- Jennifer Romero, Senior Advisor for Hawaiian government. The rule also government relationship. Native Hawaiian Affairs, Office of the provides a process for public comment Among other things, the more than Secretary, 202–208–3100. on the request and a process for the 150 statutes that Congress has enacted over many decades create programs and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Secretary to receive, evaluate, and act (I) Executive Summary on the request. services for members of the Native Hawaiian community that are in many (II) Background (II) Background (III) Overview of Final Rule respects analogous to, but separate from, (A) How the Rule Works The Native Hawaiian community has the programs and services that Congress (B) Major Changes a unique legal relationship with the enacted for federally-recognized Indian (C) Key Issues United States, as well as inherent tribes in the continental United States. (D) Section-by-Section Analysis sovereign authority that has not been But during this same period, the United (IV) Public Comments on the Proposed Rule abrogated or relinquished, as evidenced States has not had a formal government- and Responses to Comments by Congress’s consistent treatment of to-government relationship with Native (A) Overview this community over an extended Hawaiians because there has been no (B) Responses to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Rule period of time. Over many decades, formal, organized Native Hawaiian (1) Issue-Specific Responses to Comments Congress enacted more than 150 statutes government since 1893, when a United (2) Section-by-Section Responses to recognizing and implementing a special States officer, acting without Comments political and trust relationship with the authorization of the U.S. government, (C) Tribal Summary Impact Statement Native Hawaiian community. conspired with residents of Hawaii to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Oct 13, 2016 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14OCR4.SGM 14OCR4 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71279 overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii. Rep. No. 111–162, at 2–3 (2010). During Vol. III: 1874–1893, The Kalakaua Many Native Hawaiians contend that centuries of self-rule and at the time of Dynasty (1967); Neil M. Levy, Native their community’s opportunities to Western contact in 1778, ‘‘the Native Hawaiian Land Rights, 63 Cal. L. Rev. thrive would be significantly bolstered Hawaiian people lived in a highly 848, 861 (1975) (chronicling the through a sovereign Native Hawaiian organized, self-sufficient subsistence displacement of Native Hawaiians from government whose leadership could social system based on a communal their land). Although Native Hawaiian engage the United States in a formal land tenure system with a sophisticated monarchs continued to rule the government-togovernment relationship, language, culture, and religion.’’ Native Kingdom, the Bayonet Constitution exercise inherent sovereign powers of Hawaiian Education Act, 20 U.S.C. triggered mass meetings and other forms self-governance and self-determination 7512(2); accord Native Hawaiian Health of organized political protest by Native on par with those exercised by tribes in Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 11701(4). Although Hawaiians. This led to the the continental United States, and the indigenous people shared a common establishment of Hui Kalaiaina, a Native facilitate the implementation of language, ancestry, and religion, four Hawaiian political organization that programs and services that Congress independent chiefdoms governed the advocated the replacement of that created specifically to benefit the Native eight islands until 1810, when King Constitution and protested subsequent Hawaiian community. Kamehameha I unified the islands annexation efforts. See Noenoe K. Silva, The United States has a unique under one Kingdom of Hawaii. See Rice Aloha Betrayed 127–29 (2004); S. Rep. political and trust relationship with v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 500–01 No. 107–66, at 19 n.29 (2001). It also federally-recognized tribes across the (2000). See generally Davianna foreshadowed the overthrow of the country, as set forth in the Constitution, Pomaikai McGregor & Melody Kingdom in 1893 by a small group of treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Moolelo Ea O non-Native Hawaiians, aided by the administrative regulations, and judicial Na Hawaii: History of Native Hawaiian United States Minister to Hawaii and precedent. The Federal Government’s Governance in Hawaii (2015), available the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Race, Gender and Immigration in American Politics by Christian
    Expansion and Exclusion: Race, Gender and Immigration in American Politics By Christian Dyogi Phillips A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Rodney Hero, Co-Chair Professor Taeku Lee, Co-Chair Professor Lisa García Bedolla Professor Gabriel Lenz Summer 2017 Abstract The United States’ population is rapidly changing, but the ways in which political scientists measure and understand representation have not kept apace. Marginal shifts in descriptive representation over the past two decades have run counter to widely espoused ideals regarding political accessibility and democratic competition. A central assumption often made by academics, and the public, has been that groups which are otherwise disadvantaged in politics may leverage their communities’ numerical size as a political resource to gain influence. To this end, many studies of racial descriptive representation find that a larger minority population is associated with a higher likelihood of a racial minority running for and/or winning. However, these positive relationships between population growth and descriptive representation are tempered by an extensive literature documenting limits on racial minority groups’ political incorporation. Moreover, current frameworks for understanding group competition or patterns of descriptive representation are silent about whether shifts in racial demographics may also have an effect on the balance of representation between women and men. These contradictions in debates over representation, and how groups gain influence, undermine the notion that eventually, marginalized groups will be fully incorporated into politics. White women have had de jure access to the voting franchise in the United States since 1920.
    [Show full text]
  • Hereby Halt the Proposed
    No. __-___ In the Supreme Court of the United States ____________________________________________________ KELI’I AKIN, KEALII MAKEKAU, JOSEPH KENT, YOSHIMASA SEAN MITSUI, PEDRO KANA’E GAPERO, and MELISSA LEINA’ALA MONIZ, Applicants, v. THE STATE OF HAWAII, GOVERNOR DAVID Y. IGE, ROBERT K. LINDSEY JR., Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, COLETTE Y. MACHADO, PETER APO, HAUNANI APOLIONA, ROWENA M.N. AKANA, JOHN D. WAIHE’E IV, CARMEN HULU LINDSEY, DAN AHUNA, LEINA’ALA AHU ISA, Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, KAMANA’OPONO CRABBE, Chief Exec. Officer, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, JOHN D. WAIHE’E III, Chairman, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, NA’ALEHU ANTHONY, LEI KIHOI, ROBIN DANNER, MAHEALANI WENDT, Commissioners, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, CLYDE W. NAMU’O, Exec. Director, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, THE AKAMAI FOUNDATION, and THE NA’I AUPUNI FOUNDATION, Respondents. ______________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX ___________________________________________________________________________ Michael A. Lilly Robert D. Popper, Counsel of Record NING LILLY & JONES JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 707 Richards Street, Suite 700 425 Third Street, SW Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Washington, DC 20024 (808) 528-1100 (202) 646-5172 [email protected] [email protected] H. Christopher Coates William S. Consovoy LAW OFFICES OF H. CHRISTOPHER COATES J. Michael Connolly 934 Compass Point CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC Charleston, South Carolina 29412 3033 Wilson Boulevard (843) 609-7080 Arlington, Virginia 22201 [email protected] (703) 243-9423 www.consovoymccarthy.com Dated: November 23, 2015 Attorneys for Applicants Case 1:15-cv-00322-JMS-BMK Document 122 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1667 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2015 MOLLY CC.
    [Show full text]
  • Sb2238 Testimony Jdl 02-10-16
    The Judiciary, State of Hawaii Testimony to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor Senator Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran, Chair Senator Maile S.L. Shimabukuro, Vice Chair Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 9:00 am State Capitol, Conference Room 016 by Rodney A. Maile Administrative Director of the Courts Bill No. and Title: Senate Bill No. 2238, Relating to Judicial Elections. Purpose: Makes conforming amendments to implement a constitutional amendment that establishes judicial elections. Requires the judiciary, office of elections, and campaign spending commission to study appropriate methods of implementing a judicial election system in the State and submit a written report, including any proposed legislation, to the legislature. Judiciary’s Position: This bill would result in far-reaching ramifications not only to the judicial branch of this state, but to Hawaii’s government as a whole. From the time of Hawaii’s Constitution of 1852 through the present day, our judges have never been selected through an electoral process. The current merit-based system, which has been in place since 1978, has served this state well by providing for the selection and retention of qualified judges, while ensuring that judges can exercise independent judgment in deciding cases. While we should always look for ways to improve the current system, this bill proposes a radical departure from it. Jurisdictions with judicial elections have seen dramatic increases in spending, including an influx of special interest money. Judges in these states must raise money to run for office and often face negative attack ads by their opponents or special interest groups. Research studies have shown that judicial elections affect judges’ decision making, and result in less diverse judiciaries.
    [Show full text]
  • E REIFF & YOUNG, P. F
    SANDLER,e REIFF & YOUNG, P.F 50 E STREET,S.E., SUITE300 WASHINGTON,DC 20003 JOSEPHE. SANDLER TELEPHONE:(202) 479- 1 1 1 1 sandler@sandlerreifhom FACSIMILE:(202) 479- 1 1 1 5 NEILP. REIFF rei [email protected] \ COUNSEL: JOHN HARDMYOUNG [email protected] $$ October 17,2005 Kamau Philbert, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Federal ,Election Commission 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 Re: MUR5659 *;.. *;.. Dear M$. Philbert: The undersigned represent the Democratic Party of Hawaii and Yuriko Sugimura, as Treasurer (“DPH”), in the above-referenced MUR. This matter has been generated in response to an audit conducted by the Commission of the activities of the DPH during the 2002 election cycle. The Commission has found reason to believe that the DPH has violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, as follows: 1) the Party violated 2 U.S.C. 5 441b(a) by misdepositing two donations totaling $30,000 fiom prohibited sources into its federal account; 2) the Party violated 2 U.S.C. 5 441a(f) by misdepositing $36,000 in excessive contributions into its federal account and 3) the Party violated 2 U.S.C. 5 434@)(4)(H)(v)by failing to report $155,125 in disbursements that the Commission has presumed to be allocable expenses. I ! 2 I I I I I i BACKGROUND This matter was generated as a result of Commission audit of DPH’s financial records in connection with the 2002 election cycle. The facts of this matter relating to the alleged violations can only be understood in context of the circumstances surrounding the 2002 elections in the state of Hawaii.
    [Show full text]
  • National Study of Prosecutor Elections
    The Prosecutors and Politics Project National Study of Prosecutor Elections FEBRUARY 2020 Table of Contents About the Prosecutors and Politics Project .................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 About the Study .................................................................................................................... 8 State Reports ........................................................................................................................ 10 Alabama .................................................................................................................... 11 Alaska ........................................................................................................................ 18 Arizona ...................................................................................................................... 19 Arkansas .................................................................................................................. 22 California ................................................................................................................. 26 Colorado................................................................................................................... 35 Connecticut ............................................................................................................. 39 Delaware .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Democrat Walks for Maine Senate, Kasich in Trouble in Ohio, and Will California Split Six Ways? – US State Blog Round up for 12 – 18 July
    blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/07/19/democrat-walks-for-maine-senate-kasich-in-trouble-in-ohio-and-will-california-split-six- ways-us-state-blog-round-up-for-12-18-july/ Democrat walks for Maine Senate, Kasich in trouble in Ohio, and will California split six ways? – US state blog round up for 12 – 18 July USApp Managing Editor, Chris Gilson, looks at the week in U.S. state blogging. Click here for our weekly roundup of national blogs. Northeast In Maine this week, National Journal reports on the Democratic candidate Shenna Bellows challenging incumbent Republican Senator, Susan Collins. They say that Bellows has taken the unusual step of walking the 350 miles across the length of Maine as part of her Senate campaign. During her three and half week trek, she will be meeting and greeting potential voters across 63 communities. Heading south to New Hampshire, Granite Grok writes on Wednesday that the state’s Democratic Governor, Maggie Hassan, is treating women like ‘stupid cows’, who cannot purchase their own birth control, after a Facebook post where she stated her disappointment after the Senate voted down a bill which would reverse the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling. In New York State this week, Hit & Run writes that Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is being threatened by a primary challenger in the form of Zephyr Teachout, who has criticized Cuomo’s economic development policy as favors for businesses. Moving on to the Garden State, PolitickerNJ writes on Wednesday that Atlantic City is once again betting that it can survive as New Jersey’s sole gambling mecca.
    [Show full text]
  • NCSL-Democracy Fund Project Elections 2020: Policy, Funding and the Future Hawaii
    NCSL-Democracy Fund Project Elections 2020: Policy, Funding and the Future Hawaii A team of Hawaiian legislators, legislative staff, and state and local election officials convened in Honolulu on June 2, to discuss elections-related technology. Topics included the process for verifying signatures on absentee ballots, counting absentee ballots, a possible model for adopting all vote-by-mail and potential future next steps for Hawaii as it considers its election model. A Profile of Elections in Hawaii Turnout: 44 percent in the November 2012 General Election.1 The national average was 58 percent. Registered voters: 706,890.2 Election administration units: four counties. Equipment: The same equipment is used statewide, through Hart InterCivic, and the state just renewed a lease for the voting machines that goes through 2020. Overall rank on The Pew Charitable Trusts’ 2012 Elections Performance Index: 42. Presentation from the City and County of Honolulu Honolulu City Clerk Glen Takahashi and Election Administrator Chadd Kadota presented on the current method of voting in Hawaii, and demonstrated their high-speed ballot sorting machine. In Hawaii, the city and county clerks administer absentee voting (either for ballots that arrive via mail or are voted at walk-in locations) and voter registration. The state office of elections administers Election Day voting at polling places, counting and results distribution, the management of the voting system and online voter registration. A new state-administered voter registration system will be deployed in 2017, shifting some of the responsibilities for voter registration from the counties to the state. There are uniform policies, procedures, deadlines and systems used in every county throughout the state.
    [Show full text]
  • USA General Election Final Report 3Rd November 2020
    Contents The Core Team .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Funding Declaration ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Credits .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Election Observers ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Testing Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Electoral Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Political Violence ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Media Report .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Media Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaii State Legislature
    P.O. Box 2240 ‘A’ Cgmmgn cause Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 808.275.6275 Hawaii Holding Power Accountable Statement Before The SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:30 PM Via Videoconference in consideration of SB 560 RELATING TO RANKED CHOICE VOTING. Chair NISHIHARA, Vice Chair ENGLISH, and Members of the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental, and Military Affairs Committee Common Cause Hawaii supports SB 560, which establishes ranked choice voting (RCV) for special federal elections and special elections of vacant county council seats. Common Cause Hawaii is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to reforming government and strengthening democracy through voting modernization efforts such as adopting RCV. RCV is a simple electoral reform that ensures fair and efficient elections. In a traditional election, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they do not receive a majority of the votes. This means voters often feel disengaged and are left to choose between the “lesser of two evils,” or vote for the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning, rather than supporting their favorite candidates. RCV promotes positive, inclusive and fair elections, which encourages a diversity of candidates. The Hawaii Democratic Party’s Party-Run Presidential Primary employed RCV in 2020. There are 30 jurisdictions that are using or have adopted some form or RCV. See https://www.fairvote.org/data_on_rcv#research_snapshot. With RCV, voters rank candidates from favorite to least favorite. On Election Night, first choice votes are counted to determine who voters like the best. If a candidate receives a majority of votes, they win.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaii Constitutional Studies 1978
    HAWAII CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION STUDIES 1978 Article 111: Reapportionment in Hawaii (Volume 11) Craig Kugisaki Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol ~onolulu~Hawaii 96813 Price $2.00 Richard F. Kahle, Jr. Samuel B. K. Chang May 1978 Fdtti~r Drrector TABLE OF CONTENTS Pz- ARTICLE 111, THE LEGISLATURE (REAPPORTIONMEXT). vi ARTICLE LY, EDUCATiON (BOARD OF EDUCATIOK) . riii 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 Development of Xalapportionment . 2 Methods of Maintaining Malapportionment . 3 Effects of Maiapportionment. 5 Rural-Urban Balance . 5 Two-Party System . 5 Legislative Policy. 6 Federal System. 6 2. JUDICIAL BACKGROUND AlUD LEGAL COKSIDERATIOKS - . 6 Part I. Introduction . ti Part II. A Capsule Survey of Reapportionment in the Courts from Colegrove to Reynolds . - - . 8 Part 111. Scope of Judicial Review of an ;ipporticnmesf Plan. 11 Part IV. "Popuiation" as an Apportionment Base and the Relation of the Registered Voters Xrasure to it . 13 Part V. Representativeness of Apporrionment . 16 Part Vi. ?3lulthember Districts and Voter Strength Dilution . 22 Part VII. Floteriai Districts . 28 Part Vil!. The Slot and Place Systems . SO Part IX. Weighted and Fractional Voting . - . 35 3. LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONFTIIEXT . - - - - - . - - . - 37 Part I. Introduction . - - . 37 Part I1 . Reapportionment and the Constitutional Convention of 1968 ........... Part I11 . Burns v . Gill: The Court Looks at the 1968 Constitutional Amendments ... Part IV . Legislative Reapportionment by Commission ..... 43 Deviat.ions Among Districts .............. 47 Court Review of the 1973 Reapportionment Plan ..... 49 4 . SCHOOL DISTRICT APPORTIONMEET .............. 53 School District Apportionment. Generally .......... 53 Board of Education Apportionment in Hawaii ......... 57 5 . COSGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT .............. 63 Part 1 . Introduction ............... 63 Part 11 . Power of Congress Over Apportionment and Districting ................. 64 Congressional Power Over Apportionment .......
    [Show full text]
  • 27 , 30 .Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Is Granted. Griffin Has Already Filed Four
    Griffin v. State of Hawaii et al Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII CALVIN CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN, ) Civ. No. 20-00454 SOM/KJM ) Plaintiff ) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO ) DISMISS vs. ) ) CLARE CONNORS; SCOTT NAGO, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _____________________________ ) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION. In the 2020 primary election for the seat in the United States House of Representatives from Hawaii’s First Congressional District, Plaintiff Calvin Christopher Griffin ran as a nonpartisan candidate. Under section 12-41 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, to advance to the general election, a nonpartisan candidate must receive either (1) at least 10 percent of the total votes cast in the primary, or (2) at least the same number of votes as the winner of a partisan primary who had the lowest number of votes among all partisan primary winners for the seat in issue. In the primary election, Ed Case secured the Democratic Party’s nomination with 131,802 votes, and Ron Curtis secured the Republican Party’s nomination with 13,909 votes. Griffin received 2,324 votes. That number did not meet either threshold, and Griffin was not included on the general election ballot. Dockets.Justia.com Ed Case prevailed in the 2020 general election, and he has now taken his seat in Congress. While Griffin did file this action before the general election took place, he did not file a motion seeking a ruling that the state had to place his name on the general election ballot. Instead, well after the election had concluded, Griffin filed the now-operative complaint, which argues that because section 12-41 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, he is entitled to $50,000,000 and the inclusion of his name on the general election ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • HONOLULU ELECTIONS by the NUMBERS 2020 Elections CITY & COUNTY of HONOLULU Table of Contents
    HONOLULU ELECTIONS BY THE NUMBERS 2020 elections CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU Table of Contents Introduction 3 Summary 5 Registered Voters 6 Ballots Sent to Voters 6 Initial Ballot Packet Mail Dates 6 Ballots/Envelopes Received and Accepted 6 Places of Deposit 7 Voter Service Centers 7 Same-Day Registration 7 Ballot Submissions by Voting Method 8 Ballot Submissions, by Method - Primary and General Elections 9 United States Postal System 10 Ballot Envelopes Received from Postal System, Daily Totals - Primary Election 10 Ballot Envelopes Received from Postal System, Daily Totals - General Election 10 Places of Deposit 11 Ballot Envelopes Received from Places of Deposit, Daily Totals - Primary Election 11 Ballot Envelopes Received from Places of Deposit, by Location - Primary Election 11 Ballot Envelopes Received from Places of Deposit, Daily Totals - General Election 12 Ballot Envelopes Received from Places of Deposit, by Location - General Election 12 Voter Service Centers 13 Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - Primary Election 13 Voter Registration Updates at Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - Primary Election 13 Same-Day Voter Registration at Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - Primary Election 14 Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - General Election 15 Voter Registration Updates at Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - General Election 15 Same-Day Voter Registration at Voter Service Centers, Daily Totals per Location - General Election 16 Additional Processing and
    [Show full text]