Hawaii Supreme Court: Tommy Waters Term Limit Bars Third Term Bid

• The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters is ineligible to seek a third consecutive term for his East Oahu seat.
• The court determined Waters' 2019 election counted as his first four-year term under the Honolulu City Charter's two-term limit, despite a delayed swearing-in.
• Justice Lisa Ginoza, writing for the 3-2 majority, stated that term limits are based on election to a term, not the time served, unless explicitly filling a vacancy.
• The ruling means Trevor Ozawa and Tara Malia Gregory, the top two vote-getters from an August 8 special election, will now compete in a November 3 second special election for the District IV seat.

The decision firmly establishes that, under the Honolulu City Charter, the act of election to a four-year term triggers the term limit count, regardless of when the elected official is sworn in, unless the election is specifically designated to fill an unexpired vacancy.

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently issued a definitive ruling that bars Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters from seeking a third consecutive term for his East Oahu seat. In a 3-2 decision, the state's highest court determined that Waters is ineligible to participate in the upcoming November election, rejecting his argument that a delayed start to his initial council tenure should exempt him from the city's term limit provisions.

Waters' eligibility challenge stemmed from his unique electoral history. He first secured the District IV seat in a special election held in April 2019, following the invalidation of a razor-thin 2018 contest. The original 2018 election, which Waters narrowly lost to Trevor Ozawa, was nullified by the state high court after it found 350 absentee ballots were improperly received and a recount was not feasible. Waters was subsequently sworn into office in May 2019, several months after the regular four-year term had officially commenced. He was then reelected to the same District IV seat in 2022, serving the 2023-2027 term. Waters contended that because his first period in office began late, it did not constitute a full four-year term for the purpose of the Honolulu City Charter's two-term limit.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Lisa Ginoza, clarified the Hawaii Supreme Court's interpretation of the Honolulu City Charter term limits, specifically Revised Charter § 3-102. The court held that Waters' election in 2019 unequivocally counted as his first four-year term, irrespective of his swearing-in date. Justice Ginoza emphasized that the charter's term limit provision focuses on election to a four-year term, not the actual duration of time served or the specific date a councilmember takes office, unless the election is explicitly to fill a vacancy. The majority, which included temporarily assigned Circuit Judges Peter Cahill and Peter Kubota due to recusals and a vacant seat, reasoned that allowing a shortened initial period in office to bypass term limits would undermine the fundamental purpose of the charter provision.

They highlighted that if time of service were the determining factor, any councilmember whose swearing-in was delayed for any reason could claim that particular term should not count towards their limit, thereby circumventing the intent of the law. This interpretation aligns with the historical context of the term limit, which was proposed by the Honolulu Charter Commission in 1992 to foster "citizen legislators" and later approved by voters in an amended form in 1998.

A dissenting opinion, penned by then-Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna and joined by Circuit Judge Michael Soong, offered an alternative view. They argued that Waters' 2019 election should be considered as filling a vacancy created by the invalidated 2018 election, rather than initiating a new four-year term. Under this interpretation, citing Revised Charter Section 3-105(b), Waters would have been elected to only one consecutive four-year term and would therefore remain eligible to run again.

This Hawaii Supreme Court ruling provides crucial clarity on the application of municipal term limits, particularly regarding the distinction between being elected to a "term" and the actual "time in office." The decision firmly establishes that, under the Honolulu City Charter, the act of election to a four-year term triggers the term limit count, regardless of when the elected official is sworn in, unless the election is specifically designated to fill an unexpired vacancy. This precedent is significant for lawyers advising political candidates or municipal bodies on eligibility and charter interpretation, as it underscores the importance of precise language in defining "term" versus "service" in term limit provisions.

The immediate consequence of the ruling is that Trevor Ozawa, the former councilmember and attorney who initially challenged Waters' eligibility, and Tara Malia Gregory, the two highest vote-getters from the August 8 first special election, will now compete in a second special election on November 3. This development follows a separate legal challenge by 40 District IV voters concerning the August 8 election results, and the Supreme Court's simultaneous dismissal of Ozawa's original lawsuit that had brought Waters' eligibility before the courts. The decision reinforces the principle that the integrity of election processes and the clear interpretation of charter provisions are paramount in Hawaii municipal election law.

This ruling clarifies that municipal term limits in Hawaii are based on election to a four-year term, not the actual time served or swearing-in date, unless explicitly filling a vacancy. Lawyers advising political candidates or municipal bodies on eligibility and charter interpretation should note this precedent when assessing similar term limit provisions in other jurisdictions or drafting new ones, particularly regarding the definition of a 'term' versus 'time in office'.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service