Hawaii Supreme Court: Tommy Waters Honolulu City Council Ballot Eligibility for 3rd Term

• The Hawaii Supreme Court is reviewing whether Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters is eligible for a third consecutive term due to a dispute over term limit calculations.
• The core issue is whether a four-month period, during which Waters' initial swearing-in was delayed after a voided election, counts fully towards his two-term limit under Charter Section 3-102.
• A lower court ruled Waters ineligible, but his attorney argues a shortened term should not be considered a full four-year term.
• Two related lawsuits were heard, including one from East Honolulu voters challenging the legal standing of the eligibility dispute itself.
• The court's decision will clarify the interpretation of municipal charter term limits, particularly concerning irregular or shortened initial terms.

The central question revolves around whether a four-month period, spanning from a voided election to Waters' eventual swearing-in, should count fully towards his term limits.

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently convened to hear arguments concerning the ballot eligibility of Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters for a potential third consecutive term. The central question revolves around whether a four-month period, spanning from a voided election to Waters' eventual swearing-in, should count fully towards his term limits. This intricate legal dispute has cast uncertainty over the District IV race, particularly after 8,654 votes were already cast for Waters in the August 8 primary election.

Waters has served on the Honolulu City Council for more than seven years, but his initial entry into office was unconventional. Following a vote-counting dispute, the Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated the November 2018 election for the seat. Waters subsequently won a special election held in April 2019 and was sworn into office in May 2019, approximately four months after a regular term would typically have commenced. He was reelected in 2022, setting the stage for the current challenge to his eligibility under the Honolulu City Council Charter.

The core of the legal battle lies in the interpretation of Honolulu City Council Charter Section 3-102, which explicitly limits council members to two consecutive four-year terms. A July ruling by Judge James Ashford determined that Waters' 2019 term should be counted in its entirety against the term limit, thereby rendering him ineligible to seek another term. Waters' attorney, Joseph Stewart, countered this interpretation, asserting that a "four-year term" must mean precisely that, and a shortened initial term should not be considered equivalent to a full one. Stewart argued that the charter implicitly allows for irregular terms that do not begin on the standard date.

However, this argument faced scrutiny from the bench. Justice Lisa Ginoza questioned Stewart's premise, suggesting that the charter recognizes only two types of terms: regular and vacancy. She also inquired why three previous council members who filled vacancies were treated differently from Waters regarding their term counting. Justice Sabrina McKenna further pressed the issue, exploring a hypothetical scenario where Ozawa, rather than Waters, had prevailed in the 2019 do-over election. Representing Ozawa, attorney Judie Marie Iha emphasized that a term constitutes a fixed period, stating that the exact start dates for city council elections are precisely defined for decades to come. McKenna also sought insights from Iha regarding rulings from other states on similar matters.

The Hawaii Supreme Court heard arguments in two interconnected cases, with a second lawsuit brought by dozens of East Honolulu voters being considered alongside Ozawa's challenge. Attorney Thomas Otake, representing these voters, contended that Ozawa lacked the legal standing to contest Waters' eligibility in the first place. Otake argued that this legal dispute bypassed established state law processes designed to resolve such questions before any votes are cast, expressing dismay at the situation given the primary votes already recorded for Waters.

Third-place primary finisher Tara Gregory, who represented herself in court, urged the justices to uphold Judge Ashford's earlier ruling. Gregory informed the court that she had raised concerns about Waters' eligibility with election officials as early as March, well before the legal challenge became public. She reiterated a public statement she made after Ashford's ruling, emphasizing the importance of allowing Waters' voters another opportunity to cast their ballots. The Supreme Court panel for these cases included Justice Sabrina McKenna and Justice Lisa Ginoza, who were joined by three substitute judges: Michael Soong, sitting in for Chief Justice Vladimir Devens; Peter Cahill, sitting in for Justice Todd Eddins; and Peter Kubota, filling an existing vacancy on the court, as two regular justices recused themselves from the proceedings.

Lawyers advising political candidates, election officials, or involved in election disputes in Hawaii should closely monitor the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision. This ruling will provide a critical interpretation of municipal charter term limit provisions, clarifying how irregular or shortened initial terms are counted against mandated limits, and establishing a precedent for future ballot eligibility challenges.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News