JAMAE KAWAUCHI, in her official capacity as County Clerk of the COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. MAILE P. DAVID, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee:
Lincoln S.T. Ashida, Corporation Counsel; Michael J. Udovic, Brooks L. Bancroft, William V. Brilhante, Jr., Deputies Corporation Counsel
Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
Michael J. Matsukawa
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Leonard and Reifurth, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee Jamae Kawauchi, in her official capacity as County Clerk of the County of Hawai`i, appeals from the September 23, 2010 Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit in favor of Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Maile P. David ("David"). On August 2, 2010, the County Clerk filed a complaint in the Circuit Court, challenging the nomination paper David submitted to run for Hawai`i County Council, Council District 6. The County Clerk contended that David did not qualify as a candidate for county council because she failed to register as a voter in the council district from which she sought to be elected at least 90 days prior to the primary election, as required by Section 3-3 of the Hawai`i County Charter. In her defense, David argued that the 90-day voter-registration requirement was an unconstitutional impediment to David's candidacy. The Circuit Court agreed with David and held that the 90-day voter-registration requirement to be "an unreasonable burden" on David's ability to run for office and that the requirement was "invalid and not applicable" to David.
On appeal, the County Clerk argues that the Circuit Court erred by applying a balancing test rather than the rational-basis test when ruling on the constitutionality of the 90-day voter-registration requirement and that the requirement ultimately survives rational-basis review. On cross-appeal, David argues that the Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because certain procedural requirements relating to the disqualification of candidates were not followed.