The scenario involves a candidate for the Hawaii House of Representatives, Kiana, who has been a resident of Hawaii for only three years prior to the election. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 12-5 establishes the eligibility requirements for candidates seeking office. Specifically, HRS § 12-5(a)(4) mandates that a candidate for the House of Representatives must have been a resident of the State of Hawaii for at least five years immediately preceding the election. Kiana’s three-year residency falls short of this statutory requirement. Therefore, Kiana is not eligible to be a candidate for the Hawaii House of Representatives. This requirement is distinct from the residency requirement for voting, which is typically shorter, and the residency requirement for the State Senate, which is typically longer. The purpose of these residency requirements is to ensure that candidates have a vested interest and understanding of the state’s affairs and the needs of its constituents.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically HRS §11-116, governs the eligibility of voters to cast absentee ballots. This statute outlines the conditions under which a voter may request an absentee ballot without needing to provide a specific reason, often referred to as “no-excuse” absentee voting. For a voter to be eligible to vote by absentee ballot in Hawaii, they must be registered to vote and either be absent from their voting precinct on election day or have a physical disability or religious belief that prevents them from voting in person at their assigned polling place. The law also allows for voters to apply for an absentee ballot to be sent to them for every election if they anticipate being absent from their precinct. The question probes the understanding of these core eligibility requirements for absentee voting as defined by Hawaii law, distinguishing between general eligibility and specific situations that necessitate or allow for absentee voting. The core principle is that a registered voter can vote absentee if they cannot attend their polling place for any valid reason, with the law broadly defining these reasons.

The question pertains to the permissible methods of campaign finance disclosure for candidates in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 132, specifically HRS §11-207, governs campaign finance reporting. This statute mandates that campaign finance reports must be filed electronically with the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission. While certain exceptions or alternative methods might exist for very small contributions or specific types of committees, for general campaign finance reporting by candidates, electronic filing is the primary and legally required method. The statute outlines the information that must be included in these reports, such as contributions received, expenditures made, and the names and addresses of donors exceeding a certain threshold. The purpose of this electronic filing requirement is to ensure transparency and accessibility of campaign finance data for the public and regulatory oversight. Therefore, any claim that campaign finance reports can be submitted solely via mail or fax without prior electronic submission would contravene the established legal framework in Hawaii.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11 outlines the comprehensive framework for elections in the state. Specifically, HRS §11-114 addresses the canvassing of election returns and the determination of election results. This section mandates that the chief election officer, after receiving all precinct returns, shall prepare a summary statement of all votes cast for each candidate and for each question submitted. The law further specifies that the chief election officer shall, within a specified timeframe, issue a proclamation declaring the successful candidates and the results of any questions voted upon. The process involves verifying the accuracy of the submitted returns, resolving any discrepancies, and ensuring that the final tabulation reflects the will of the voters as expressed through their ballots. This procedural integrity is crucial for public confidence in the electoral process. The statute also details the procedures for recounts and contests, underscoring the importance of accurate and verifiable election outcomes. The underlying principle is to ensure that the election results are based on a fair and accurate count of all legally cast ballots, as stipulated by state law.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 12, specifically HRS §12-2, outlines the requirements for a candidate to be eligible to run for office. This statute establishes residency qualifications. For the office of Governor, a candidate must have been a resident of the State of Hawaii for at least three years immediately preceding the date of the general election. This residency requirement is a fundamental aspect of election law, ensuring that candidates have a demonstrable connection to the jurisdiction they seek to represent. Understanding these statutory qualifications is crucial for both candidates and election officials to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The focus here is on the duration of residency, not the nature of the residency or the specific location within the state, as long as it is within Hawaii.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-134 addresses the process for challenging election results, specifically concerning recounts. A candidate or a committee supporting or opposing a question can request a recount if the margin between the winning and losing candidate or the outcome of the question is within a specified percentage. For a general election, this margin is typically 0.5% of the total votes cast for the office or question. If the margin exceeds this threshold, a recount is not automatically mandated by statute and would generally require a court order or specific legislative action. The initial request for a recount must be filed with the chief election official within a prescribed timeframe after the election results are certified. The statute outlines the conditions under which a recount is permissible and the procedures to be followed, including the potential for a fee to be paid by the requesting party if the recount does not change the outcome. This ensures that recounts are pursued based on reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the vote tabulation rather than frivolous challenges. The statute is designed to balance the need for accuracy with the efficient administration of elections.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically HRS §11-152, governs the process of challenging election results. This statute outlines the grounds for contest, the timeline for filing, and the procedures that must be followed. A candidate or elector who believes an election was fraudulent, that illegal votes were cast, or that there were errors in the counting or canvassing of ballots sufficient to change the outcome may initiate a contest. The contest must be filed within a specific timeframe, typically within 30 days after the results are declared by the county clerk or the chief election official. The petition must be filed in the circuit court of the county in which the election was held and must specify the grounds for the contest with particularity. The statute also requires that a copy of the petition be served upon the candidate who received the second highest number of votes, and upon the county clerk or chief election official. The court then proceeds to hear the evidence and determine whether the alleged irregularities or fraud indeed affected the outcome of the election. If the court finds that the outcome was affected, it can order a recount, a new election, or declare the true result. The statute aims to balance the need for timely resolution of election disputes with the fundamental right of the electorate to have their votes accurately counted and the integrity of the democratic process upheld.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11 outlines the election laws of the state. Specifically, HRS §11-116 addresses the requirements for voter registration. This statute mandates that a person must be a resident of Hawaii for at least 30 days immediately preceding the election to be eligible to register and vote. The statute also details the acceptable forms of identification and the process for registering. The question focuses on the residency requirement for voter registration, a fundamental aspect of election law in Hawaii, similar to residency rules in other U.S. states like California or Texas, though specific durations may vary. Understanding this requirement is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the electoral process by confirming that voters meet the established qualifications for participating in Hawaii’s elections. The 30-day residency period is a statutory minimum designed to ensure a genuine connection to the state before an individual can exercise their right to vote. This principle is consistent with the broader concept of state residency for voting rights across the United States, which generally requires a period of established domicile.

The scenario describes a situation where a candidate for a state legislative office in Hawaii has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 12, specifically HRS § 12-10, outlines the qualifications and disqualifications for holding public office. HRS § 12-10(a)(3) states that a person is disqualified from holding office if convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, unless civil rights have been restored. The key here is the definition of “moral turpitude” and its application to a misdemeanor conviction. While specific misdemeanors are not exhaustively listed as involving moral turpitude in the statutes, courts have generally interpreted this to include offenses that demonstrate dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or a disregard for the law and societal norms. Crimes like theft, perjury, fraud, and certain sexual offenses are typically considered to involve moral turpitude. A misdemeanor conviction for petty theft, which involves taking property of another without consent and with intent to permanently deprive, generally falls under the umbrella of moral turpitude due to the element of dishonesty and intent to defraud. Therefore, without evidence of restoration of civil rights, the candidate would be disqualified. The question tests the understanding of disqualification criteria for candidates based on criminal convictions, specifically focusing on the interpretation of “moral turpitude” in the context of Hawaii election law. It requires applying the general legal principle of moral turpitude to a specific type of misdemeanor offense, considering the statutory framework for disqualification.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, particularly sections related to campaign finance, outlines specific requirements for reporting and disclosure. For instance, HRS §11-195 details the thresholds for reporting campaign expenditures and contributions. A candidate committee must file a preliminary report if contributions or expenditures aggregate to \$1,000 or more. Subsequent reports are due every two weeks before an election and at least once after the election until all debts are paid and all assets are disbursed. The question focuses on the initial reporting trigger for a candidate’s committee in Hawaii. If a candidate committee receives contributions totaling \$950 and makes expenditures totaling \$800, neither of these amounts individually meets the \$1,000 reporting threshold. However, the statute requires reporting when either contributions *or* expenditures aggregate to the specified amount. Since neither the contributions nor the expenditures have reached \$1,000, no preliminary report is immediately required under HRS §11-195 based on these figures alone. The committee must continue to track all financial activity, and a report will be due once either category crosses the \$1,000 threshold or when the statutory reporting periods commence irrespective of the threshold, if such periods are triggered by the election cycle.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-133.5 outlines the procedures for challenging absentee ballots. Specifically, it addresses the circumstances under which an absentee ballot may be challenged and the timeline for doing so. A challenge must be made by a voter who is registered to vote in the same election district as the absentee voter whose ballot is being challenged. The challenge must be filed with the county clerk not later than 4:30 p.m. on the day before the absentee ballots are scheduled to be opened and counted. The grounds for challenge are limited to specific reasons, such as the absentee voter not being qualified to vote in that election or district, or if the ballot was not properly cast according to law. This statute is crucial for maintaining the integrity of absentee voting, ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots and that those ballots are handled correctly throughout the process. The specificity of the filing deadline and the requirement for the challenger to be a registered voter in the same district are key elements designed to prevent frivolous challenges and ensure that any challenges are brought by individuals with a direct stake in the election’s outcome and a vested interest in its fairness. This process aims to balance the accessibility of absentee voting with the need for stringent security and accountability measures.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-113 governs the process for challenging the validity of election results. A contestant must file a petition with the circuit court within five days after the results are declared by the county clerk. The petition must specify the grounds for the challenge, which can include allegations of fraud, intimidation, or error in the counting or tabulation of ballots. A security deposit of \$500 is required to be filed with the petition, payable to the treasurer of the State of Hawaii. This deposit is forfeited if the contestant does not prevail in the challenge. The court then sets a hearing date, typically within 20 days of the filing. The contestant bears the burden of proving the allegations in the petition. If the court finds that the contestant has proven sufficient grounds to change the outcome of the election, it will order a recount or a new election as appropriate. For instance, if a contestant alleges that a specific precinct’s ballots were improperly handled, leading to a miscount, they must present evidence to support this claim. The statute aims to provide a timely and structured mechanism for addressing election irregularities while ensuring that frivolous challenges are deterred through the deposit requirement. The timeframe for filing is strict, and failure to meet it results in the dismissal of the petition.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically concerning voter registration and absentee voting, outlines the procedures and timelines for participating in elections. HRS §11-133 addresses the application for an absentee ballot. This statute specifies that an application for an absentee ballot must be submitted by a voter who is registered to vote. The application must be received by the county clerk no later than 6 p.m. on the seventh day before the election. For an election held on November 5th, the seventh day before would be October 29th. Therefore, if the election is on November 5th, the deadline for receiving an absentee ballot application is 6 p.m. on October 29th. The question asks for the latest day an application can be *received* by the county clerk for an election on November 5th. Counting back seven days from November 5th, we arrive at October 29th. The statute specifies the time as 6 p.m. on that day. Thus, October 29th is the correct answer.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 12, specifically HRS §12-21, addresses the disclosure requirements for campaign finance. This statute mandates that any person making an independent expenditure exceeding a certain threshold must file a report with the Hawaii Office of Elections. The threshold for reporting is established by administrative rules, and for independent expenditures, it is currently set at \$1,000 in an election year. An independent expenditure is defined as an expenditure by a person, other than a candidate or a committee, that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or question. Such expenditures are considered independent if they are not made in cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s committee, or an agent of a candidate or committee. The purpose of these disclosure requirements is to ensure transparency in political advertising and to inform the public about who is attempting to influence elections. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements can result in penalties. For instance, if an individual or group makes an independent expenditure of \$1,500 to support a gubernatorial candidate without filing the required report within the specified timeframe, they would be in violation of HRS §12-21. The reporting timeframe generally requires filing within 48 hours of making the expenditure.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-173.5 governs the reporting of campaign finance contributions. Specifically, it requires that any contribution or aggregate of contributions received from a single person or entity, exceeding \$100, must be reported. The reporting threshold is applied to the aggregate amount received from a single source within an election period. If a candidate committee receives multiple contributions from the same donor, the total sum of those contributions must be considered when determining if the reporting threshold is met. For instance, if a donor contributes \$50 on March 1st and another \$75 on April 15th to the same candidate committee during a primary election period, the aggregate contribution is \$125. Since \$125 exceeds the \$100 threshold, the donor’s name, address, occupation, employer, and the dates and amounts of each contribution must be disclosed in the campaign finance report. This detailed reporting ensures transparency in political fundraising and allows the public to understand the sources of campaign funding. The law aims to prevent undue influence from large donors by making their contributions public record, thus fostering a more accountable electoral process in Hawaii. The specific threshold of \$100 is a legislative determination of what constitutes a significant enough contribution to warrant public disclosure under Hawaii’s election law framework.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-20.5 governs the process for challenging the eligibility of a candidate for public office. Specifically, HRS §11-20.5(a) outlines that a written challenge must be filed with the chief election official within a specified timeframe, which is typically ten days after the last day for filing nomination papers or petitions. The challenge must be accompanied by an affidavit of the challenger and a filing fee. The chief election official then serves a copy of the challenge upon the candidate. The candidate has a period, usually five days, to respond. If the candidate fails to respond, they are deemed to have waived their right to a hearing. The statute also details the grounds for challenge, which can include issues with residency, citizenship, age, or prior convictions that disqualify a candidate. The process emphasizes due process, ensuring the candidate has an opportunity to present their case. The underlying principle is to maintain the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring only qualified individuals appear on the ballot, while also preventing frivolous challenges. The specific timeframe for filing a challenge is crucial, as missing this deadline, as stipulated in HRS §11-20.5(a), renders the challenge invalid, irrespective of its merit. This statutory framework, as seen in Hawaii’s election law, balances the need for electoral integrity with the rights of candidates to participate in the democratic process.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically concerning elections, outlines the procedures and requirements for campaign finance. HRS §11-205.5 mandates that any person making an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more in connection with a statewide election, or $500 or more in connection with any other election, must file a report within 48 hours of making the expenditure. This report is filed with the Hawaii Office of Elections and must disclose the name of the person making the expenditure, the amount, the date, and the candidate or measure to which the expenditure is directed. The purpose of this reporting requirement is to ensure transparency in political advertising and to allow the public and regulatory bodies to track independent spending that may influence election outcomes. Failure to comply with these reporting thresholds and timelines can result in penalties. The question tests the understanding of specific thresholds for independent expenditures and the associated reporting obligations under Hawaii law, distinguishing it from general campaign finance rules applicable in other US states.

In Hawaii, the process for challenging the validity of an election result is governed by specific statutes. HRS §15-2 provides the framework for election contests. A petition for contest must be filed within a certain timeframe after the election results are officially declared. The grounds for contest are typically limited to allegations of fraud, malconduct, or errors that materially affected the outcome of the election. The statute emphasizes that the contest must demonstrate a substantial impact on the election’s fairness and the will of the voters. For instance, if a candidate alleges that a certain number of ballots were improperly counted or rejected, they must show that the difference between their vote total and the declared winner’s total is less than or equal to the number of disputed ballots. This ensures that frivolous challenges do not disrupt the electoral process. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities meet the threshold for invalidating the election results. The court will then review the evidence presented and determine whether the election outcome should be overturned. The specific timeframe for filing, the grounds for contest, and the burden of proof are crucial elements to understand when considering election challenges in Hawaii.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 12, specifically HRS §12-11, addresses the process of challenging an election result. This statute outlines the grounds upon which an election contest can be initiated and the procedural requirements for filing such a contest. Key elements include the timeframe for filing, the jurisdiction of the court, and the nature of the evidence required to support a claim of irregularity or fraud. A candidate or their representative must demonstrate that the alleged irregularities likely affected the outcome of the election. This involves presenting evidence that, if proven, would change the result. The statute differentiates between minor procedural errors and substantial issues that could compromise the integrity of the election. The burden of proof rests with the contestant. The statute also specifies that a contest must be filed within a certain number of days after the results are declared. For instance, if a candidate alleges that illegal votes were counted, they must provide a sworn statement detailing the specific illegal votes and the precincts where they were cast, along with evidence that the number of such votes is sufficient to change the election outcome. The court then reviews the petition to determine if it states a valid cause of action before proceeding with the contest.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-113 governs the content of primary ballots. This statute mandates that a primary ballot shall contain the names of all candidates for each office who have qualified for the primary election. For each office, the ballot must list the candidates in alphabetical order by surname. The statute also specifies that if a candidate has more than one surname, the candidate may request that the ballot list the candidate by either surname. Furthermore, the law requires that the ballot shall be arranged so that the voter can readily ascertain the office for which each candidate is seeking election. This ensures clarity and prevents voter confusion. The statute does not, however, require the inclusion of a candidate’s political party affiliation on a primary ballot in Hawaii, unlike some other states. The design and arrangement of the ballot are crucial for facilitating the democratic process, ensuring that voters can make informed choices without undue influence or misdirection. The focus is on presenting the candidates for each office clearly and alphabetically, with provisions for surname preference.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-114 governs the process for challenging election results, specifically concerning the recount procedures. A candidate or their representative can request a recount under certain conditions. The statute outlines that a candidate may petition for a recount if the margin of victory between the leading candidate and the petitioning candidate is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the total votes cast for those two candidates. For example, if Candidate A received 10,000 votes and Candidate B received 9,920 votes, the total votes cast for these two candidates is 19,920. The margin of victory is 80 votes. To determine if a recount is permissible based on the percentage threshold, we calculate \( \frac{80}{19920} \times 100\% \). This calculation results in approximately 0.4016%. Since 0.4016% is less than 0.5% (or one-half of one percent), a recount petition would be valid under this provision. The statute also specifies that the petition must be filed with the chief election officer within a specified timeframe after the official results are declared. The election law in Hawaii emphasizes the importance of accuracy and fairness in the electoral process, providing mechanisms to address potential discrepancies or close contests through recounts, ensuring public confidence in the outcome. This specific threshold ensures that recounts are generally reserved for very close races where a small number of votes could potentially alter the result, thus balancing the need for accuracy with the administrative burden of recounts.

In Hawaii, the process for challenging election results is governed by specific statutes, primarily HRS §15-13. This statute outlines the grounds upon which an election contest can be initiated and the procedural requirements. A candidate or any voter who participated in the election can file a contest. The grounds for contest typically include allegations of fraud, intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful practices that materially affected the outcome of the election. The petition must be filed within a strict timeframe, usually within a specified number of days after the results are declared. The petition must be filed with the circuit court of the circuit in which the election contest is brought. It must specify the grounds for the contest and the relief sought, such as a recount or the invalidation of certain ballots. The court then sets a hearing date, and all parties involved are notified. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities were substantial enough to change the election’s outcome. This involves presenting evidence and testimony. The court’s decision can range from dismissing the contest to ordering a new election or certifying a different result. The explanation of the correct option is based on the statutory framework for election contests in Hawaii, emphasizing the procedural and substantive requirements for a successful challenge.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 12, specifically HRS §12-26, addresses the submission of nomination papers for candidates. This statute outlines the requirements for the number of signatures needed for various offices. For a candidate seeking election to the office of county mayor, the statute mandates that the nomination paper must be signed by at least 250 registered voters of the county in which the candidate resides. This requirement ensures a minimum level of community support for a candidate to appear on the ballot. The process involves collecting these signatures from eligible voters within the specific county, and these signed nomination papers must then be filed with the appropriate election official by the statutory deadline. Failure to meet the signature threshold or adhere to filing procedures can result in a candidate’s disqualification from the ballot. Understanding this specific signature requirement is crucial for any aspiring candidate in Hawaii’s local elections.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically section HRS §11-114, governs the absentee voting process. This statute outlines the requirements for requesting an absentee ballot, the timeline for returning ballots, and the procedures for verifying absentee ballots. A crucial aspect of this process is the verification of the voter’s signature. When an absentee ballot is received, election officials compare the signature on the ballot envelope with the voter’s signature on file in the voter registration records. If there is a discrepancy that raises doubt about the ballot’s authenticity, the law provides a mechanism for resolution. This mechanism involves a review by the chief election official or their designee. The process is designed to ensure ballot integrity while also providing an opportunity for voters to cure minor signature discrepancies. The law does not mandate a specific number of days for this review but implies a reasonable period to allow for the comparison and potential contact with the voter. The focus is on the accuracy of the signature comparison to uphold the principle of one person, one vote, and prevent fraudulent voting. This process is distinct from the initial receipt deadline for absentee ballots.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically concerning election offenses, outlines various prohibitions and penalties. HRS § 11-211 addresses the misuse of voter registration information. This statute prohibits the knowing and willful use or disclosure of voter registration information for purposes other than those authorized by law, such as commercial solicitations or political campaigning not directly related to an election. The intent behind this provision is to protect the privacy of voters and prevent the exploitation of sensitive personal data obtained through the voter registration process. Unauthorized use can lead to significant penalties, including fines and imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness with which the state of Hawaii views the integrity of its electoral processes and the protection of its citizens’ information. The statute aims to ensure that information collected solely for the purpose of facilitating democratic participation is not diverted for unrelated or potentially harmful activities. The specific prohibition against using this information for commercial purposes or for any purpose not directly related to an election underscores the principle that voter data is a public trust, not a commodity.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-174.5 outlines the procedures for recounts. Specifically, it states that a candidate who receives a number of votes equal to at least ninety-five percent of the number of votes cast for the winning candidate, or a voter who is eligible to vote in the election, may petition for a recount. The statute also specifies that the recount must be conducted by the county clerk or the chief election officer. In this scenario, the margin between Candidate A and Candidate B is 500 votes. The total votes cast for Candidate A were 10,000. To determine if Candidate B is eligible for a mandatory recount under the ninety-five percent threshold, we calculate ninety-five percent of the winning candidate’s votes. \(0.95 \times 10,000 = 9,500\). Since Candidate B received 9,500 votes, which is exactly ninety-five percent of Candidate A’s votes, Candidate B meets the statutory threshold for a mandatory recount. The law mandates that such a recount shall be conducted by the county clerk. This ensures accuracy and public confidence in the election outcome, particularly in close races. The statute also clarifies that the cost of a recount requested by a candidate is borne by the requesting candidate, unless the recount changes the outcome of the election, in which case the cost is borne by the county.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §11-20.5 outlines the requirements for recounts. Specifically, HRS §11-20.5(a) states that a candidate who receives votes equal to at least 95% of the number of votes cast for the winning candidate is entitled to a recount at state expense. In this scenario, the winning candidate, Representative Kai, received 5,500 votes. The candidate requesting the recount, Ms. Leilani, received 5,100 votes. To determine if Ms. Leilani is entitled to a recount at state expense, we calculate 95% of the winning candidate’s votes: \(0.95 \times 5,500 = 5,225\). Since Ms. Leilani’s 5,100 votes are less than 5,225, she does not meet the threshold for a state-funded recount under this specific statute. The statute also allows for a recount at the requestor’s expense if the margin is closer, but the question specifically asks about a recount at state expense. The key concept here is the threshold for mandatory state-funded recounts in Hawaii, which is tied to a percentage of the winner’s vote count. This ensures that recounts are only initiated when there is a statistically significant closeness in the vote that could potentially alter the outcome, thus conserving public resources. Understanding this percentage threshold is crucial for candidates and election officials in Hawaii.

The scenario presented involves a candidate for the Hawaii House of Representatives who has recently moved from California and wishes to run for office. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 17-3 states that a candidate for the House of Representatives must have been a resident of the State of Hawaii for at least one year immediately preceding the date of the election. Furthermore, HRS § 17-3 also requires a candidate for the House of Representatives to have been a resident of the senatorial district in which they are running for at least three months immediately preceding the date of the election. If the election is scheduled for November 5, 2024, the candidate must have established residency in Hawaii by November 5, 2023, to meet the one-year state residency requirement. Concurrently, they must have established residency in the specific senatorial district by August 5, 2024, to meet the three-month district residency requirement. Therefore, to be eligible to run for the Hawaii House of Representatives in an election held on November 5, 2024, the candidate must have resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to that date and in the specific senatorial district for at least three months prior to that date. This means the candidate must have been a resident of Hawaii since at least November 5, 2023, and a resident of the senatorial district since at least August 5, 2024.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically concerning election campaign contributions and expenditures, outlines strict regulations to ensure transparency and prevent undue influence in elections. HRS §11-204 states that any contribution made by a business entity to a candidate or political committee must be disclosed. Furthermore, HRS §11-204.5 addresses the prohibition of certain contributions, including those from foreign nationals and corporations, with specific exceptions. In the scenario presented, the contribution from “Pacific Holdings Inc.,” a business entity incorporated in Delaware but operating significantly in Hawaii, would fall under these disclosure requirements. The law mandates that the source of such contributions must be clearly identified to the public and the Office of Elections. The nature of the business entity’s incorporation in another state does not exempt it from Hawaii’s campaign finance disclosure laws when it actively participates in Hawaii’s political landscape through contributions. The critical factor is the intent and impact of the contribution within Hawaii’s electoral process. Therefore, Pacific Holdings Inc. is required to disclose its contribution, and the campaign committee receiving it must report it according to Hawaii’s regulations, irrespective of the corporation’s state of incorporation.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 11, specifically concerning election offenses and penalties, outlines various prohibitions and their corresponding consequences. Section 11-131 addresses the unlawful influencing of voters, which includes the prohibition of offering or giving any reward or consideration to any person for giving or withholding their vote. This statute aims to preserve the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring that votes are cast based on genuine conviction rather than undue influence or bribery. The statute specifies that any person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor conviction in Hawaii, as generally defined in HRS §701-107, can result in imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. Therefore, for a first offense under HRS §11-131, the maximum potential penalty would align with the general misdemeanor sentencing guidelines, which includes imprisonment up to one year and a fine up to $1,000.