NO. 28159
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM,
Candidate for the U.S. Senate,
Plaintiff
vs.
DWAYNE D. YOSHINA, Chief Elections
Officer
for the State of Hawai`i, Defendant
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the "complaint contesting the elections
procedures" filed by C. Kauai Amsterdam on September 21,
2006, which is treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears
that petitioner's claim that the ballot for the
September 23, 2006 Hawai`i primary election confuses voters about
petitioner's nonpartisan candidacy is not supported by
any evidence and the claim is not clear and certain. It further appears
that HRS § 12-41(b) is not discriminatory and unduly
burdensome to petitioner as a nonpartisan candidate. See Hustace v. Doi, 60 Haw.
282, 588 P.2d 915 (1978). Therefore,
petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to
relief and is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See In
Re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai`i 363, 984
P.2d 688 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to
compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual
only if the individual's claim is clear and certain, the
official's duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free
from doubt, and no other remedy is available.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawai`i, October 3, 2006.