NO. 29415
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
SOLOMON P. KAHOOHALAHALA, Petitioner,
vs.
ROY T.
HIRAGA, COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY OF MAUI, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner Solomon P. Kahoohalahala and the papers in
support, it appears that respondent's October 10, 2008 ruling did not
decide whether petitioner was nominated or elected as
a candidate in the September 20, 2008 primary election, but decided
only that the challenges to petitioner's nomination
papers were untimely and that petitioner is a registered voter on
Lanai. The October 10, 2008 ruling was not tantamount to
a judgment in a primary election contest given pursuant to HRS §
11-173.5(b) (1993), but was a ruling only on a challenge
to nomination papers and on a person's voter registration status.
Jurisdiction to render such ruling was with respondent
pursuant to HRS §§ 12-8(b) (1993) and 11-25(a) (1993).
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i
200, 204, 982 P.2d
334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that
will not issue
unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a
lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or
obtain the
requested action.); In Re
Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai‘i
363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (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 30, 2008.