81 Hawai'i 230, Hirono v. Peabody

• Citation: 915 P.2d 704
• Decision Date: 17 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. 18386,18386
• Parties: 81 Hawai'i 230 Mazie K. HIRONO, 1 Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai'i, in her Capacity as the Chief Election Officer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George G. PEABODY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 704

915 P.2d 704

81 Hawai'i 230

Mazie K. HIRONO, ¹ Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai'i, in her Capacity as the Chief Election Officer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George G. PEABODY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18386.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

April 17, 1996.

Appeal from the Second Circuit Court, County of Maui (Civ. No. 94-0592(1)).

George G. Peabody, on the briefs, Kaunakakai, Molokai, pro se.

Robert A. Marks, Former Attorney General, and Russell A. Suzuki and Winfred K.T. Pong, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ.

MOON, Chief Justice.

Defendant-appellant George G. Peabody appeals from the judgment of the Second Circuit Court, entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Mazie K. Hirono, Lieutenant Governor, in her capacity as chief election officer for the State of Hawai'i, which disqualified Peabody as a Libertarian party candidate for the office of governor of the State of Hawai'i. The Lieutenant Governor had objected to Peabody's nomination papers and brought this action to disqualify Peabody as a candidate because no one from the Libertarian party had filed nomination papers to run for the office of lieutenant governor.

On appeal, Peabody argues that the circuit court erred in upholding his disqualification because Hawai'i law does not require that there be a candidate for lieutenant governor from the same party in order for the name of a candidate for governor to be placed on the ballot. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 27, 1994, Peabody filed his nomination papers with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor as a Libertarian party candidate for the office of governor of the State of Hawai'i. Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 12-6 (1993), ² the deadline for the filing of nomination papers for the office of governor and lieutenant governor was July 19, 1994.

By the time the deadline for the filing of nomination papers had passed, no person had filed nomination papers as a Libertarian candidate for the office of lieutenant governor. By certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 5, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor, pursuant to HRS § 12-8(a) (1993), ³ objected in writing to the nomination papers filed by Peabody on the ground that no person from the Libertarian Party had filed nomination papers for the office of lieutenant governor by the July 19, 1994 deadline. By letter dated August 10, 1994, Peabody responded to the Lieutenant Governor's objection, and by certified mail addressed to Peabody, dated August 12, 1994, Peabody was notified of the Lieutenant Governor's preliminary decision that, pursuant to article V, section 2 of the Hawai'i Constitution, Peabody would be disqualified as a candidate for governor.

On August 16, 1994, the Lieutenant Governor filed a verified complaint in the circuit court for a determination of the objection pursuant to HRS § 12-8(c) (1993). ⁴ After a hearing, the circuit court sustained the Lieutenant Governor's objection to Peabody's nomination papers, disqualified Peabody as a candidate, and, on August 29, 1994, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment in favor of the Lieutenant Governor. This timely appeal followed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A circuit court's findings of fact (FOF) are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994) (citing State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 328, 861 P.2d 11, 22 (1993)). "An FOF is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. The circuit court's conclusions of law are reviewed under the right/wrong standard. Id. at 180, 873 P.2d at 59 (citing In re Estate of Holt, 75 Haw. 224, 234, 857 P.2d 1355 [1359] reconsideration denied, 75 Haw. 580, 863 P.2d 989 (1993)).

State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 459, 896 P.2d 911, 915 (1995).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Article V, Section 2 of the Hawai'i Constitution Requires That a Partisan Candidate for Governor Must Seek Nomination With a Partisan Candidate for Lieutenant Governor in the Primary Election.

Peabody argues that the circuit court erred in upholding his disqualification because "Hawaii law does not require that there be a qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in order to permit the name of a candidate for Governor to appear on the ballot for a given political party." We disagree.

Article V, section 2 of the Hawai'i Constitution provides:

There shall be a lieutenant governor who shall have the same qualifications as the governor. The lieutenant governor shall be elected at the same time, for the same term and in the same manner as the governor; provided that the votes cast in the general election for the nominee for governor shall be deemed cast for the nominee for lieutenant governor of the same political party. No person shall be elected to the office of lieutenant governor for more than two consecutive full terms. The lieutenant governor shall perform such duties as may be provided by law.

The language of article V, section 2 sets out three express requirements: (1) a lieutenant governor is required in State government; (2) the lieutenant governor is to be elected at the same time and in the same manner as the governor; and (3) the governor and the lieutenant governor must be elected together, as a pair, in that a vote cast for governor in the general election will constitute a vote cast for the lieutenant governor.

Inherent in the scheme set out by the first three express requirements of article V, section 2, however, is a necessary implicit fourth requirement that the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor who form the pairs that are elected together also must be of the same political party.

"We have long recognized that the Hawai'i Constitution must be construed with due regard to the intent of the framers and the people adopting it, and the fundamental principle in interpreting a constitutional provision is to give effect to that intent." Convention Center Auth. v. Anzai, 78 Hawai'i 157, 167, 890 P.2d 1197, 1207 (1995) (citations brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). As the circuit court noted, the legislative history of the bill that proposed the amendment of article V, section 2 indicates that the amendments were crafted to require that partisan candidates for governor must run in pairs and that each pair seeking election must be comprised of individuals from the same political party. The relevant legislative history provides in pertinent part that:

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the election of the governor and the lieutenant governor of the same political party by a single vote. This is to preclude the difficulties which might arise from the election of a governor and a lieutenant governor from opposite political parties. At the present time, our constitution provides that the lieutenant governor shall be elected in the same manner as the governor. This language of the constitutional provision is ambiguous and does not indicate whether a single ballot can be used in electing both the governor and the lieutenant governor.

Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 146, in 1963 Senate Journal, at 722-23 (emphasis added). ⁵ See also Hse.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 184, in 1963 House Journal, at 636. The legislature therefore submitted proposed amendments to article V, section 2 to the electorate, with the specific intent of precluding election of a governor and lieutenant governor from different political parties, and the means by which it sought to achieve this goal was to provide for the election of both offices by the casting of one vote. This goal cannot be met if a partisan candidate for governor who lacks a running mate for lieutenant governor from the same political party is allowed to be placed on the ballot.

B. The Succession Order Prescribed in HRS § 26-2(a) (1993) Is Irrelevant to an Interpretation of Article V, Section 2 of the Hawai'i Constitution.

HRS § 26-2(a) (1993) provides:

Order of succession to offices of governor and lieutenant governor. (a) When the office of lieutenant governor is vacant by reasons of the lieutenant governor's becoming governor, or the lieutenant governor's failure to qualify, or the lieutenant governor's removal from office, death, resignation, or otherwise, the powers and duties of the office of lieutenant governor shall devolve upon the president of the senate; or, if there is none or upon the president's failure to resign promptly from all legislative offices held by the president, then upon the speaker of the house of representatives; or if there is none or upon the speaker's failure to resign promptly from all legislative offices held by the speaker, then upon the attorney general, the director of finance, the comptroller, the director of taxation, and the director of personnel services in the order named; provided that any officer upon whom the powers and duties of the office of lieutenant governor devolve may decline the powers and duties without the officer's resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which the officer qualifies to act as lieutenant governor, in which event the powers and duties will devolve upon the next officer listed in the order of succession.

Peabody argues that "it cannot be concluded ... that Hawaii law requires that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor be of the same political party" because the succession order prescribed in HRS § 26-2(a) "pays no attention to any such requirement." We disagree for two reasons.

First, and most importantly, as previously discussed, article V, section 2 specifically requires that the elected governor and the lieutenant governor be "of the same political party," and the legislature's prime motivation in proposing the amendments to article V, section 2 was to avoid...