Filed Date: Sept. 25, 2006
Closed Date: Nov. 8, 2006
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about an allegation of unfairness after a candidate for the US Senate was listed as a partisan candidate with the non-partisan party ballot, when he argued he should have been listed on the non-partisan primary ballot instead. On September 25, 2006, a US Senate candidate filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The plaintiff sued the Chief Elections Officer for the State of Hawaii under the Civil Rights Act. Represented by himself (pro se), the plaintiff sought an injunction to place him on the primary ballot as a non-partisan candidate. He claimed that he was placed on the ballot as a party, which confused the voters.
On September 21, 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint contesting the elections procedures as alleged violations of his fair elections, voting, and civil rights in the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
On October 3, 2006, the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued an order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint because the allegations that Hawaii's 2006 primary election ballot confused voters was not supported by any evidence, and because the challenged Hawaii statute was not discriminatory and unduly burdensome to the plaintiff as a nonpartisan candidate.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration in the Hawaii Supreme Court on October 12, 2006, which the Hawaii Supreme Court denied on October 24, 2006.
That same day, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the District Court of Hawaii. Specifically, in the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that while listing or designating him as a candidate with the nonpartisan party ballot, the Elections Office inconsistently and unfairly did not treat the plaintiff as a partisan candidate. He alleged that he should have been placed as a nonpartisan on the nonpartisan primary ballot, not the nonpartisan party ballot. According to the plaintiff, treated as a partisan candidate, he would have advanced the ballot of the general election to (a) the person(s) receiving the greatest number of votes at the primary or special primary as a candidate of a party for an office. But treated as a non-partisan candidate on the party ballot, he would incur irreparable harm by being eliminated to the ballot of the general election. Plaintiff's amended complaint argued that he was deprived of rights "since he was listed or designated as a candidate with the nonpartisan party ballot on the official ballot before the voting public by the Elections Office."
On November 6, 2006, the Court held that the doctrine of res judicata precluded its review of the case. The plaintiff's Amended Complaint raised the same issues as his original complaint, which this Court found failed to state a claim and the Hawaii Supreme Court found not to be supported by any evidence. The Court further held that the Amended Complaint also raised the same issues as his motion for reconsideration denied by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Specifically, the Court held that res judicata precludes review of the plaintiff's claims because: (1) the issues in the present case and those decided in the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision were identical, (2) the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the parties in the Hawaii Supreme Court action were the same as the parties in this case.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
(1/7/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/28117904/parties/amsterdam-v-yoshina/
Gillmor, Helen W. (Hawaii)
Amsterdam, C. Kaui (Hawaii)
Chang, Steven K. (Hawaii)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/28117904/amsterdam-v-yoshina/
Last updated March 11, 2025, 10:43 a.m.
State / Territory: Hawaii
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 25, 2006
Closing Date: Nov. 8, 2006
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Resident of Honolulu who was a candidate for the US Sente for Hawaii in the 2006 Primary Election
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Dwayne Yoshina, Chief Election Officer for the State of Hawaii, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: