I just received response from the election office, and found flaws in the letter.

Among other things,

1. Mr. Nago, Chief election officer, interpreted wrong, Attorney General Opinion No. 86-4.

Contrary to what he stated in the letter, “Article II, Section 7…does not apply to federal elected public officers”, I could not find the statement in the No. 86-4, whatsoever. (Please, check yourself in the picture…lol)

Fyi, as I explained before, this opinion (No. 86-4) might have been the case (seeking federal office from state office), which had ultimately led Senator Steve Cobb to challenge in the court; and he won, although I believe it was a bad decision by State Supreme Court.

However, Ms. Hanabusa’s case is, in the other way, seeking for state office, from federal office. It should apply on her case, since the mandate applies to state office candidate.

2. Mr. Nago also stated Attorney General Opinion No. 86-17, and, correctly on this point; but, he failed to explain and/or provide any evidence if Ms. Hanabusa filed her intention to vacate her seat or not.

Legally, there shoud have been a document or documents, that she intends to vacate her seat.

(Fyi, Ms. Hanabusa’s announcement and media coverage may not be enough. And, I believe the election office may not hand out nomination papers, at their discretion, without any documentation or documents of the availability of the seat.)

This can be considered an election fraud, if they randomly decided by themselves without legal proof (documentations).

Well,

I plan to respond, and demand for legal documentation(s) regarding the availability and opening of the seat, US Congress, district 1; not to mention his misinterpretation of No. 86-4, whether intentional or not.

Aloha.