REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HAWAII Et Al. v. MINK Et Al.
Headline: Court denies emergency relief, leaving Honolulu rule barring recalled officials from running for two years in place and blocking two recalled councilmen from the special election ballot.
Holding: In an emergency order, Justice Rehnquist denied a stay and refused to block the Honolulu City Clerk from enforcing a two‑year ban on recalled officials running for city office, finding the rule not clearly unconstitutional.
- Prevents two recalled councilmen from appearing on tomorrow's special election ballot.
- Allows the city clerk to enforce the two-year ban for recalled officials.
- This is an emergency denial and could change on full appeal.
Summary
Background
Two recalled City Councilmen from Honolulu, Matsumoto and Paccaro, together with the Republican Party of Hawaii, asked a Justice to stop the City Clerk from excluding them from a special election ballot. The city charter contains a rule saying anyone removed by recall or who resigned after a recall petition is filed cannot run or be appointed to city office for two years. The two councilmen were recalled in an October election and sought to run in a November 30 special election; their emergency request reached the Justice on November 29.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the city charter’s two‑year ban violates the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in a prior case called Anderson v. Celebrezze. The Justice reviewed recent lower-court decisions, noted that the Hawaii Supreme Court adopted a narrowing interpretation but still barred the candidates, and said it was impossible in the short time available to predict how the full Supreme Court would rule. He concluded the charter provision was not clearly unconstitutional under Anderson and relied on the usual presumption that state and local laws are valid, so he denied the emergency request.
Real world impact
Because the Justice denied the emergency relief, the City Clerk may enforce the two‑year exclusion and the two recalled councilmen will be kept off the special election ballot tomorrow. This was an emergency, interim decision about immediate ballot access and not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality, so the issue could still change on full review.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?