1) Plaintiff Martin Han is suing defendants Joey Manahan and Scott Nago for violations of Hawaii election laws during the August 11, 2012 primary election. 2) Han alleges that Manahan, a candidate, left campaign signs within 200 feet of two polling places, in violation of a law prohibiting electioneering near polling places. 3) Han asserts that these violations may have influenced enough undecided voters to cause Manahan to receive just over 50% of the vote, the threshold to advance to the general election, while Han received under 25% of the vote. Han is asking the court to review absentee ballots and order Manahan's removal from the general election ballot.

1. NO. _________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF STATE OF HAWAI’I
MARTIN HAN,
Plaintiff.
vs.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual,
ROMAY M. CACHOLA AND SCOTT
NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, in his
official capacity,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
EXHIBITS “A” to “E”
LAW OFFICES OF TERESA D. MORRISON
TERESA D. MORRISON – 8487
7 4 5 K E E A U M O K U S T R E T, S U I T E
201B HONOLULU, HAWAII 96817
TELEPHONE NO. (808) 397-9477

2. (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED)
2

3. COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Martin Han (“Han”), alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a candidate in the State of Hawai`i within the meaning of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (“HRS”) § 11-172.
2. Defendant JOEY MANAHAN (“MANAHAN”) is a natural person and resident of
the City and County of Honolulu.
3. Defendant ROMY M. CACHOLA (“CACHOLA”) is a natural person and resident of
the City and County of Honolulu.
4. Defendant SCOTT NAGO (“NAGO”) is the Chief Election Officer of the State of
Hawai`i and is responsible for the administration and supervision of all elections.
JURISDICTION
5. Pursuant to HRS § 11-172, a candidate directly interested may file a complaint with
the Hawai`i Supreme Court.
6. Pursuant to HRS § 11- 173.5(a), the complaint shall be filed no later than 4:30p.m. on
the sixth day after a primary election.
7. Pursuant to HRS § 11-135(b), “the court shall hear the contest in a summary manner
and at the hearing the court shall cause the evidence to be reduced to writing and…give judgment.”
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
8. Defendant Manahan seeks to be candidate for election to the Honolulu City Council,
District 7 Councilmember in the State of Hawai`i.
9. Defendant Nago, acting in his official capacity, conducted and administered a primary
election on August 11, 2012 to identify candidates eligible to stand for election for various elected
offices, including election to the office of Councilmember to the Honolulu City Council for District
7 in the State of Hawai`i.
10. In February 2012, Defendant Manahan declared his candidacy for District 7
3

4. Councilmember for the Honolulu City Council.
11. At the time of his announcement, Defendant Manahan was the State House Vice
Speaker and House Representative for District 29. Defendant Manahan served as the State House
Representative for District 29 for three (3) terms.
12. Due to term limits, the current District 7 Councilmember, Romy Cachola (“Cachola”)
was prevented from seeking another term as the District 7 Councilmember for the Honolulu City
Council
13. On January 19, 2012, Defendant Nago, acting in his official capacity provided a 2012
Candidates Manual to all available registered candidates. A copy of the 2012 Candidate Manual is
attached as Exhibit D.
14. On August 11, 2012, the State of Hawai`i Primary Elections polls were opened at
7:00 a.m. Statewide.
15. On August 11, 2012, the day of the primary election, Defendant Manahan’s campaign
posters were prominently displayed at the Laborers International Union of North America, Local 368
(“Local 368”) located at 1617 Palama Street, Honolulu, HI 96817. A copy of the Restricted
Electioneering Map for Representative District is attached as Exhibit A.
16. At approximately 11:30 a.m., the Honolulu Police Department ordered Local 368 to
remove all political signage and cited Local 368 for violation of HRS § 11-1321 .
17. On August 11, 2012, Defendant Manahan’s campaign posters were also present
within two hundred feet of the perimeter of the polling area at Moanalua High School Cafeteria. A
copy of the Restricted Electioneering Area for Representative District is attached as Exhibit B-1.
1 §11-132 Two hundred foot radius; admission within polling place. (a) The precinct officials shall post in a
conspicuous place, prior to the opening of the polls, a map designating an area of two hundred feet from the perimeter of
the polling place and its appurtenances. Any person who remains or loiters within an area of two hundred feet from the
perimeter of the polling place and its appurtenances for the purpose of campaigning shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
For the purposes of this section, a polling place and its appurtenances shall include:
(1) The building in which the polling place is located;
(2) Any parking lot adjacent to the building and routinely used for parking at that building;
(3) The routes of access between the building and any parking lot; and
(4) Any route of access between any public thoroughfare (right of way) and the polling place to ensure an open and
accessible ingress and egress to and from the polling place for voters.
4

5. 18. Defendant Manahan’s campaign posters were not only within the prohibited two
hundred feet, but were also inside the school entrance en route to the polling area. This was a clear
and direct violation of HRS § 11-132(a).
19. Subsequently, a complaint that Defendant Manahan’s campaign banners were in
direct violation of campaign laws was made to Dorian Ternora (“Ternora”), the Polling Captain at
Moanalua High School.
20. At approximately 9:30 a.m., Ternora with her aide removed Defendant Manahan’s
campaign banners. A photograph of Ternora and her aide removing Defendant Manahan’s signage
are attached as Exhibits B-2 and B-3.
21. Entering into the primary election day on August 11, 2012, polls indicated there were
approximately 40% undecided voters for the District 7 Councilmember for the Honolulu City
Council.
22. For a candidate to enter the November 2012 General Elections, a candidate must
obtain fifty (“50”) plus (“one”) votes in the primary elections.
23. The primary elections results of the August 11, 2012, for the District 7
Councilmember for the Honolulu City Council were as follows: 1) Defendant Manahan received
7,047 votes (51%), 2) Plaintiff received 3,436 votes (24.9%), and 3) Lillian Hong received 1,765
votes (12.8%).
24. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Manahan purposefully left his campaign signs within
the 200 foot perimeter of two polling areas to influence the approximately 40% undecided voters in
direct violation of HRS § 11-132.
25. Plaintiff asserts that the registered voters in the areas of Local 368 and Moanalua
High School are predominantly retired senior citizens.
26. Plaintiff asserts that historically retired senior citizens vote early in the morning and
that on August 11, 2012, many of these voters who may also have been an undecided voter for the
District 7 Councilmember position of the Honolulu City Council were swayed by Defendant
Manahan’s campaign signs that were within the prohibited area.
27. On August 11, 2012, the polling areas near Local 368 and at Moanalua High School
opened at 7:00 a.m. where Defendant Manahan’s campaign signs were clearly in violation of HRS §
5

6. 11- 132. Defendant Manahan’s signs were not removed from Local 368 and Moanalua High School
until 11:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., respectively.
28. Plaintiff asserts that a substantial number of voters saw Defendant Manahan’s signage
immediately prior to their voting in the primary election, which included the Councilmember
position for District 7 for the Honolulu City Council that Defendant Manahan was a candidate.
29. Plaintiff asserts that a polling place is and should be unbiased. When a registered
voter enters a polling area to cast their vote, their vote should be theirs and theirs alone and should
not be swayed one way or another by campaign signs such as the ones Defendant Manahan had at or
near the polling locations.
30. The final result between Defendant Manahan and Plaintiff was 51% and 24.9%,
respectively. Plaintiff asserts that the result is a difference of less than 1% of undecided voters that
may have been misled or prompted to vote for Defendant Manahan due to his campaign signs being
left on display in several locations.
31. Plaintiff asserts that as a 3-term State House of Representative for District 29,
Defendant Manahan is fully knowledgeable about campaign laws, specifically prohibited activities
on the day of an election.
32. Plaintiff asserts that the 2012 Candidate Manual provided to candidates by Defendant
6

7. Nago clearly states activities prohibited on Election Day 2.
33. Plaintiff asserts that the polling station near Local 368 and the polling station at
Moanalua High School should not have been open until Defendant Manahan’s campaign signs were
removed from the prohibited areas.
34. Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s campaign office received numerous complaints from
registered voters in District 7 of other candidates visiting their homes.
35. Plaintiff asserts that there was an unusually high amount of absentee ballots in
Representative District Precinct 30-02, which may indicate voter fraud in District 7.
36. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Manahan and Cachola received a significant amount
of absentee ballots from Representative District Precinct 32-02 and the absentee votes each received
were very close, 777 and 685, respectively. A copy of the number of absentee ballots received at
each precinct is attached as Exhibit C.
37. In the August 11, 2012, primary elections, the average number of absentee votes any
candidate received on Election Day calculates to 47.46%3. The maximum percentage of absentee
2 2012 Candidates Manual, page 18, (emphasis added):
Prohibited Activities: Campaign activities for the purpose of influencing votes are prohibited within the polling place
and within an area of 200 feet from the perimeter of the polling place and its appurtenances on election day (HRS
§§11-132 and 19-6).
Automobiles and other vehicles with political signs and stickers may remain within the 200 foot perimeter of the polling
place only during the time that the owner (voter) is actually voting.
Other activities not allowed within the 200 foot perimeter of the polling place on election day:
- Political signs on public or private property;
- Political clothing, including armbands, hatbands, shirts, muumuus, dresses, and campaign buttons;
- Campaign pamphlets or other literature;
- Public address systems and other public communication media; Motor caravans or parades; and
- Entertainment troupes or free food and/or services.
Candidates and their supporters are urged to check the 200 foot perimeter around each polling place and its
appurtenances prior to election day to ensure compliance with the law. Regional election maps which depict the 200
foot perimeter around each polling place and its appurtenances are available at the Office of Elections and the
respective Office of the County Clerk. A map will also be posted at the polling place prior to the opening of the polls.
3 The Ratio is the Percent absentee ballots to total ballots. Total Absentee Votes = Absentee Mail Votes + Absentee Walk-
in Votes. Ratio All Absentee Votes = [Total Absentee Votes + Total Votes (Column V)] * 100
7

8. votes a candidate received was 73.22%. Defendant Cachola is the only candidate to receive that high
of a percentage of votes from absentee ballots.
38. Plaintiff asserts that in the 2000 elections, the Elections Task Force researched
possible fraud and voting irregularities in the race for Councilmember for District 30 of the
Honolulu City Council, which Cahola was a candidate. A copy of the Hawaii Reporter article is
attached as Exhibit E.
39. According to the Election Task Force, they researched the vote count in this race due
to the uncommonly high rate of absentee ballots in the area that demonstrated possible fraud. Prior to
counting the absentee ballots Cachola was losing by a large number of votes. After the absentee
ballots were counted, Cachola received 91% of the absentee ballots and won his race. See Exhibit E.
40. Plaintiff asserts that in the August 11, 2012 primary election, Defendant Cachola, who
ran for the State House District 30 Seat, was losing to his opponent Nicole Velasco until the mail-in
ballots were counted. Subsequently, Defendant Cachola defeated his opponent 51% to 46%.
41. According to the August 16, 2012 article in the Honolulu Civil Beat, their analysis
was that “more than 70 percent of those who voted for Cachola in the Democratic primary against
[Nicole] Velasco did so via a mail-in ballot. That was by far the highest percentage in Hawaii.” A
copy of the article is attached as Exhibit F.
42. Plaintiff asserts that no candidate received anywhere near the number of absentee
ballot votes that Defendant Manahan and Cachola received at Precinct 32-02. See Exhibit C.
43. Defendant Manahan previously represented District 29 and has never run for office in
which he would receive votes from Precinct 30-02.
44. As a first time candidate running in this District, Defendant Manahan received 777
absentee ballot which is not only a substantially high number for any candidate but even more so for
a first time candidate in this District.
45. Plaintiff asserts that the average number of absentee votes Defendant Manahan and
Defendant Cachola received in all other precincts was 144 or less. Defendant Manahan and
Defendant Cachola received 777 and 685 absentee votes respectively from precinct 30-02, which is
three to four times above the average number of absentee votes each received from the other
precincts. See Exhibit C.
8

9. 46. Plaintiff asserts that there is a sizeable amount of care homes in this voting district.
47. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Cachola’s wife is a doctor and provides service to
many of the elderly in care homes.
48. Plaintiff asserts that many of the 777 and 685 absentee ballots that Defendant
Manahan and Defendant Cachola received may have come from residents at these care homes.
49. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Cachola made telephone calls on behalf of Defendant
Manahan to Labor Unions, supporters and donators urging them to support Defendant Manahan
further illustrating that Defendant Cachola and Defendant Manahan worked together for votes.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
1. For judgment that due to the violations of HRS § 11-132, Plaintiff’s name be allowed
on the ballots for the State of Hawai`i General Elections on November 6, 2012;
2. For judgment that the Elections Office review and compare each of the 777 and 685
absentee voter names that Defendant Manahan and Defendant Cachola, respectively, received from
Precinct 30-02.
3. For judgment that the Elections Offices review each of the 777 and 685 absentee
ballots for actual signatures compared to an X marking for signature.
4. For judgment that the 777 absentee voters of Defendant Manahan and the 685
absentee voters of Defendant Cachola’s from Representative District Precinct 30-02 be interviewed
to determine if their ballots were handled correctly or if there was any coercion by any public official
or persons acting on behalf of a public official;
5. For judgment that all absentee ballots from Representative District Precinct 32-02 be
reviewed and recounted for accuracy and authenticity;
6. For judgment that Defendant Manahan violated HRS § 11- 132;
7. For judgment that Defendant Nago violated HRS §11 -132;
8. For other judicial determinations and orders necessary to effectuate Defendant
Manahan and Defendant Nago’s responsibility in the violation of HRS § 11-132;
9. For such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 16, 2012.
9

10. Respectfully,
____________________________________
TERESA D. MORRISON
Attorney for Plaintiff
10

11. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the Complaint, Exhibits A through E was
duly served by placing the same in the United States Mail, postage paid, first-class mail on the date
indicated below:
MR. JOEY MANAHAN
1250 Richard Lane, A408
Honolulu, HI 96819
MR. ROMY CACHOLA
P.O. Box 17675
Honolulu, HI 96817
MR. EDWIN YOSHIMURA
Chairperson for Friends of Romy Cachola
15 Craigside Place #110
Honolulu HI 96817
THE HONORABLE SCOTT T. NAGO
Chief Election Officer
Office of the Elections
802 Lehua Avenue
Pearl City, HI 96782
The undersigned hereby certifies that a certified copy of the Complaint, Exhibits “A” through
“E” was duly served by placing the same in the United States Mail, postage pre-paid, first-class mail
on the date indicated below:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Hawai`i
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 16, 2012.
___________________________________
11

12. TERESA D. MORRISON
Attorney for Plaintiff
MARTIN HAN
12

13. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
MARTIN HAN,
SC NO. _______________________
Plaintiff.
SUMMONS
vs. For HRS Sec. 11-173.5
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual, ROMY
M. CACHOLA, as an individual, AND
SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION
OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, in
his official capacity,
Defendants.
SUMMONS
STATE OF HAWAI`I
To the above-named Defendant: Mr. Joey Manahan
You are hereby summoned to appear in the Supreme Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth
day after the date of service of the summons upon you, exclusive of the day of services, to answer
the annexed Complaint; Exhibits “A” through “E”; Certificate of Service.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i , 2012.
________________________________
Clerk of Court
13

14. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
MARTIN HAN,
Plaintiff. SC NO. _______________________
vs. SUMMONS
For HRS Sec. 11-173.5
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual, ROMY
M. CACHOLA, as an individual, AND
SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION
OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, in
his official capacity,
Defendants.
SUMMONS
STATE OF HAWAI`I
To the above-named Defendant: The Honorable Scott T. Nago, Chief Election Officer, Office of the
Elections
You are hereby summoned to appear in the Supreme Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth
day after the date of service of the summons upon you, exclusive of the day of services, to answer
the annexed Complaint; Exhibits “A” through “E”; Certificate of Service.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i , 2012.
________________________________
Clerk of Court
14

15. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
MARTIN HAN,
Plaintiff. SC NO. _______________________
vs. SUMMONS
For HRS Sec. 11-173.5
JOEY MANAHAN, as an individual, ROMY
M. CACHOLA, as an individual, AND
SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION
OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, in
his official capacity,
Defendants.
SUMMONS
STATE OF HAWAI`I
To the above-named Defendant: Mr. Romy M. Cachola
You are hereby summoned to appear in the Supreme Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth
day after the date of service of the summons upon you, exclusive of the day of services, to answer
the annexed Complaint; Exhibits “A” through “E”; Certificate of Service.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i , 2012.
________________________________
Clerk of Court
15