The Supreme Court's 3-2 Split on District IV and the God of War's Fight for Ballot Access

Following high-stakes oral arguments, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued a 3-2 ruling determining that Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters is legally ineligible to seek re-election for a third consecutive term, finalizing the candidate lineup for the upcoming Council District 4 general election.

Key Points of the Supreme Court's Decision

• Term-Limit Disqualification: The Supreme Court majority ruled that Waters had already been elected to two consecutive four-year terms (the delayed 2019–2023 term following a court-ordered special election, and the 2023–2027 term). Under Section 3-102 of the Honolulu City Charter, term limits hinge on being elected to two consecutive terms rather than the exact duration or tenure served in office.
• The New General Election Matchup:As a result of Waters' disqualification, his 8,654 primary votes (28.2%) were invalidated. The top two eligible vote-getters—Trevor Ozawa (39.9%) and Tara Malia Gregory (13.7%)—will advance to the November 3 general election ballot.
• Voter Lawsuit Rejected: The legal challenge brought by 40 District IV voting residents seeking to reinstate Waters was denied. The court held that receiving votes in an election cannot override substantive constitutional and charter eligibility mandates.
• Procedural Resolution on Pre-Election Challenges: While the Supreme Court ultimately disqualified Waters on the post-election merits, it agreed with a major procedural objection: Trevor Ozawa's initial June declaratory lawsuit bypassed proper statutory procedures under HRS § 12-8 for pre-election candidate disputes.
• Widespread Judicial Recusals: In an unusual development, several justices and judges recused themselves from the proceedings—including Chief Justice Vladimir Devens and Associate Justice Todd Eddins—requiring a panel of substitute circuit judges to step in and decide the case.

The Otake Arguments: Democracy, Due Process, and Bright-Line Rules

Representing 40 voting members of the District IV community, Thomas Otake stood before the high court to challenge the disenfranchisement of local voters and advocate for procedural integrity. It was vintage "God of War"—substantive legal grounds paired with compelling delivery.

As we are always reminded when the "God of War" addresses the court, his arguments were logical, airtight, and persuasive. As seen during his masterclass in the Konig trial, once Otake gets on a roll, it is very difficult to withstand his legal reasoning, his laser focus, and his relentless advocacy. 

1. Fighting for 8,654 Disenfranchised Voters

Otake centered his oral argument on the disruptive timing of the challenge. After the city clerk initially vetted and cleared Waters under HRS § 12-8, ballots were printed and mailed on July 17. Voting had already been underway for 10 days when the circuit court disqualified Waters on July 27, effectively wiping out 8,654 ballots. Otake challenged the bench directly:

2. Upholding HRS § 12-8 to Prevent Chaos

Otake argued that this election mess occurred because the statutory framework was disregarded. HRS § 12-8 was enacted specifically to create tight, expedited administrative timelines to resolve candidate qualifications before ballots drop. Allowing an opposing candidate to bypass that statute and file mid-election declaratory judgment actions undermines orderly elections and uses the courts to decide who runs against whom.

3. The Bright-Line Rule Against "Bench Legislation"

On the substantive interpretation of Charter Section 3-102, Otake cautioned the justices against subjectively calculating whether partial terms count toward term limits:

• The Plain Meaning: Section 3-102 defines a regular four-year term as beginning on the second day of January following the election. Because Waters won a special remedial election in April 2019, he was never elected to a full four-year term beginning January 2.
• The Bright Line: Otake urged the court to adopt a simple, objective standard: If the election occurs before January 2, the candidate is elected to a four-year term; if the election occurs after January 2, they are not. Any alternative adjustment must come through a legislative charter amendment voted on by the public, not through judicial guesswork.

4. Erring on the Side of Democracy

Closing on rebuttal, Otake emphasized nationwide and local precedents holding that whenever eligibility statutes are legitimately open to debate, courts must err on the side of ballot access and let the voters decide. While the court has wide latitude to craft remedies under election contest rules, disenfranchising thousands of voters who participated in good faith cuts against the core of representative democracy.

Jail Mail Nick's HOT TAKE

Anyone who reads Jail Mail knows there is no bigger fan of Thomas Otake in the entire judiciary. At the same time, I’ve only ever heard positive things about Tommy Waters, going all the way back to his days as a criminal defense attorney. But looking at the big picture, Waters’ career is far from over—it only goes up from here. His next chapter could easily be a springboard into a major private sector role or a higher government office where he can make an even bigger impact.

The exact figure at the heart of Waters’ legal argument was 3 years, 7 months, and 25 days (sworn in May 8, 2019, through January 2, 2023)—a tenure he argued fell short of a full four-year term. But looking at the big picture, that partial term was practically a full term anyway, giving him over seven and a half consecutive years in office.

Timing governs every career. When your number is called, you step into the arena and deliver while your window is open. 

The exact same rule applies to power. There comes a point where you need to pivot—and often, that pivot leads to a better position. 

In all my years working in and around the Hawaiʻi legal system, Mr. Waters has been one of the most widely respected figures of our generation—both in the courtroom and at City Hall. When he filed for another term, my personal take was that he had already built the perfect launchpad to pivot toward a larger statewide office or lucrative private venture. But I respect the drive to serve. Win or lose, I respect a fighter, and I truly believe this ruling is an inflection point rather than an ending. It clears the path for him to step into a bigger role with broader reach and deeper fulfillment.

“Positivity over EVERYTHANG”

— Jail Mail Nick