by Andrew Walden

Campbell Estate Heiress Abigail Kawananakoa yesterday filed suit in Oahu’s First Circuit Court seeking invalidation of votes by six Honolulu County council members on several key Rail-related bills and resolutions. 

The six are: Cachola, Garcia, Kobayashi, DelaCruz, Apo and Anderson.

The eleven measures which Kawananakoa deems invalid after conflicted votes are stricken:  Bill 82 (2006), Bill 79 (2006), Reso 10-124, Bill 5 (2010), Reso 10-49, Reso 68 (2010), Reso 86 (2010), Bill 33 (2012), Bill 31 (2012), Bill 32 (2012), Bill 37 (2010)

Here hare some quotes from her brief:

51. Plaintiff is aware of at least eleven (11) City Council measures, the passage of which turned on votes cast by councilmembers while under undisclosed conflicts, and which are thus null and void…

58. As a result of the above-described conduct of former City Council members Cachola, Garcia, and other councilmembers, there is an actual and genuine controversy as to the validity of their votes cast on measures while under undisclosed conflicts of interest.

59. Under Hui Malama Aina O Ko'olau v. Pacarro, 4 Haw. App. 304, 666 P.2d 177 (Haw. App. 1983), the votes cast by Cachola, Garcia, and other councilmembers while under undisclosed conflicts of interest were invalid, and the resulting measures are void and unenforceable if their passage turned on said invalid votes.

60. There is therefore a genuine controversy with respect to the issues of (1) the validity of the votes cast by Cachola, Garcia, and other councilmembers while under undisclosed conflicts of interest, and (2) the legality and enforceability of the laws that were passed as a result of the invalid votes.

61. Plaintiff is entitled to a ruling in her favor declaring that (1) the votes cast by Cachola, Garcia, and other councilmembers while under undisclosed conflicts were invalid, and (2) the resulting laws are void and unenforceable if their passage turned on said invalid votes.  The foregoing relief applies to the bills and resolutions identified in the above paragraph 51, as well as to any other bills or resolutions that may be identified through further investigation and discovery.

64. As a result of the conduct described herein and the City's continued enforcement and funding with tax dollars of potentially void and unenforceable laws, Plaintiff and the public are sustaining irreparable harm.

65. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing or continuing to fund the invalid laws until such time as the City Council ratifies the same by holding are-vote on each related measure of non-conflicted City Council members who are not otherwise disqualified from voting.

PDF: FULL TEXT of SUIT

Related: Rail Revote: Is There Anybody Without a Conflict of Interest?

RELATED: Six Council Members Bought Off by Lobbyists, Key Rail Votes may be Nullified