-----Original Message----- From: << Name removed >> << Name removed >> <<name and email address> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:49 PM To: OE.Elections < <name and email address> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Records Request for Office of Elections: We would like the Scanned Images of the Wet Ballots for District 37 2024 General Election. [#1349] Aloha, Pursuant to the public records law, I would like to request the following records in electronic format sent to my email address. Mahalo, << Name removed >> << Name removed >>

-----Original Message----- From: << Name removed >> << Name removed >> <<name and email address> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 7:10 AM To: OE.Elections < <name and email address> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Records Request for Office of Elections: We would like the Scanned Images of the Wet Ballots for District 37 2024 General Election. [#1349] Dear Sir or Madam, Subject: Response to Denial of UIPA Records Request for Scanned Ballot Images To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in response to the denial of my Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) request for PDF copies of the scanned images of the wet ballots for District 37 in the 2024 General Election. After reviewing your explanation, I respectfully contest the withholding of these records, as it does not align with the legal provisions governing public access to election-related documents. 1. Ballot Secrecy Does Not Preclude Disclosure Your denial cites Article II, Section 4 of the Hawaii State Constitution, which ensures the secrecy of voting. However, ballot images do not contain any personally identifiable information that would compromise voter anonymity. Modern voting systems are designed to ensure that ballots cannot be traced back to individual voters, making the argument that disclosure would violate voter privacy inapplicable. Furthermore, federal courts have consistently held that ballot images are public records. Notably, in National Election Defense Coalition v. Boockvar, the court emphasized the public’s right to inspect election-related materials to ensure election integrity. The Hawaii State Constitution does not prohibit the release of non-identifiable records, and redaction is a common practice for safeguarding personal data while allowing transparency. 2. No Legal Basis for “Frustration of a Legitimate Government Function” The assertion that disclosure would “frustrate a legitimate government function” is overly broad and lacks specificity. The fundamental function of elections is to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust. Providing ballot images serves this function rather than frustrating it. HRS § 11-154, which requires the sealing of ballots, applies to physical ballots, not electronic ballot images. Additionally, the federal retention law (52 USC § 20701) requires that election materials be preserved for 22 months but does not prohibit their disclosure under state public records laws. In fact, maintaining ballot images is meant to ensure election transparency, not restrict it. 3. IT Security Concerns Are Speculative and Insufficient to Deny Public Access Your response suggests that releasing ballot images could expose vulnerabilities in election security systems. However, ballot images are static records that reflect the votes cast and do not contain sensitive IT security information. Releasing these images would not compromise election infrastructure, especially since numerous jurisdictions across the United States have made ballot images publicly available without issue. Moreover, federal agencies, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have recommended election transparency measures that include making certain election records publicly accessible to bolster confidence in election outcomes. The claim that disclosure could facilitate hacking or manipulation is speculative and does not justify withholding records under UIPA. 4. Public Interest Outweighs Any Alleged Privacy or Security Risks Under HRS § 92F-2, the UIPA is designed to promote transparency and accountability by granting the public access to government records unless a clear and compelling reason exists for withholding them. In this case, no such compelling reason has been demonstrated. The public has a vested interest in election integrity, and access to ballot images enhances confidence in the electoral process. Request for Reconsideration Given these points, I formally request that your office reconsider its decision and provide the requested ballot images, with any necessary redactions to ensure compliance with applicable laws. If the request continues to be denied, I ask that a detailed legal justification be provided, citing specific provisions that explicitly prohibit disclosure rather than broadly asserting exemptions. Should your office maintain its position, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and pursue further legal remedies as necessary. I appreciate your prompt attention to this request and look forward to your response within the timeframe prescribed by law. ... Sincerely yours << Name removed >> << Name removed >>