Fevella and fellow Republican candidate Bob McDermott faced off and tied in the August primary for Senate District 20, which covers ʻEwa Beach on Oʻahu. McDermott won when election officials picked his name from a basket.
The high court rejected Fevella’s challenge this week because he didn’t file a contest to the results by an Aug. 24 deadline.
The decision said that Fevella could have “proactively requested information after learning of the tie and could have brought a timely primary election challenge,” but did not.
State law gave Fevella the ability to challenge election results for about two weeks after the election. This year’s deadline fell on Aug. 21, but was extended by a few days because it was a holiday.
A 2026 primary election campaign sign for Republican Bob McDermott is displayed on a wall in ʻEwa Beach, Hawaiʻi on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026.
The court might otherwise have voted in favor of Fevella’s challenge. It did so in another similar situation this year. Rep. Kanani Souza and fellow Republican candidate Sheila Medeiros tied in their race for House District 43, which covers Kapolei and Makakilo.
The Supreme Court found earlier that state election officials didn’t properly involve the public before deciding on its tiebreaking method, which it said is required by state law.
The court ruled that Souza and Medeiros will face off in the November general election in a race ballots will say is for “Republican Party Voters Only.”
The court also invalidated the tie results because two “overage” voters from another district were improperly given ballots for House District 43.
Those two voters actually live in Senate District 20 — meaning they could have also changed the outcome of the tie between McDermott and Fevella.
The Supreme Court's decision acknowledged that Fevella may not have known about the House overage-underage report in the House race in time to file an election contest before the Aug. 24 deadline.
It rejected Fevella’s challenge, but called for statutory changes so the public has more timely access to that information in the future.
“The law regarding overage and underage reports is confusing and ambiguous and needs to be clarified in order to avoid similar situations in future elections,” the court’s decision said. “Especially when overages and underages could change an election result, as here, the results need to be made available to the public and candidates to effectuate the legislative intent to allow election challenges by an election contest deadline.”
