11-113(e):
(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.
So according to the court in Hawaii, he could have only made a challenge on the fifth day after finding of eligibility. That would have been when Obama filed his papers to be on the ballot - before his name actually appeared on the ballot.
Now this is what Keyes filed under:
11-172
Contests for cause; generally. With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly interested, or any thirty voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the supreme court. The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes, such as but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in the election results. The complaint shall also set forth any reasons for reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the precinct officials or the officials at a counting center in an election using the electronic voting system.
So in cases where fraud is found out after an election, a case may be brought. In the Keyes case, forensic document examiner submitted an affidavit claiming his online COLB was not genuine. If it is not genuine, then it is a case of fraud. But it seems the Hawaii courts don't want to look at that and instead point to a statute which has no relevance since the election has already taken place.
Thanks for your excellent analysis. Yet another cover-up via court. Now we know why the big, black robes.
Hawai’i is a liberal hell so any complicity with the affiramtive action candidate’s fraud is to be expected. Folks seem to think because Lingle is a Republican she will protect the law and Constitution. How was she eloected by such a liberal state if she is so conservative and lawfully inclined? The answewr is obvious, just like how Romeny was elected in liberal hell hole, Mass. They are not true conservatives. Lingle may also be compromised/blackmailable on issues of her sexual preferences. HI voters wouldn’t care about her sexual preferences, but blackmailers can use such things to great effect, like rpelacing simple documents witht he governor ‘looking the other way’.
Just shows the Hawaii courts,MSM,democrats,unwashed,idiots,ACORN are in the tank for Obama
Thanks, excellent point. The laws are there but the bureaucrats and their courts just ignore them.
However, it looks like to me that all this case was, was an attempt to bar him from the ballot without attempting to get access to the vault copy of Obama's birth certificate.
In essence, this may have only been another Alan Keyes publicity stunt.
I'm beginning to believe that were being played for stupid.
Does Hawaii have a Freedom of Information Act? Why hasn't anyone made a request under it to the Hawaiian Department of Health for the vault copy? Such a decision would be reviewable by the courts if it is not granted?
Why hasn't anyone made a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) request of the State Department for Barack Obama's passport file? That denial is certainly reviewable by the US District Court for DC or by the Federal District Court in which the citizen who made the request resides.
This is not going away after January 2009, come what may ever come.