The State Elections Commission on Nov. 20 continued a contentious, re‑convened meeting to consider a 99‑page permitted interaction group (PIG) report into alleged discrepancies in the Big Island’s 2024 general election mail ballots. Commissioner Jeffrey Osterkamp, reading the PIG’s findings, told the panel the group “found a complete lack of credible evidence to support the claim of a significant ballot discrepancy” and described the results of the group’s review of available records and interviews. "The USPS receipt totals plainly are incomplete," Osterkamp said, noting the counties and state rely on the statewide voter registration system (SVRS) and the state reported 76,595 mail‑in ballots while the Big Island's SVRS‑based envelope tally was 76,587 — a difference the PIG described as eight ballots, not the tens of thousands alleged by some critics.

The PIG report and Osterkamp’s presentation became the focal point for several hours of heated public testimony. Dozens of speakers told the commission they remained unconvinced. Commissioner Ralph Kushni (Ralph Cushni in testimony) and many public commenters repeatedly cited a separate set of United States Postal Service “business reply mail” (BRM) receipts that a subset of critics say show roughly 19,000 fewer returned envelope records for Hawaii County than the state’s certified totals. "If we can't trust the USPS records, how can we trust them to deliver the mail?" Kushni said in presenting documents he had obtained.

Osterkamp and supporters of the PIG cautioned against using BRM invoices as an audit basis. The PIG noted USPS BRM records are incomplete for the relevant period, the BRM system is not designed or equipped to reconcile ballot envelopes, and the counties and state use SVRS and ballot‑counting center reconciliation, not BRM invoices, to verify returns. "These BRM receipts were not intended to be an accurate characterization of the county's mail‑in votes," Osterkamp said. The League of Women Voters’ Judith Mills Wong told the commission the PIG report was "thorough, fact‑based and excellent" and that the reconciliation between the state and county counts was effectively the same.

Commissioners and the public disagreed sharply over what the commission should do next. Commissioner Lindsay moved that the commission advise the chief elections officer to require county clerks to produce daily reports based on hand counts of ballot envelopes collected at drop boxes and from the mail; the motion was amended, debated for more than an hour, and ultimately failed on a roll call. Opponents cited practicability — particularly on Oahu, where tens of thousands of ballots are handled daily — and questioned whether hand counts were reliable or feasible without added resources. Supporters said daily, county‑level counts would create an independent paper record the public could verify.

Other formal motions also failed: a request to ask the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General for detailed BRM totals for Hawaii County did not pass; a motion that the deputy attorney general provide a written opinion about whether emails sent to and from the commission’s address can be withheld from other commissioners and the public likewise did not pass. The commission did, however, vote to place an item on the next meeting’s agenda to consider forming a new PIG to meet with county clerks about chain‑of‑custody and daily reporting procedures. Members agreed the PIG’s scope and membership should be defined publicly at that future meeting so the public may comment.

On formal complaints under agenda item 7, the commission voted to request a written legal opinion from the Attorney General on whether a submitted HAVA complaint (item 7d) has merit, and it referred a separate formal complaint filed by Doug Pasnick (item 7b) to the Attorney General for investigation. A later motion asking Hawaii County for photographic images of ballot envelopes taken during signature verification was debated and failed.

Throughout the meeting, testimony ranged from technical questions about SVRS extracts and transfer logs to emotional public calls for audits or a return to single‑day in‑person voting. Several speakers criticized the commission’s decorum and the chair’s process for handling points of order; others warned against threats made toward commissioners and urged respectful testimony. The chair said the disputed PIG report would remain on the record and that the commission would add the PIG‑formation item to its next agenda for a public, agendized discussion and vote.

What’s next: The commission will place the PIG‑formation item on its next publicly noticed agenda so members can define a scope and membership for a group that would meet the four county clerks; the panel also requested a written legal opinion from the Attorney General on a HAVA complaint. Until those steps are completed, no new investigatory mandate or audit was authorized by the commission at this meeting.