You used the term "bizarre" twice. I don't know what's so bizarre about the circumstances. Out of the ordinary, but nothing remotely "bizarre." A hurricane hit the area of these two precincts --- roads were blocked by fallen trees, electricity was out, the polling places were closed. These voters have the same right to vote as anyone else in the state of Hawaii. They are being given the opportunity to vote a week later. The only bizarre, out-of-nowhere thing is your comment about people's photo ID's being "lost in the storm." Huh?
Sen. Schatz was favored by a wide margin in those two precincts before the election, so it's inconceivable, really, that Hanabusa has any hope of coming from 1600 votes behind to win.
The election is basically over, but the people hit by hurricane Iselle have a right to cast their votes.

I don't have any problem with the election being extended to include those who couldn't vote due to "god's hand"... however, I don't think that the results of the Tuesday voting should have been released. That is the sand in the vaseline. Even better, they should have not counted any votes until all votes were cast. Who could have/should have made that decision and why did they not make it? I think it's a no-brainer.

Edward Fallon @ 1:

You used the term "bizarre" twice. I don't know what's so bizarre about the circumstances.

Having two precincts in one state with the power to decide (most likely) who will be the next U.S. Senator from Hawaii is incredibly bizarre. As is the fact that an election is being held over for another week for a special day of voting.

I'm not against it, mind you, but yes, it's bizarre and, perhaps, unprecedented (at least to my knowledge). All of it going on as the towns are cleaning up from a hurricane, and candidates are both helping and campaigning in the bargain...yes, sorry, it's really bizarre!

Soul Rebel @ 2:

I don't have any problem with the election being extended to include those who couldn't vote due to "god's hand"... however, I don't think that the results of the Tuesday voting should have been released

I haven't checked the election code, but I suspect the law likely requires counting and release of results after polls close. If the decision to extend the voting for those two precincts didn't happen until after the normal close-of-polls stuff was done, that would explain the release of results before all voting was concluded.

That said, you're absolutely right, they should not have released the results if there was a way to avoid doing so legally.

It is somewhat reminiscent of national elections whereby the polls on the east coast close before those on the west coast and exit polls are all over the news before the rest of the country has voted.

Seems to me it isn't fair for results to be released before some folks have voted. Would a second statewide election be fairer than just the 2 precincts? Way more expensive, certainly.

I agree with the comment above that results should not have been released until "all" voting was complete.