In political terms, it has become something of our own Ali-Frazier trilogy. And with the third “bout” just concluding at the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, it seems like a good time to look back at how we got here.
Perhaps that is the lesson from the comeback class of 2026. Having won before may help, but it isn’t enough by itself. You still have to give voters a reason to vote for you today, rather than reminding them why they voted for you years ago.
Unlike some of the other names in the indictment, Fuchigami had quietly spent the better part of fifteen years moving through some of the most influential positions in Hawaiʻi government. Yet remarkably little has been written about how he got there.
Sometimes campaign finance reports can give us clues about what is happening in a political race. Other times, they may simply show us that there are more dynamics at play than we initially thought.
Come August 8, and the evaluation of the votes on August 9, voters will provide the answers. Some incumbents will validate their standing with decisive victories. Others may discover that support they once assumed was secure has become less certain. Either way, beyond the campaign signs, endorsements, and advertisements, the primary election may serve another purpose altogether.
The hallmark of Phase III can be summed up in one word: change.
So, where is the accountability when public officials cross lines that once would have carried institutional consequences?
Why did the Attorney General’s office stop publicly narrating the investigation just as the political consequences became real?
So, with the example that Souza is providing in this race, is the traditional definition of where a candidate’s sign is placed about to be redefined? If more campaigns start to follow the example, that would be a good sign that the definition has changed.
The question now is whether Kawakami’s campaign will ride it — or simply follow the current that’s already been set.