Eugene Hamamoto v. David Ige, 881 F.3d 719

Senator Daniel K. Inouye died on December 17, 2012, creating a U.S. Senate vacancy for Hawaii.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 17-1 allows the governor to make a temporary appointment from a list provided by the prior incumbent’s party and requires a special election at the next state general election; Governor Abercrombie appointed Brian Schatz on December 26, 2012.
Chief Election Officer announced a special election on May 11, 2014 (primary Aug 9, 2014; general Nov 4, 2014); Schatz won the Democratic primary.
Plaintiffs Hamamoto and Roco sued on October 30, 2014 alleging the temporary appointment and the special election process violated the Seventeenth Amendment; they did not seek a preliminary injunction to delay the election.
Schatz won the November 4 general election; plaintiffs then limited relief to declaratory relief challenging § 17-1’s constitutionality.
The district court dismissed the suit as moot, finding the ‘‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’’ exception inapplicable; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case was moot after the election	Hamamoto: Temporary appointment and election process violated the Seventeenth Amendment; injury persisted and exception should apply	Defendants: Election rendered controversy moot; plaintiffs’ failure to seek preliminary injunction caused mootness	Moot — case became moot after special election and subsequent election result
Whether the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applies	Hamamoto: Appointment controversy is inherently short-lived; likely to evade review and could recur	Defendants: Plaintiffs could have sought expedited relief (prelim. injunction); controversy not inherently immune to expedited review	Exception does not apply — plaintiffs failed to show the controversy is almost certain to evade full review within available time
Whether plaintiffs’ failure to seek a preliminary injunction forecloses the exception	Hamamoto: Not required here because an injunction delaying the election would have prolonged the alleged injury	Defendants: Plaintiffs should have sought an injunction to preserve the live controversy	Court: Failure to seek injunction did not automatically preclude the exception, but plaintiffs still failed on the second prong (likelihood of evading review)

Campbell-Ewald Co., 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (controversy must be live at all appellate stages)
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) (defines "capable of repetition, yet evading review" elements)
Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2014) (inherently limited duration requirement)
Doe v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussion of limited-duration controversies)
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 698 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2012) (timing and adequacy of review in mootness contexts)
Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (insufficient time for multi-year disputes)
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2003) (expedited handling of election-related disputes)
Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2016) (if case is moot, court need not address remaining merits)