"[3] It further held,"Under the circumstances, a definitive resolution of the unsettled question whether Hawaii's election laws actually prohibit write-in voting might obviate the need for a federal court to decide the federal constitution question...[a]ccordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to abstain from deciding the federal constitutional issue in this case pending a determination by the state courts of the question whether Hawaii election laws permit write-in voting.

The court ultimately stated on the raised justifications, "The State cites several cases to demonstrate that the interests it asserts as justifications for the ban on write-in voting are compelling and necessary, but none of the cases it relies upon ever squarely addressed the issue of write-in voting that this court faces.

The court of appeals held oral arguments on November 5, 1990 and originally released its decision on March 1, 1999, but then decided to withdraw its opinion.

Judge Robert Beezer delivered the second opinion, which ruled in favor of Hawaii, reversing the district court's decision.

Hawaii election laws provide candidates with considerable ease of access to the ballot and demonstrate a minimal amount of support to be placed on the ballot..." and "Although the voter has a protected right to voice his opinion and attempt to influence others, he has no guarantee that he can voice any particular opinion through the ballot-box...Burdick's asserted right to vote for any candidate he chooses does not implicate fundamental constitutional protections.

Hawaii also asserts that it has an interest in protecting the election process from late blooming candidates [and] in fostering an informed and educated electorate.

It reasoned that Burdick's arguments which favored a strict scrutiny interpretation of any burden upon the right to vote were "erroneous" and "to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest...would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently."

Indeed, the foregoing leads us to conclude that when a State's ballot access laws pass constitutional muster as imposing only reasonable burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights...a prohibition on write-in voting will be presumptively valid..."[6] Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens joined.

Justice Kennedy reasoned that the "record demonstrates the significant burden that Hawaii's write-in ban imposes on the right of voters...to vote for the candidates of their choice.

The majority suggests that it is easy for new parties to petition for a place on the primary ballot because they must obtain the signatures of only one percent of the State's registered voters.

"Justice Kennedy also further goes on to discuss the history of write-in voting and pre prepared ballots and refutes the state interests raised by Hawaii.

He ends off by writing,"In sum, the State's proffered justifications for the write-in prohibition are not sufficient under any standard to justify the significant impairment of the constitutional rights of voters such as petitioner.