Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973). Accord Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1978); Hart v. King, 470 F. Supp. 1195, 1197-98 (D.Hawaii 1979). To this general rule, there are, of course, exceptions arising out of a lack of opportunity for one reason or another to seek pre-election relief. See Toney, 488 F.2d at 312-15; Hart, 470 F. Supp. at 1198.

Although adequate explanation for failure to seek preelection relief has been held to exist where, for example, the party challenging the election had no opportunity to seek such relief, e.g. United States v. City of Cambridge, 799 F.2d 137, 141-42 (4th Cir. 1986), if aggrieved parties, without adequate explanation, do not come forward before the election, they will be barred from the equitable relief of overturning the results of the election. See, e.g., Hendon v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, 710 F.2d 177, 188-83 (4th Cir. 1983); Hart v.King, 470 F. Supp. 1195, 1198 (D.Haw. 1979). In this case, the district court correctly decided that appellants were barred from invalidation of the special election even if they could make out a constitutional violation.

Nonetheless, "if aggrieved parties, without adequate explanation, do not come forward before the election, they will be barred from the equitable relief of overturning the results of the election." Soules v. Kauaians for Nukolii Campaign Committee, 849 F.2d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Hart v. King, 470 F.Supp. 1195 (D.C.Haw. 1979). Indeed, Defendants and McSally argue that Plaintiffs' claims are brought too early or too late.

Most jurisdictions do not identify lack of knowledge as a separate, required element in every laches defense. See, e.g., Hart v. King, 470 F. Supp. 1195, 1198 (D. Haw. 1979) (holding that laches barred relief in federal court notwithstanding plaintiffs' unsuccessful pre-election suit in state court). In any event, we have no difficulty finding this element satisfied here.

A. The 1978 Constitutional Convention In 1976, pursuant to article XV, section 2 — now denominated article XVII, section 2, see Hawai'i State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina, 84 Haw. 374, 376 n. 2, 935 P.2d 89, 91 n. 2 (1997) (noting that, while originally "ratified by plebiscite on November 7, 1950" as article XV, section 2, the section was renumbered in 1978 as article XVII, section 2) — of the Hawai'i Constitution, the voters mandated the convocation of the 1978 Hawai'i Constitutional Convention. Hart v. King, 470 F. Supp. 1195, 1196 (D.Haw. 1979). The 1978 Constitutional Convention ultimately "presented to the electorate . . . 34 amendments, all of which were passed by the necessary constitutional margin[.]" Id. (footnote omitted). 1. Standing Committee Report No. 69