|
120 P.3d 217 Page 12
<br />108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217
<br />(Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217)
<br />persons-less than 200 persons in a popula-say that no rational basis underlay the 10.89% devia-
<br />tion of over 147,000. tion because, akin to the approach exemplified by the
<br />commission member's testimony in Riley, the Com-
<br />mission in the instant case, by using “total” popula-
<br />FN10. Using County Appellees' “total”
<br />tion, evidenced an intent to achieve inclusiveness and
<br />population base, the deviation between Dis-
<br />equal representation. Cf.Calderon v. Los Angeles, 4
<br />trict 6, with the lowest population, and Dis-
<br />Cal.3d 251, 93 Cal.Rptr. 361, 481 P.2d 489, 493
<br />trict 9, with the highest population, is
<br />(1971) (“Adherence to a population standard, rather
<br />8.62%.
<br />than one based on registered voters, is more likely to
<br />guarantee that those who cannot or do not cast a bal-
<br />B.
<br />lot may still have some voice in government.” (Em-
<br />Using Appellants' deviation figure for our analy-
<br />phasis added.)).
<br />sis, a total deviation of 10.89% exceeds the Supreme
<br />Court's threshold and, therefore, creates a prima facie
<br />For at the second meeting of the Commission,
<br />case of discrimination in violation of the equal pro-
<br />Commissioner Mark Van Pernis made a motion to
<br />tection clause. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has
<br />“include all people”: “[A]ll the people that the census
<br />addressed a county plan with a total deviation similar
<br />counted is included because, whether they vote or
<br />to the deviation of the Commission's plan here. In
<br />not, or whether they're young or old, or military or
<br />Riley v. Baxter County Election, 311 Ark. 273, 843
<br />not, they all use county services, they all pay taxes in
<br />S.W.2d 831, 832-33 (1992), all parties stipulated that
<br />some form or shape and they all need representa-
<br />the Baxter County redistricting plan varied among the
<br />tions.” The motion was put to a vote and carried, evi-
<br />districts by 10.149%. In assessing whether a “rational
<br />dencing that the Commission was motivated by in-
<br />policy to justify a variance over 10%” existed, id. at
<br />clusiveness as opposed to a discriminatory purpose.
<br />833, the Arkansas Supreme Court acknowledged the
<br />“systematic approach” taken by the election commis-
<br />sion. The commission had divided “the total popula-Importantly, the Charter required the Commis-
<br />tion” of Baxter County by eleven, the number of dis-sion to consider three additional factors in redistrict-
<br />tricts to be apportioned. ing. In addition to the “approximately equal resident
<br />populations” requirement at issue here, Charter sec-
<br />tion 3-17(f) required the Commission to consider the
<br />“The districts with population already closest to
<br />following criteria:
<br />that number were kept the same, and the others were
<br />slightly modified, taking geography into account, to
<br />reach parity.” Id. At the hearing before the trial court, (1) No district shall be drawn to unduly favor or
<br />a commission member testified that “the overriding penalize a person or political faction;
<br />principle” followed by the commission in redistrict-
<br />ing “was equal representation.” Id. The Arkansas
<br />(2) Insofar as possible, districts should be contigu-
<br />Supreme Court concluded that the commission's
<br />ous and compact;
<br />“systematic approach ... reveal[ed] a rational policy
<br />of redistricting in Baxter County” and that “the
<br />(3) District lines shall, where possible, follow per-
<br />10.149% variance [was] only slightly over the ac-
<br />manent and easily recognizable features;....
<br />ceptable 10% variation.” Id. Thus, it was held that the
<br />**227 *328
<br />trial court did not err in finding that the
<br />These considerations governed the Commission's
<br />commission overcame the prima facie case of dis-
<br />determination. The statements supra at the second
<br />crimination. Id.
<br />meeting of the Commission evidenced the Commis-
<br />sion's commitment against favoring or penalizing a
<br />Similarly here, the 10.89% total deviation of the
<br />person or political faction in consonance with Charter
<br />Commission's plan is “only slightly over the accept-
<br />Section 3-17(f)(1).
<br />able 10% variation.” Id. It is true, as Appellants posit,
<br />that the Commission did not address the deviation
<br />Ultimately, the deviation stemming from a “pure
<br />question because it was working from the “total” as
<br />population” standard resulted from the Commission's
<br />opposed to “resident” population base, which pre-
<br />commitment to an inclusive model rather a discrimi-
<br />sented only an 8.62% deviation. However, we cannot
<br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
<br />
<br />
|