Communication 07 Supreme Court Opinion

Home

120 P.3d 217 Page 16 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217 (Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217) recanting was the plan she herself submitted P.3d at 227, and “akin to the approach exemplified by to the Commission to consider.” To remove the commission member's testimony in Riley, the any doubt regarding this matter, however, Commission in the instant case, by using a ‘total’ we believe the better course is to excise such population, evidenced an intent to achieve inclusive- testimony. ness and equal representation.” Id. at 328, 120 P.3d at 227. (emphasis added). III. [2] In their first point, Appellants argue that it is Even without the Jacobson testimony, which is the “Commission's constitutional obligation, not this stricken, Commissioner Mark Van Pernis's “motion [c]ourt's burden, to offer evidence that justifies a plan to ‘include all people,’ ” which was “put to a vote that contains deviations in excess of 10%, that favor and carried, evidenc[ed] that the Commission was pre-existing [c]ounty [c]ouncil districts and that motivated by inclusiveness, as opposed to a discrimi- FN5 ‘fractures' the judicial district of Puna.” (Empha-natory purpose.” Id. Moreover, the opinion cites to sis in original.) Appellants maintain that this court three additional criteria for redistricting as mandated “overlook[ed] ... that officials in Riley[v. Baxter by section 3-17(f) of the Charter of the County of County Election Commission, 311 Ark. 273, 843 Hawaii (the Charter). See id. at 328, 120 P.3d at 227. S.W.2d 831 (Ark.1992),] actually testified to the As the opinion notes, “Appellants [did] not contend court to explain their reason for offering a plan that that the Commission failed to consider [these] other contained deviations in excess of 10% [and that] ... redistricting criteria under the Charter or that such [n]either the trial court nor the appellate court in Ri-criteria would not support a slightly greater deviation ley searched through the record to fathom the basis than the 10% prima facie threshold.” Id. for official action.” Additionally, County Appellees, in their memo- FN5. The argument that the redistricting randum in opposition to the motion for reconsidera- plan “fractures” the judicial district of Puna tion, now identify parts of the record as evidence that is addressed infra, Part IV. the Commission was guided by these other Charter- mandated criteria. First, the reapportionment plan itself reflects the Commission's consideration of the To the contrary, this court did not “overlook” the “permanent and easily recognizable features” crite- fact that the commission member in Riley “actually rion, Charter § 3-17(f)(3), inasmuch as the written testified” inasmuch as the opinion expressly states descriptions of each of the designated council dis- that “[a]t the hearing before the trial court, a commis- tricts refer to streams, shorelines, and other geo- sion member testified that ‘the overriding principle’ graphical features. *332 followed by the commission in redistricting **231 ‘was equal representation.’ ” Op. at 327, 120 P.3d at 226 (quoting Riley, 843 S.W.2d at 833) (em-Second, at their final meeting on December 18, phasis added). The rule extrapolated from Riley was 2001, the commissioners made statements that evi- that a redistricting plan survives equal protection dence serious consideration of all four criteria. One scrutiny where its variation is “only slightly over the commissioner related the Commission's task of bal- acceptable 10% variation[,]” and “the commission's ancing the equal representation criterion with the ‘systematic approach ... reveal[s] a rational policy of other three criteria: 843 S.W.2d at redistricting.’ ” Id. (quoting Riley, 833) (emphasis added). Since the Big Island population is not equally spread out geographically throughout the Island, The opinion agrees with Appellants that “the obviously the districts cannot be geographically Commission did not address the deviation question equal in size, in addition to being numerically because it was working from the ‘total’ as opposed to equal. That is why argument and controversy can ‘resident’ population base, which presented only an result. Some people or groups want a council dis- 8.62% deviation.” Id. at 328, 120 P.3d at 227. But, it trict which serves their interest in a particular was decided that similar to Riley, “the 10.89% total geographical area or a plan which serves their deviation of the Commission's plan is ‘only slightly particular or geographical or political interest. But over the acceptable 10% variation[,]’ ” id. at 328, 120 these localized special interests don't give ade- © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.