|
120 P.3d 217 Page 4
<br />108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217
<br />(Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217)
<br />ment plan, appellants were precluded from arguing tion of the equal protection clause of the United
<br />on appeal, and on their motion for reconsideration, States Constitution, (3) a rational government policy
<br />that the reapportionment plan fractured well-known will justify a total deviation that slightly exceeds the
<br />communities of interest, where appellants had with-10% threshold, and (4) assuming, in excluding non-
<br />drawn this argument in the trial court when the par-resident students and nonresident military personnel
<br />ties, after the trial court had granted partial summary and their dependents from the population base, the
<br />judgment in favor of county, entered into a stipula-plan of the County of Hawaii 2001 Reapportionment
<br />tion whereby the complaint was amended to with-Commission (the Commission) resulted in a total
<br />draw all remaining counts, including allegation about deviation of 10.89%, such a deviation in this unique
<br />fractured communities of interest, so that final judg-instance (a) was minimal, (b) apparently included the
<br />ment could be entered in the case. Commission's consideration of other valid criteria
<br />under section 3-17 of the Charter, (c) resulted from
<br />the commission's intent to achieve inclusiveness and
<br />[13] Appeal and Error 30 766
<br />equal representation, and (d) was, therefore, constitu-
<br />tional.
<br />30 Appeal and Error
<br />30XII Briefs
<br />I.
<br />30k766 k. Defects, Objections, and Amend-
<br />Pursuant to the Charter, Defendant-Appellee
<br />ments. Most Cited Cases
<br />County of Hawai‘i initiated a reapportionment of its
<br />county council districts in 2001. The Commission
<br />On appeal from trial court's judgment in favor of
<br />was appointed and confirmed in accordance with a
<br />countyreappor-
<br /> in action challenging validity of
<br />provision in the Charter requiring that in 1991, and
<br />tionment
<br />plan, the Supreme Court did not need to
<br />every tenth year thereafter, a commission be estab-
<br />address appellants' argument that “administrative
<br />lished to determine the boundaries of council dis-
<br />convenience” was the only articulated reason given
<br />tricts, and to file a reapportionment plan by Decem-
<br />countyreapportionment
<br />by commission's records
<br />FN1
<br />ber 31 of those years. A series of public meetings
<br />reapportionment
<br />for the plan, where such argument
<br />and hearings was held throughout Hawai‘i County,
<br />was not presented as a discernable legal argument in
<br />during which private speakers argued that the Com-
<br />appellants' briefs. Rules App.Proc., Rule 28(b)(7).
<br />mission was using the wrong population base and
<br />**220 *321
<br /> should exclude therefrom nonresident
<br />**218
<br />Michael J. Matsukawa, on the briefs, for plain-
<br />college students and nonresident military personnel
<br />tiffs-appellants.
<br />and their dependents. The Commission adopted a
<br />reapportionment plan (the Commission's plan) and
<br />Patricia K. O'Toole, Deputy Corporation Counsel,
<br />filed it as required with the County Clerk. The Com-
<br />CountyHawai
<br /> of ‘i, on the briefs, for defendants-
<br />mission's plan provided for a total resident population
<br />appellees.
<br />base that included nonresident college students and
<br />nonresident military personnel and their dependents.
<br />**219
<br />LEVINSON,ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ.; with
<br />NAKAYAMA, J., concurring separately and dissent-
<br />FN1. Section 3-17 of the Charter under
<br />ing, with whom MOON, C.J., joins.
<br />which the Commission acted states as fol-
<br />lows:
<br />Opinion of the Court by ACOBA, J.
<br />*320
<br />We hold that (1) the phrase “equal resident
<br />(a) There shall be a county reapportion-
<br />populations” in section 3-17(f)(4) of the Charter of
<br />ment commission which shall establish
<br />the County of Hawaii (the Charter) excludes nonresi-
<br />the boundaries of the council districts.
<br />dent college students and nonresident military per-
<br />sonnel and their dependents from the population base
<br />(b) The initial reapportionment commis-
<br />for purposes of reapportioning county council dis-
<br />sion shall consist of seven members, two
<br />tricts of the County of Hawai‘i, (2) a total deviation
<br />of whom shall be residents of the com-
<br />in excess of 10% in an electoral reapportionment plan
<br />bined judicial districts of North and South
<br />presents a prima facie case of discrimination in viola-
<br />Hilo, one from the judicial district of
<br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
<br />
<br />
|