Communication 07 Supreme Court Opinion

Home

120 P.3d 217 Page 6 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217 (Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217) Reapportionment Commission. On June 20, 2002, request an order (1) invalidating the Commission's County Appellees filed an affidavit by Yuen to rebut plan, (2) appointing a master to prepare a new redis- Appellants' proposition. Appellants moved to strike tricting plan using the correct population base, and the affidavit. (3) granting such other appropriate relief. Following a hearing, the court denied Appellants' III. motion and sua sponte granted partial summary [1][2] “Unlike other appellate matters, in review- judgment in favor of County Appellees. The court did ing summary judgment decisions[,] an appellate court **221 *322 not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law, but in steps into the shoes of the trial court and its July 19, 2002 order stated, inter alia, as follows: applies the same legal standard as the trial court ap- plied.” Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 577, 670 P.2d 1264, 1270 (1983). “Summary judgment is ap- The [c]ourt finds that the adoption by the ... propriate if the pleadings, depositions, and answers to Commission of a resident population base which interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with did not exclude non-resident military personnel and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine their dependents and did not exclude non-resident issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled university students in the 2001 council redistricting to a judgment as a matter of law.” Pac. Int'l Serv. plan was proper. Corp. v. Hurip, 76 Hawai‘i 209, 213, 873 P.2d 88, 92 (1994). A trial court's conclusions of law are re- The [c]ourt also finds that there was no unconsti- viewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. tutional deviation in the population count in the Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawai‘i 116, 137, 19 P.3d 699, county council districts as set forth in the 2001 720 (2001). Under this standard, the trial court's con- council redistricting plan adopted by the ... Com- clusions of law are not binding upon the appellate mission. court and are freely reviewable for its correctness. Id. Following the court's ruling, the parties agreed to IV. withdraw all remaining counts so that final judgment As to point (1), the court did not rule on Appel- FN3 could be entered in the case. The court entered lants' request to strike an affidavit of the Commis- final judgment in favor of County Appellees and sion's attorney. Appellants assert that the affidavit of against Appellants on January 24, 2003. Appellants the Commission's attorney is not part of the Commis- filed their notice of appeal on January 31, 2003. sion's records and contains the opinion and recollec- tion of the attorney ten years after-the-fact. County FN3. The effect of the parties' stipulation to Appellees maintain that they offered the affidavit of amend the first amended complaint and for the Commission's attorney to clarify that the letter in entry of judgment, was “to withdraw [Ap- Appellants' motion stated only that there was a dif- pellants'] allegations that the ... Commission ference in reapportionment between using residents, failed to use a ‘rational or objective method- as opposed to registered voters, in determining the ology’... and wrongfully submerged com- population base and that the affidavit was not intro- munities of interest into larger districts but duced to reflect the intent of the charter commission. not [Appellants'] allegations as to the popu- FN4 Inasmuch as the affidavit was not offered with lation base that the ... Commission used.” respect to the intent of the charter commission and is not necessary to our interpretation of the phrase II. “resident populations,” see infra, we do not address On appeal, Appellants maintain that the court Appellants' point (1). erred in (1) refusing to strike the affidavit of the Commission's counsel, (2) concluding that the Com- FN4. Yuen's affidavit states that “in drafting mission could include nonresident university students the charter language which provides that dis- and nonresident military personnel and their depend- tricts should have ‘approximately equal ents in the population base, (3) deciding that the total resident populations as required by applica- deviation between county council districts in the re- ble constitutional provision’ the intent was districting plan did not exceed constitutional limits, that the degree of equality only be as consti- and (4) ruling that the redistricting plan is valid. They © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.