My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-03 Council Member Term Limits Article III, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Legal Opinions
>
2004-03 Council Member Term Limits Article III, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:42:10 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:40:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Notes <br /> 1 Recent litigation seeking the invalidation of the 2002 <br /> County Council Reapportionment plan illustrates how time <br /> consuming it will be to obtain a judicial resolution of the <br /> issues relating to the term limit. Two lawsuits were filed on <br /> March 4, 2002, 4 . 5 months prior to the July 23, 2002 candidate <br /> filling deadline and 6. 5 months prior to the September 21, 2002 <br /> Primary Election. Both are still pending. The case which has <br /> moved the "fastest", Citizens for Equitable and Responsible <br /> Government ("'CERG") , et al. vs. County of Hawaii, et al . , Civil <br /> No. 02-1-0092 (Hilo) , is now at the first step of the appeals <br /> process (a Notice of Appeal was filed on January 31, 2003 . ) The <br /> second case, Boyd, et al . vs . Van De Car, et al. , Civil No. <br /> 02-1-0091 (Hilo) is still in its early stages (Plaintiff' s <br /> Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for February 14, 2003. ) <br /> 2 A motion for partial summary judgment in the CERG case <br /> was heard on June 28, 2002, just a few weeks prior to the <br /> candidate filing deadline on July 23, 2002 . The Court' s Order <br /> denying the motion was filed on July 19, 2002, a few days prior <br /> to the candidate filing deadline. If the court had granted the <br /> plaintiffs' motion, the 2002 County Council elections would <br /> have, at the very least, been delayed. This fact may not have <br /> been lost on the court. <br /> 3 As discussed infra, it is assumed by this office for <br /> the purposes of this review that the lack of a stated effective <br /> date means that the amendment took effect upon approval by the <br /> voters at the 1996 General Election. However, this office does <br /> not assume that a court would take that position on this issue <br /> which may be crucial in litigation relating to the specific <br /> issue at hand. If this issue is litigated, this office will not <br /> advocate a position on the issue but will rather defer to the <br /> court. <br /> 4 The 22nd amendment reads: "No person shall be elected <br /> to the office of the President more than twice, and no person <br /> who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for <br /> more than two years of a term to which some other person was <br /> elected President shall be elected to the office of President <br /> more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person <br /> holding the office of the President when this Article was <br /> proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who <br /> may be holding the office of the President, during the term <br /> within which this Article becomes operative from holding the <br /> 11 �. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.