COMM. 42.3. from Margaret Wille re Criteriapdf

Home

To: Redistricting Commission: Public Testimony on District Boundaries Generally From: Margaret Wille Waimea Resident Re: A few words about competing criteria in the County Charter and Code (other than criteria designed to prevent gerrymandering): A. PROBLEM: County Charter § 3 -17 and the County Code § 1 -29 contain potentially conflicting criteria, and also you are also obliged to consider public comments. B. LEGAL PRINCIPLES to keep in mind where potential conflicts appear: - -Based on the hierarchy of laws, Charter criteria trump conflicting code provisions; - -Based on the rules of statutory interpretation - read potentially conflicting provisions in a manner that avoids a conflicting interpretation; -- Based on general principles of representative government, take into account public input: C. COUNTY CHARTER CRITERIA: • Approximately equal populations based on the census - -- no more than 10% deviation (5 % +/- for each district): Char 3- 17g(4) • Contiguous and compact -road connectivity and size compactness: Char 3- 17g(2) • Where possible use distinguishable features as boundaries: Char 3- 17(g)(3) B. COUNTY ORDINANCE CRITERIA: County Code Article 3 and 4 criteria, the criteria that is additional and, not just similar reinstatements of Charter criteria are: • - Communities of shared interest Code Article 3 -8 • -Where practical keep identified socio- economic groups together: Code Art. 3 -17 • -Where practical use negative deviation for documented high growth areas: Code Art. 4(b) C. PUBLIC INPUT: Of the Code criteria, public testimony has focused on communities of shared interests: keeping village centers together, keeping subdivisions together, keeping Community Development Plan ohana together, keeping ahupua'a watersheds together (recognizing Hawaiian traditional divisions); minimize splitting districts one side of a road versus other side in neighborhoods D.KEY: If possible conflict: 1) that Charter criteria trumps the Code, and, 2) Interpret potentially conflicting criteria in a non - conflicting manner to extent possible. E. EXAMPLE: Compactness as a charter criteria trumps using negative deviation for high growth therefore having a negative deviation for our large low population areas of Hamakua and Kau is appropriate. - For example it would be wrong for District 1 to cut into Hilo over the Wailuku River or into Waimea town center; and it would also be wrong to establish a North Kohala to Kukuihaele- Honoka'a District. F. BOTTOM LINE: the Commission should not go outside the 10% total deviation- s% per District, and all Code criteria must be interpreted so as not to conflict with the Charter criteria of compactness, connectivity, and distinguishable boundary features, AND recognize the key public input of recognizing communities of interest. COMM 42.3