MIN CHC 1989-10-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

F. • requirement that the county have a mayor: the decision whether to have a mayor-council form or a council-manager form of government would appear to pertain to the "executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization" of; a county, for which the county's charter is superior to inconsistent provisions of state law. Haw. State Const. art. VIII, §2., ;If a council- manager charter is drafted that does not include a mayor, or has a "ceremonial" mayor, the charter should contain a provision that the Manager shall exercise the functions and powers that are assigned by state law to the Mayor. 2. Council Representation. At present, the Council consists of nine members, all of whom are elected at-large. Six members must reside in districts: one each from the districts (presumably the judicial districts) of Puna, Ka'u, North and South Kona combined, North and South Hilo combined, North and South Kohala combined, and Hamakua. A candidate for a district seat must be a "resident' voter" of the district at least 90 days before the primary election. Residency is defined in terms of being; a registered voter from the district. (See Hawaii County Charter §3-3 and §13-1(f). (4) ) . The districts have very uneven populations. However, a system of at-large elections, with district residency • requirements, has been held by the United States Supreme Court not to violate the constitutional mandate of one person/one vote, even though the districts are not of the same population size. We have received some testimony about possible legal challenges to the, at-large voting system based upon the possible discriminatory effect. As your counsel, I thought it appropriate for me to comment briefly on this. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, prohibits voting arrangements which have the effect of discriminating against minority racial groups. (42 U.S.C. §1973 . ) Such practices also violate the Constitution if done with discriminatory intent. In a number of court cases on the U.S. Mainland, courts have held that specific: at-large voting arrangements had the effect of preventing candidates preferred by minority groups from being elected. Thornburg v. Ginales, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) ; Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. Louisiana, 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1987) ; United States v. Dallas County Commission, 636 F. Supp. 704 (S.D. Ala. 1986) . To prove such a claim, the party opposing the at-large system must demonstrate that (1) the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single- member district, (2) that the minority is politically cohesive, and (3) that the majority has in past elections voted sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the candidate preferred by the minority. Thornburc;. 660 -3-