COMM. 004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

COUNTY OF HAWAII • Oh r'ICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL • 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 MEMORANDUM To: Ted T. Suzuki, County Clerk Dote February 3 ,. 1976 From: Katsuya Yamada, Deputy Corporation Counsel Subject: Your request for an opinion dated 11/10/75 pertaining to the 2-year resident elector requirement. In your letter of November 10 , 1975 , you advised this office that an individual who became a registered voter of this County on April 11 , 1975 has drawn nomination papers for the 1976 election , seeking the office of Councilman-At- Large in the County of Hawaii . You asked this office for a determination of whether the individual is now qualified to file nomination papers for the Councilman-At-Large office if the 2-year resident-elector requirement is unconstitutional. We answer your question in the affirmative. In ou opinion of June 29 , 1972 , we advised your office that the 2-year resident-elector requirement was unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable . Our opinion was based on the recent case of William C. Steele, Jr . v. City Clerk , U . S . Ciiil 72-3567. We further advised you that the Steele case involved the constitutionality of a similar 2-year elector requirement of the City and County of Honolulu which was at issue before the federal district court. Because of the close similarity between the Charter provision of the City and County of Honolulu, which was held to be unconstitutional , and that of the Charter provision pertaining to the 2-year resident- elector requirement of the office of Council-At-Large , we also advised you that our Charter provision is constitutionally suspect and, therefore , unenforceable . We reaffirm our opinion of June 29 , 1972 and still hold that the 2-year resident-elector requirement is unconstitutional and, therefore , unenforceable. t . Your request for an opinion dated November 10 , 1975 , however, poses a different question to this office. It essentially asks this office to examine the residency durational requirement of the Charter provision . Our earlier opinion , if you recall , arose on the situation where individuals upon obtaining the majority age of 18 would be precluded from running for office since they have not been an elector for the previous two years upon attaining the age of majority. Your present question deals only with the residency durational requirement since the individual who has drawn the nomination papers was already of majority age at the time that he became a resident of the County of Hawaii .