Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-11-0000732
20-JAN-2012
11:52 AM
NO. SCPW-11-0000732
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
MALAMA SOLOMON, STATE SENATOR, 1ST SENATORIAL DISTRICT;
LOUIS HAO; PATRICIA A. COOK; and STEVEN G. PAVAO,
Petitioners,
vs.
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF HAWAI'I;
SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, STATE OF HAWAI'I;
STATE OF HAWAI'I 2011 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION;
VICTORIA MARKS; LORRIE LEE STONE; ANTHONY TAKITANI;
CALVERT CHIPCHASE IV; ELIZABETH MOORE; CLARICE Y. HASHIMOTO;
HAROLD S. MASUMOTO; DYLAN NONAKA; and TERRY E. THOMASON,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon consideration of respondents 2011 Reapportionment
Commission and Chief Election Officer's motion for
reconsideration and/or clarification of the January 4, 2012 order
and the January 6, 2012 opinion granting the petition for a writ
of mandamus, the papers in support and the record, it appears
that the lack of complete information about the non-permanent
status and location of Hawaii's non-residents is no basis for
disregarding the express mandate of the Hawai'i Constitution,
article IV, section 4, that only permanent residents be counted
in the population base for the purpose of reapportionment of the
state legislature.
It further appears that the January 6, 2012 opinion
discussed and disposed of the sole issue presented in
petitioners' petition as to whether the inclusion of non
permanent residents in the population base for the 2011 Final
Reapportionment Plan constituted an error in the Reapportionment
Plan. How the Commission identifies the non-permanent resident
population for apportionment under article IV, section 4 and
whether the Commission must follow the procedures set forth in
HRS § 25-2 in preparing and filing a new reapportionment plan
were not issues in petitioners' mandamus proceeding.
It finally appears that the January 6, 2012 opinion
advises the Commission that apportionment under article IV,
section 6 requires the Commission to "make an honest and good
faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population
as is practicable. . . . [M]athematical exactness or precision
[is not a] constitutional requirement." Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for
reconsideration and/or clarification is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 20, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
2