Hawaii Supreme Court justices have released their opinions on why they voted as they did in a divided ruling that dismissed a challenge to how the state Reapportionment Commission determined boundary lines for state legislative districts.
The concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as the court majority’s opinion, come almost two months after the court struck down the appeal that was holding up candidate qualifying. Candidates have until June 7 to finish the filing process for all local, state and federal offices.
The petition, by a coalition from Oahu, Hawaii Island and Maui, had asked the Supreme Court to declare the political maps invalid and direct that the state withdraw them and draw new ones.
The court voted 3-2 to deny the petition, with Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald and Associate Justices Todd Eddins and Paula Nakayama in the majority and Associate Justices Sabrina McKenna and Michael Wilson dissenting.
At issue for both the majority and the dissenters was one requirement in the state constitution to, “where practicable,” nest state House Districts within Senate districts. Because of the shifting of one House seat from Oahu to Hawaii Island, this became possible for the first time since the the 1982 advent of single-member state legislative districts.
Based on the revised military numbers, Oahu ended up with 34 House seats and 17 Senate seats, Hawaii Island with eight House seats and four Senate seats; Maui with six House seats and three Senate seats; and Kauai with three House seats and one Senate seat.
The dissenters see this provision as a self-executing requirement. The majority sees it as just one of many requirements outlined in the constitution.
“The Commission and this court must give effect to this self-executing provision. The majority undermines the Hawaii Constitution,” the 29-page dissent, written by McKenna, reads.
But the 25-page majority opinion, written by Eddins, states the commission was required only to consider the district within a district requirement in light of all the requirements, not as the sole one.
“Petitioners have not shown that the Commission abused its discretion by disregarding or ignoring the district within district guidelines. To the contrary, the record suggests that the Commission was aware of, discussed, and considered the district within district guidelines in redrawing district lines and adopting the Plan,” the majority states. “So even though we agree with Petitioners that the Plan does not give full effect to the constitutional district within district guideline,5 we hold that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in developing and adopting the Plan.”
The dissenters agreed that two other issues the petitioners raised — the delegation of much of the commission’s work to a small subcommittee and arguments about how the seats were drawn for Congress — were properly dismissed by the majority.
The order keeps in place the maps approved by the commission, including a Big Island House map that puts the newly allocated eighth state House district in West Hawaii, rather than in Puna, where some petitioners who drew an alternative community map wanted it to go.