Hawaii Supreme Court, 2012

Oamilda v. 2011 Council Reapportionment Commission

Oamilda v. 2011 Council Reapportionment Commission
Hawaii Supreme Court · Decided February 10, 2012

Oamilda v. 2011 Council Reapportionment Commission

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000058 10-FEB-2012 11:38 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000058

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

GLEN OAMILDA, Petitioner,

vs.

2011 COUNCIL REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION and 2011 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

AMENDED ORDER1 (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus filed by petitioner Glen Oamilda, it appears that: (1)

Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, article III, section 3-103 does

not require that communities remain undivided in the

reapportionment of council districts; see Kawamoto v. Okata, 75 Haw. 463, 468-69, 868 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1994); (2) article III,

section 3-103 does not require that council districts be drawn on

a permanent resident population base; and (3) petitioner's

assertions that the Council Reapportionment Commission did not

The amendment corrects the February 9, 2012 order that misspelled petitioner's first name as Glenn. follow lawful process are not supported by any evidence.

Consequently, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief and petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.).

It further appears that: (1) petitioner's challenge to the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the State Legislature is untimely; see Hawai'i Constitution, article IV, section 10; and (2) the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the State Legislature

was invalidated on January 4, 2012. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is: (1) denied as to relief against the 2011 Council

Reapportionment Commission and (2) dismissed as to relief against

the 2011 State Reapportionment Commission.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 10, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.