Hawaii Supreme Court, 2012

Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Commission

Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Commission
Hawaii Supreme Court · Decided January 20, 2012

Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Commission

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0000741 20-JAN-2012 11:56 AM

NO. SCPW-11-0000741

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

MICHAEL J. MATSUKAWA, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI'I 2011 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION; and SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, STATE OF HAWAI'I, 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

petitioner's 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 petitioner's 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

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