Here's the final brief relating to the challengers' motion for civil contempt, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold in contempt the State, the Governor, OHA and its trustees, and Nai Aupuni, for violating the Court's earlier injunction that no ballots were to be counted, and the results were not to be certified prior to a ruling on the merits by the Ninth Circuit.
After the Court's order, Nai Aupuni called off the election (after previously extending the deadline by three weeks), and promised to never, never, never count the ballots that had already been submitted. Nai Aupuni then invited all of the (former) candidates to attend the convention.
The plaintiffs' brief argues:
The oppositions to the Motion for Civil Contempt (“Mot.”) submitted by Respondents Na’i Aupuni and the Akami Foundation (“Na’i Aupuni Opp.”) and State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“State Opp.”) are long on indignation but short on substance. Instead of addressing Movants’ arguments as to why they have violated the Temporary Injunction, Respondents suggest that the Motion seeks to newly enjoin them from holding a private gathering. But that is not now—nor has it ever been—the issue in this case. From the outset, the issue has been the state-run, race-based process that Respondents used to select convention delegates in violation of the Constitution. Respondents’ ingenious plan to seat all delegates instead of some of them does not alter this basic set of facts.
Reply at 1.
We posted the motion here, and Nai Aupuni's opposition here.
The contempt motion is on the Court's January 15, 2016 conference calendar, so we should know the results soon after that.