On January 6, 2011, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued two opinions in the reapportionment challenges, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-000074. Here’s a summary, as well as some thoughts on the court’s rulings (as far as we can tell, the two opinions are identical).
- To satisfy the one-person-one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the states must use a method of counting people that approximates “population.”
- Under the Hawaii Constitution, the only people who are counted for determining “population” for purposes of reapportionment are “permanent residents.” See Haw. Const. art. IV, § 4 (“The [reapportionment] ommission shall allocate the total number of members of each house of the state legislature being reapportioned among the four basic island units … using the total number of permanent residents in each of the basic island units and computed by the method known as the method of equal proportions …”).
- Hawaii’s approach is not common, as most other states use another method of determining population. Census numbers, registered voters, for example. Indeed, until the Hawaii Constitution was amended in 1992, it counted registered voters.
- Hawaii law does not further define “permanent resident,” but in a 2005 case, the Hawaii Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “resident populations” in a county charter to exclude nonresident college students and nonresident military personnel and their dependents. Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Government v. County of Hawaii, 108 Haw. 318, 120 P.3d 217 (2005).
- This seems to be a question of presumptions: the Commission concluding that if a person’s intent could not be reasonably determined that the person must be included within the population/permanent resident count, while the Supreme Court concluding that only those persons whose residence could be determined could be included.