On January 6, 2011, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued two opinions in the Big Island reapportionment cases, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-0000741.
Here (and below) is the opinion in Solomon v. Abercombie (the opinion in the other case is identical).
Here is the oral argument:
Stream it above or download it here. Our live blog of the oral argument:
Here’s a description of the issues from the Judiciary web site:
Petitioners Malama Solomon, Louis Hao, Patricia Cook, Steven Pavao, and Michael Matsukawa filed petitions for writs of mandamus: (1) invalidating the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature adopted and filed on September 26, 2011 by the State of Hawai`i 2011 Reapportionment Commission; (2) directing the Reapportionment Commission to prepare and file a new reapportionment plan for the state legislature; and (3) directing the Chief Election Officer to rescind publication of the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan.
The 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan apportioned each house of the state legislature by allocating and maintaining, as to the Senate, eighteen seats for Oahu County, three seats for Hawaii County, three seats for Maui County, and one seat for Kauai County. Petitioners contend that the allocation is not based on the total number of permanent residents in each of the counties, as required by the Hawai`i Constitution, article IV, section 4. Petitioners contend that the allocation is based on a permanent resident population that does not exclude all non-permanent residents and that the exclusion of all non-permanent residents results in an allocation wherein Hawaii County gains a fourth senate seat and Oahu County loses a senate seat.
Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732 (Haw. Jan 6, 2012)