Here’s a recent piece from Richard Borecca, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s political reporter, about the Texas reapportionment case recently set for full briefing and argument by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“In Hawaii, eligible voters count more than people” is behind a partial paywall, but here’s the key points in the event you are not
As we recognized earlier this week when the U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in a redistricting case out of Texas, Hawaii’s current approach to state legislative reapportionment — under which the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission does not count active duty military, their spouses and children, and university students who pay non-resident tuition (108,000, or nearly
Followers of the blog recognize that in addition to our regular menu of regulatory takings, eminent domain, inverse condemnation, and land use related items, our practice also includes voting rights and election law issues. So every now and then we post up interesting cases and decisions, especially where the issues involved are related to cases
Spurred by yesterday’s battle-of-the-titans Supreme Court oral arguments (Clement vs. Waxman) in a case we’ve been following, we’re taking a short diversion from our usual fare of takings, eminent domain, and land use law today to cover another topic that long-time followers know is also within our area of practice: voting and election law.
The statutory standards for an original jurisiction action in the Hawaii Supreme Court challenging the outcome of an election are pretty rigorous. You’ve got to show acts or omissions that “could cause a difference in the election results.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-172. In other words, you must show that if you are right about
Today must be election contest day at the Hawaii Supreme Court. We say that because the court today disposed of all three election contests which were filed stemming from the postponed Puna precincts primary and other primary election problems.
Earlier, we posted the court’s order dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the original jurisidiction action
Here’s the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, just filed in Lathers v. Abercrombie, No. SCOT-14-0001069 (Aug. 28, 2014).
That’s the original jurisidiction action filed by several voters from Puna and the ACLU Hawaii, which asked the court to allow them to vote because they were prevented by the tropical storm which whacked the
Update: an astute reader notes that “election contests” in the Hawaii Supreme Court actually have their own separate designation in the case numbering system, “EC.” Thus, a election challenge is labeled as “SCEC-xxxxxxx.” Which means that, for whatever reason, the ACLU’s case which we posted on below and earlier was not labeled as an
Yesterday at 4:30 p.m. was the statutory deadline for instituting an “election contest” in the Hawaii Supreme Court to challenge last Friday’s postponed Puna precincts primary (say that quickly five times).
As those of you who have been following along know, the state’s Chief Election Officer determined that voting would remain open in two Big
To follow up on our earlier post about issues to look for in the legal challenge to the Hawaii Chief Elections Officer’s choice to hold the delayed Democratic Party primary election on Friday, August 15, 2014, rather than keep the 21-day window open, here are the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed this