Voting rights | election law

The week before last, the Hawaii Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the Reapportionment Commission’s redistricting plan because the Commission included non-residents in the population base, and the Hawaii Constitution requires use of “the total number of permanent residents in each of the basic island units and computed by the method known as the method of equal

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

If our tech cooperates, on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m., we’ll be live blogging the Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in the Big Island reapportionment cases, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-0000741. These are original jurisdiction mandamus actions.

Sign up for an email alert in

Here’s what we’re reading this fine summer Monday:

The technical legal question before the Court in Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (June 13, 2011) was whether legislative voting by an elected official was “speech” and if so, whether the First Amendment allowed him to vote for a casino development proposal in which his campaign manager and personal friend was

Today, Honolulu Civil Beat features our piece on Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, “Do Elected Officials With a Conflict of Interest Have a Right to Vote Anyway?

We’ve written about the case recently in the Zoning & Planning Law Reporter (Supreme Court Preview: Voting as Speech When a Government Official