More on that case we reported on earlier this week, recently argued at the Hawaii Supreme Court:
- Journalist Ian Lind posts "Hawaii Supreme Court skeptical of Office of Elections" which has links to the merits briefs in the court of appeals. These help us to understand the arguments better. Recall that with most cases granted review by the Hawaii Supreme Court, no additional briefing is taken. All the court reviews are the cert-stage briefs, the lower court briefs, and, of course, the lower court's opinion and record.
- Civil Beat also has a column by Mr. Lind, "Justices Aren't Buying That Voting Rights Weren't Violated" ("However, the attorney representing the Office of Elections at the May 18 Supreme Court hearing ran into an unusual barrage of critical questions from all five Supreme Court justices in what Honolulu attorney and law blogger Robert Thomas called 'as close to a feeding frenzy as you might witness in the usually decorous air of the state’s high court.'"
- "Defending the indefensible: Supreme Court hears the Office of Elections try to justify its handling of 2012 election ballot errors" from Disappeared News ("I’ve learned long ago that I can’t divine the thought processes of judges by listening to their questions in the oral arguments. If you skip ahead as I suggest, you might think this case is a slam dunk. But we’ll have to wait for the final decision.").
More, after the court renders its decision.
