Here are the relevant pleadings in the pending cross-motions for summary judgment in Kostick v. Nago, Cv. No. 12-00184 JMS-LEK-MMM, the case challenging Hawaii's 2012 Reapportionment Plan for violatating the Equal Protection Clause (among other things). We represent the plaintiffs in that case.
That case resulted from the State of Hawaii classifying its its residents into two categories -- "permanent residents," and everyone else -- and the resulting exclusion from the reapportionment population of 108,767 persons (military personnel, their families, and university students who do not qualify for resident tuition) deemed by the State to have not exhibited the intent to remain in Hawaii "permanently." The plaintiffs argue that this classification does not survive close constitutional scrutiny, and that the State has not met its burden to show a "substantial and compelling reason" for excluding nearly 8% of its actual population from equal representation in the Hawaii legislature. The state's 2012 reapportionment Plan thus denies representational equality to a huge proportion of Hawaii’s actual population, all of whom have a substantial presence here, and who are counted by the Census as "usual residents" of Hawaii.
When the fundamental right to equal representation is burdened by Hawaii’s choice of whom to count, the courts apply a three-part test:
To decide whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause, we look, in essence, to three things: the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification.Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335 (1972). These factors are evaluated by reviewing the classification with "close constitutional scrutiny," which places the burden on the State to prove a "substantial and compelling reason," id. at 336, supporting "[a]n appropriately defined and uniformly applied requirement." Id. at 342.
Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 1, 2012)
- Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion (Oct. 29, 2012)
- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum (Nov. 19, 2012)
Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion
- Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 1, 2012)
- Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion (Oct. 29, 2012)
- Defendants' Reply Memorandum (Nov. 19, 2012)
The hearing on the cross-motions is scheduled for January 14, 2012, before a three-judge federal court in Honolulu.
Background documents:
- First Amended Complaint (Apr. 27, 2012)
- Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (May 22, 2012)
