February 9, 2012
2011 COUNCIL REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION AND 2011 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION,
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000058 09-FEB-2012 11:39 AM
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Glenn Oamilda, it appears that: (1) Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, article III, section 3-103 does not require that communities remain undivided in the reapportionment of council districts; see Kawamoto v. Okata, 75 Haw. 463, 468-69, 868 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1994); (2) article III, section 3-103 does not require that council districts be drawn on a permanent resident population base; and (3) petitioner's assertions that the Council Reapportionment Commission did not follow lawful process are not supported by any evidence. Consequently, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief and petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.).
It further appears that: (1) petitioner's challenge to the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the State Legislature is untimely; see Hawaii Constitution, article IV, section 10; and (2) the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the State Legislature was invalidated on January 4, 2012. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is: (1) denied as to relief against the 2011 Council Reapportionment Commission and (2) dismissed as to relief against the 2011 State Reapportionment Commission.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.