I got up early this morning to take a look at yesterday’s federal court decision on the challenge to Hawaii’s 2011 reapportionment plan.
I turned to the Star-Advertiser’s online edition, and noted two things right away. First, I don’t see any link to the decision itself. What’s that about?
And, second, there’s a prominent error in the graphic accompanying the story.
I’m not sure about all of the districts, but the matchup between Gil Riviere and Jessica Wooley in the new 47th House District is a fiction. Riviere and Wooley will not be running against each other, because Wooley’s residence is on the Kaneohe side of the new boundary, pushing her into the adjoining 48th District where she will face off against the incumbent Democrat, Pono Chong.
I had to jump over to Civil Beat to get a link to the decision by the three-judge panel.
I’ll hopefully have time to read through the decision later today and pull out significant nuggets.
Then I stopped by attorney Robert Thomas’ InverseCondemnation.com. Thomas represented the plaintiffs in the court reapportionment challenge, but with his busy schedule, he hasn’t had a chance to blog about the court’s ruling yet. I’ll be interested to see what he eventually has to say.
I’m also wondering about the plaintiff’s assertion that Hawaii is the only state that excludes a significant military population when drawing district lines. If that’s true, then how do other states deal with the problem of districts with lots of population but few voters? I would be surprised if Hawaii is the only place where military personnel assigned for 2-3 years choose not to shift their legal residence to the state. What happens in areas around military communities on the mainland?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For most military who do not claim Hawaii as a residence, the often heard reason is that they do not want to subject the little pay they get to the Hawaii Income Tax. Taking a minimum of 8% from the small salaries that the enlisted folks make it a huge amount for them.
Add to that is the cost of goods and services they must pay for while stationed in Hawaii which is at least 30% higher on average than the mainland. Considering the much lower cost of living near many military bases, to some the premium to live in Hawaii can be as much as 50% or more.
The only other state which attempts to exclude military is Kansas. All other states use the US census and count every human being. The state with the situation most analogous to Hawaii is Alaska with small population, large military and lots of empty space between population centers.
Maybe the S-A heard youi, Ian. When I went to the online version of the story, it was followed by one of those Scribd viewer windows with the decision displayed therein.
However, the Della Au Bellatti v. Scott Saiki graphic is also wrong. When the dissidents complained, without filing a lawsuit, about the maps drawn following the Supreme Court’s decision in January, the head-to-head matchuip that resulted from the adjusted maps is (I believe) between Scott Saiki and Scott Nishimoto. Straight from the “be careful what you wish for department.”
Separately, I understand Russell’s point about the higher cost of living for military families here, especially as compared to their income, but note that the impact is mitigated by their access to shopping outlets like NEX. But many local families who also are paid very little don’t have access to the very much reduced prices available in such outlets. And they make do. Somehow.
The prices at the NEX are not that much different from Costco or other big box discounters. Otherwise, you would not see many military families at Target, Walmart, Sam’s Club and Costco. Ask any local reservist or national guard friend about the NEX prices and they will confirm that the prices are not that much better than off base retailers.
But aren’t NEX purchases not subject to GET?
As a local reservist I would agree with Russel. The prices aren’t that much different then big box retailers like Costco and Walmart. In fact, some of them are actually cheaper, on occassion.
If voting is done by “residents” doesn’t it make sense that people will reside where they feel the most connected? Military move around often and may not feel the most connected to Hawaii. If someone is connected to Hawaii enough to local pay taxes then they should vote in local elections. If not, let them register where they feel is right for them, vote absentee and still get say in their state and national elections. Automatically including stationed federal employees in local elections seems rather colonial. So is there some way that by not including them in local elections they are being forced to miss out on votes that impact their quality of life? And if so what about the inverse of their voting on the quality of life for locals in districts and housing markets already heavily impacted by military bases?
If Mark Takai and other plaintiffs wanted to rewrite Hawaii State Constitution, they should have urged passage of the Con Con most Oahuans opposed. You cannot/should not rewrite the constitution you have sworn to uphold in the courtroom.
Filing a lawsuit isn’t premised on rewriting the State Constitution; it’s to define what it means.
Otherwise, how would we know, for example, what the First Amendment means unless it is subjected to the test of judicial review?
I believe a legislator can swear to uphold the constitution as currently written yet still advocate for its revision.
In this case, Takai WAS trying to get the provisions of Hawaii’s constitution dealing with reapportionment overridden by the Federal Court. He knows what it means when it bans “canoe districts” so he is not just asking the court to “define what it means.”
I think the argument of the plaintiffs for “canoe districts” is insincere and disingenuous. In their attempt to overthrow the current plan they are willing to throw every argument available to them and “see what sticks.” I doubt they REALLY want to force us back to canoe districts, which were extremely unpopular when we used them in the past. By the plaintiffs’ “logic” the residents of Kauai are grossly under-represented in the Senate and would be the main “beneficiaries” of compulsory canoe districts. Yet Kauai residents have been the most vocal in their opposition, preferring ONE senator with whom they can communicate and interact regularly, rather than getting a third of a senator, mostly elected from, and most likely living on, another island.
But hey, if it helps Mark Takai not have to run against Heather Giugni, then who gives a damn about what Kauai residents might want. They aren’t HIS constituents.