How much discretion the state Reapportionment Commission has in drawing political maps was a central theme Tuesday, when Hawaii Supreme Court justices grilled attorneys for the state and a citizen coalition challenging the maps.
As is typical, the court reserved judgment until it publishes its findings sometime in the future, but questioning by several justices seemed to indicate they were concerned that a ruling against the state could delay the election process. Filing deadline for candidates is June 7 in advance of the Aug. 13 primary election.
The court put a temporary hold on candidate qualifying for state legislative offices and federal House races until it can consider the petition. Qualifying for statewide and county government seats, however, has begun.
The petition asked the Supreme Court to declare the political maps invalid and direct that the state withdraw them and draw new ones.
“How long would that take and would it disrupt the ability of the state to conduct its election?” Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald asked.
Justices questioned both Deputy Attorney General Lauren Chun, representing the commission, and Mateo Caballero, attorney for the petitioners, about the eight criteria listed in the state constitution and whether they’re mandatory or discretionary. In addition, several wondered, if a criterion was considered but rejected, was there a requirement for an explanation to be put into the record?
“They have to do more than say ‘we complied,’ right, they have to provide evidence?” asked Associate Justice Michael Wilson. “This criteria isn’t just advisory, right, because it has mandatory language. It’s sort of a hybrid.”
Another justice wasn’t so sure.
“Is not providing an explanation ignoring that guideline?” asked Associate Justice Todd Eddins. “There was considerable amount of discussion at least that holistically the commission considered all the criteria.”
Chun said the commission has a lot of discretion.
“The constitution recognizes that this is a very important and a very difficult process that’s rife with judgment calls and discretionary decisions and it entrusts those decisions to the bicamerally appointed and bipartisan reapportionment commission,” Chun said. “I think the commission did consider all those criteria and there’s no evidence by the petitioners that the final maps, as a whole, evidence an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission.“
Caballero, as would be expected, disagreed.
“It should be voters who choose their representatives, not the other way around,” said Caballero, echoing a common theme of the lawsuit. “I think that’s the reason the Hawaii constitution put in place very carefully crafted limitations on the reapportionment process. Yes, they have discretion, but it’s not unbounded discretion, not sole discretion, it’s limited discretion. And the question is whether they went beyond those boundaries and we submit they did.”
