Opinion
NO. SCPW-12-0000058
02-09-2012
GLENN OAMILDA, Petitioner, v. 2011 COUNCIL REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION and 2011 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(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 Hawai'i 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 Hawai'i 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.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 9, 2012.
Mark E. Recktenwald
Paula A. Nakayama
Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
James E. Duffy, Jr.
Sabrina S. McKenna