Kostick v. Nago

Jurisdictional Statement


Hawaii's 2012 Reapportionment Plan "extracted" 108,767 residents -- nearly 8% of the total population -- and did not count them as Hawaii "permanent residents." It excluded these people from the body politic: (1) active duty military personnel who indicated on a federal form that another state should withhold taxes, (2) their spouses and children, and (3) students who did not qualify for in-state tuition.

Hawaii acknowledged those whom it "extracted" were not counted anywhere else, and that they were not represented equally in Hawaii. A three-judge US District Court refused to apply close constitutional scrutiny, and concluded that Hawaii’s "permanent resident" population basis was a rational means of protecting other residents’ voting power, which superseded the extracted classes' right to equal representation. The Commission counted others who could not intend to remain permanently (e.g., undocumented aliens), or whose inclusion diluted voting power because they were not qualified to vote (prisoners, minors).

Hawaii also recognized that with overall deviations of 44.22% in the Senate and 21.57% in the House of Representatives—the product of Hawaii’s prohibition of "canoe districts" (districts spanning more than a single county)—the 2012 Reapportionment Plan was presumptively discriminatory. The Supreme Court has never upheld a reapportionment plan with deviations in excess of 16%, which "may well approach tolerable limits." The District Court accepted these substantial departures from population equality because Hawaii is geographically and culturally different.

The plaintiffs appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, and on October 8, 2013, filed this Jurisdictional Statement, arguing that the Court should consider the issues presented substantial, and should schedule full briefing and argument.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Appellate Brief | Federal, U.S. Supreme Court | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robert Thomas, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.