A lawsuit that challenges redrawn political district maps ordinarily would signal disaster, when it occurs well after launch of a campaign season. Any order directing the state Reapportionment Commission to start over with the mapping would delay the fall election, potentially discouraging prospective candidates from jumping in.
But that seems not to be the case this week, when 11 registered voters filed a petition before the state Supreme Court, seeking the invalidation of the commission’s plan. The reason: The petitioners can point to work already done on a replacement plan that they say would better meet requirements.
If the court gives prompt attention to this case, as it should, it would still be possible to settle the dispute over the district lines fairly quickly, allowing enough time for candidates to file nomination papers by the June 7 deadline.
The particular complaints in Wednesday’s filing include the assertion that the existing plan does not comply with one constitutional provision that state House districts be contained wholly within Senate districts, “where practicable.” The court on Thursday ordered a delay in making candidate nomination papers available while the matter is heard.
During commission hearings, critics of the plan pointed out that on Oahu there were 34 House districts and 17 Senate districts, suggesting that, on that island at least, two House districts could be contained in each of the Senate districts. Instead there were unresolved complaints about communities being split along district lines, such as mixing Windward Oahu with East Honolulu areas.
Among the factors complicating the remapping process was the late arrival of Census data, and the provisions in state law and the Constitution to count only permanent residents. That meant military personnel would be extracted from the populations on which the districts are based.
It’s a fractious matter, because depending on whether military residents are counted for the voting maps, the number of seats assigned to each island rises or falls. A measure seeking to base reapportionment counts on Census data, Senate Bill 3254, is moving, but its future is uncertain.
What is certain is that the court review should produce some needed clarity about why the maps were drawn the way they were — and, one hopes, improve them.
