Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 73 PageID
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL NO. 12-00184 JMS-LEK-MMM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION; APPENDIX “A”
JOSEPH KOSTICK, KYLE MARK
TAKAI, DAVID P. BROSTROM,
LARRY S. VERAY, ANDREW
WALDEN, EDWIN J. GAYAGAS,
ERNEST LASTER, and JENNIFER
SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official
capacity as the Chief Election Officer
of the State of Hawaii, STATE OF
HAWAII 2011 REAPPORTIONMENT
COMMISSION; VICTORIA MARKS,
LORRIE LEE STONE, ANTHONY
TAKITANI, CALVERT CHIPCHASE
IV, ELIZABETH MOORE, CLARICE
Y. HASHIMOTO, HAROLD S.
MASUMOTO, DYLAN NONAKA,
and TERRY E. THOMASON, in their
official capacities as members of the
State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment
Commission; and DOE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judge; J. Michael Seabright and
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judges.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 73 PageID
The Hawaii Constitution specifies the use of permanent residents as the
relevant population base in apportioning state legislative seats. In a 2012 decision,
the Hawaii Supreme Court laid out the appropriate method for determining
permanent residents by extracting non-resident military personnel and their
dependents, and non-resident students from the base count. The Reapportionment
Commission adopted a new plan to comply with that directive.
This electoral challenge asks us to consider the constitutionality of the
reapportionment under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution. We do so here in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction
requesting that we enjoin implementation of the 2012 Reapportionment Plan and
enjoin conducting the upcoming elections under that plan. This challenge raises an
issue of significant importance to Hawaii residents. Following a hearing on this
matter on May 18, 2012, we conclude that the request for an injunction should be
denied. In light of Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966), at this preliminary
stage of the proceedings, the plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success
on the merits of their claim that the permanent resident population basis violates
equal protection. Nor do the equities and public interest weigh in favor of an
injunction that risks jeopardizing the primary election scheduled for August 11,
2012, and even the general election scheduled for November 6, 2012. Although
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 3 of 73 PageID
we recognize that the right to representation is fundamental, “a federal court cannot
lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election.” Sw. Voter Registration Educ.
Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (per curiam).
Hawaii reapportions its state legislative and federal congressional districts
every ten years, after the decennial United States Census (“the Census”), based
upon changes in population. See Haw. Const. art. IV, § 1. The Hawaii
Constitution as amended in 1992 requires reapportionment of Hawaii’s legislative
districts to be based upon “permanent residents,” id. § 4, as opposed to the Census’
count of “usual residents.” And to pass constitutional muster, any resulting
reapportionment must comply with the principles of “one person, one vote.”
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S.
368, 381 (1963)).
In this action, Plaintiffs Joseph Kostick, Kyle Mark Takai, David P.
Brostrom, Larry S. Veray, Andrew Walden, Edwin J. Gayagas, Ernest Laster, and
Jennifer Laster (collectively, “Kostick”) challenge aspects of the March 30, 2012
Supplement to the 2011 Reapportionment Commission Final Report and
Reapportionment Plan (“the 2012 Reapportionment Plan”), which Hawaii has
begun implementing for its 2012 primary and general elections. The 2012
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 4 of 73 PageID
Reapportionment Plan -- upon direction from the Hawaii Supreme Court in
Solomon v. Abercrombie, 126 Haw. 283, 270 P.3d 1013 (2012) -- “extracted”
108,767 active-duty military personnel, military dependents, and university
students from Hawaii’s reapportionment population base. Kostick claims that this
extraction by itself, or the 2012 Reapportionment Plan’s subsequent apportionment
of the resulting population base, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and “one person, one vote” principles.
Kostick moves for a preliminary injunction, seeking:
(1) to enjoin Defendant Scott T. Nago, in his official capacity as the Chief
Election Officer of the State of Hawaii (“Nago”), from “further implementation” of
the 2012 Reapportionment Plan, and thus to enjoin conducting the upcoming
elections in accordance with that Plan;
(2) to order the 2011 Hawaii Reapportionment Commission (“the
Commission”) to formulate and implement a reapportionment plan using the 2010
Census’ count of “usual residents” of Hawaii as the population base; and
(3) to order the use of an August 2011 proposed reapportionment plan,
which utilized a population base that includes the now-extracted 108,767 people.
Secondarily, Kostick seeks an order requiring an apportionment of state
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 5 of 73 PageID
legislative districts that are “substantially equal in population.”1
We pause to emphasize what is not before us. To begin, we are not making
any final determination of the merits of Kostick’s challenge, a decision that must
await further proceedings. Further, this Order addresses only the legal
considerations underlying the challenged actions -- not whether extracting certain
“non-permanent” residents from Hawaii’s reapportionment population base is good
public policy, and not whether Hawaii could or should use “usual residents” as that
base. Hawaii has long-debated these questions and Hawaii’s legislature considered
them again in its just-completed session. See Doc. No. 50-7, Pls.’ Ex. AAAA (S.B.
No. 212, 26th Leg. Sess. 2012) (proposing to define “permanent resident” as a
“usual resident” under the Census). These are important and difficult questions,
involving political judgments and requiring consideration and balancing of
competing interests -- tasks for which courts are not suited. See, e.g., Perry v.
Perez, 565 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 934, 941 (2012) (“Experience has shown the
difficulty of defining neutral legal principles in this area, for redistricting ordinarily
involves criteria and standards that have been weighed and evaluated by the elected
branches in the exercise of their political judgment.”) (citations omitted).
1 The First Amended Complaint also asserts a claim under state law, which is not at issue
in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 6 of 73 PageID
In short, we express no opinion as to how Hawaii should define its
reapportionment base, but instead examine only the challenged aspects of the 2012
Reapportionment Plan itself. And we certainly do not pass on what no one here
disputes: Hawaii’s military personnel constitute a significant and welcome
presence in Hawaii’s population.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude it is unlikely Kostick will succeed
on the merits of the constitutional claim regarding the population base. The
equities and public interest weigh heavily against Kostick. We do not consider the
likelihood of success on Kostick’s mal-apportionment claim, as he acknowledged
there is no realistic or effective remedy that could be accomplished before the
primary election. Accordingly, Kostick’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
This reapportionment challenge raises issues that are best understood by first
examining the historical context. We begin by reviewing some of the historical
and legal factors that the Commission faced in crafting the 2012 Reapportionment
Plan. We then set forth specific details -- many of which are stipulated facts -- of
2 This background is based on the parties’ Stipulated Facts in the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, which is attached as Appendix A, the exhibits and filings related to the preliminary
injunction motion, and Nago’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 7 of 73 PageID
Kostick’s challenge to the Plan, and recount the procedural posture of the current
The Basic Historical and Legal Context
The Census counts the “usual residents” of a state. See, e.g., Franklin v.
Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 804-05 (1992) (“‘Usual residence’ . . . has been used
by the Census Bureau ever since [the first enumeration Act in 1790] to allocate
persons to their home States.”). The 2010 Census counted people at their usual
residence as of April 1, 2010. Doc. No. 26, Parties’ Stipulated Facts re: the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (“Stip. Facts”) ¶ 2. According to the 2010 Census,
Hawaii has a population of 1,360,301 usual residents. Doc. No. 32, First Am.
Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 30; Stip. Facts ¶ 32.
The Census defines “usual residence” as “the place where a person lives and
sleeps most of the time” and “is not necessarily the same as the person’s voting
residence or legal residence.” Stip. Facts ¶ 1. The definition thus excludes tourists
or business travelers. Id. ¶ 5; Doc. No. 28-16, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. H (“Ex. H”), at 3.
Active duty military personnel who were usual residents of Hawaii on April 1,
2010 were or should have been counted by the 2010 Census as part of its count for
Hawaii. Stip. Facts ¶ 3; Ex. H, at 8-9. Similarly, students attending college away
from their parental homes are counted where they attend school (i.e., where they
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 8 of 73 PageID
“live and sleep most of the time”). Ex. H, at 5. Students enrolled at a Hawaii
university or college who were usual residents of Hawaii on April 1, 2010 were or
should have been counted by the 2010 Census as part of the 2010 Census count for
Hawaii. Stip. Facts ¶ 4.
After each Census, Hawaii establishes a Reapportionment Commission to
implement a reapportionment. See Haw. Const. art. IV, § 2; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-
1. The Defendants in this action are the members of the Commission in their
official capacities; the Commission itself; and Nago, who serves as secretary of the
Commission in addition to his duties as Hawaii’s Chief Election Officer. See Haw.
Const. art. IV, §§ 2, 3; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-2. Where appropriate, we refer to all
Defendants as “the Commission,” although we sometimes refer to Nago separately.
The Commission uses the Census’ “usual residents” figure as Hawaii’s total
population for purposes of apportioning Hawaii’s federal congressional districts.
See Haw. Const. art. 4, § 9; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b) (requiring use of “persons in
the total population counted in the last preceding United States census” as the
relevant population base). But the Commission does not necessarily use the
Census figure as the population base for State legislative reapportionment. Instead,
Hawaii uses a count of “permanent residents” as the relevant population base.
Specifically, the current Hawaii Constitution provides:
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 9 of 73 PageID
The commission shall allocate the total number of members of
each house of the state legislature being reapportioned among the four
basic island units, namely: (1) the island of Hawaii, (2) the islands of
Maui, Lanai, Molokai and Kahoolawe, (3) the island of Oahu and all
other islands not specifically enumerated, and (4) the islands of Kauai
and Niihau, using the total number of permanent residents in each of
the basic island units[.]
Haw. Const. art. 4, § 4 (emphasis added). After such allocation, the Commission is
then required to apportion members of the Hawaii Legislature within those “basic
island units” as follows:
Upon the determination of the total number of members of each
house of the state legislature to which each basic island unit is
entitled, the commission shall apportion the members among the
districts therein and shall redraw district lines where necessary in such
manner that for each house the average number of permanent
residents per member in each district is as nearly equal to the average
for the basic island unit as practicable.
In effecting such redistricting, the commission shall be guided
by the following criteria:
1. No district shall extend beyond the boundaries
of any basic island unit.
2. No district shall be so drawn as to unduly favor
a person or political faction.
3. Except in the case of districts encompassing
more than one island, districts shall be contiguous.
4. Insofar as practicable, districts shall be
5. Where possible, district lines shall follow
permanent and easily recognized features, such as streets,
streams and clear geographical features, and, when
practicable, shall coincide with census tract boundaries.
6. Where practicable, representative districts shall
be wholly included within senatorial districts.
7. Not more than four members shall be elected
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 10 of 73 PageID
from any district.
8. Where practicable, submergence of an area in a
larger district wherein substantially different
socio-economic interests predominate shall be avoided.
Haw. Const. art. IV, § 6 (emphasis added).3 The “basic island units” correspond to
Hawaii’s Counties: Hawaii County (the island of Hawaii or “the Big Island”);
Kauai County (the islands of Kauai and Niihau); Maui County (the islands of
Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, and Lanai); and the City and County of Honolulu (the
island of Oahu).
Defining the reapportionment population base for Hawaii’s legislative
3 The Hawaii Constitution’s apportionment provisions were changed in 1992, when
Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment substituting the phrase “the total number of
permanent residents” for “on the basis of the number of voters registered in the last preceding
general election” in Article IV, § 4, as the relevant apportionment population base for Hawaii’s
legislative districts. See 1992 Haw. Sess. L. 1030-31 (H.B. No. 2327); Solomon, 126 Haw. at
285, 270 P.3d at 1015.
Prior applications of a “registered voter” population base were the subject of litigation
and, as analyzed further in this Order, ultimately entail many of the same fundamental questions
that arise in this action. See, e.g., Burns, 384 U.S. at 97 (upholding a Hawaii apportionment plan
based on registered voters that approximated a plan based on population); Travis v. King, 552 F.
Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982) (three-judge court) (striking a Hawaii apportionment plan based on
registered voters, primarily because of insufficient justifications for wide disparities in
allocation). Indeed, in Hawaii’s 1991 reapportionment, the 1991 Reapportionment Commission
utilized a population base of “permanent residents” (extracting -- similar to the present action --
114,000 non-resident military members and their families), despite the requirement of the
Hawaii Constitution (pre-1992 amendment) to use “the number of voters registered in the last
preceding general election” as the base. This approach was apparently adopted at least in part
because of equal protection concerns. See Doc. No. 34-20, Defs.’ Ex. 30, at 3-6 (State of Hawaii
1991 Reapportionment Comm’n, Final Report and Reapportionment Plan, at 21-24); Solomon,
126 Haw. at 284-85, 270 P.3d at 1014-15. Likewise, the 2001 reapportionment (after the 1992
State Constitutional amendment) extracted non-resident military personnel, their dependents, and
non-resident college students as “non permanent.” Solomon, 126 Haw. at 286, 270 P.3d at 1016.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 11 of 73 PageID
districts has long-presented a dilemma, primarily because Hawaii’s population has
historically contained a large percentage of military personnel -- many of whom
claim residency in other States and do not vote in Hawaii elections. See, e.g.,
Burns, 384 U.S. at 94 (referring to “Hawaii’s special population problems”
stemming from “the continuing presence in Hawaii of large numbers of the
military”). Burns noted that “at one point during World War II, the military
population of Oahu constituted about one-half the population of the Territory.” Id.
at 94 n.24. More recently, well after statehood, the 1991 Reapportionment
Commission found that non-resident military constituted “about 14% of the
population of Hawaii” with “[a]bout 114,000 nonresident military and their
families resid[ing] in this state, primarily on the Island of Oahu.” Doc. No. 34-20,
Defs.’ Ex. 30, at 5 (State of Hawaii 1991 Reapportionment Comm’n, Final Report
and Reapportionment Plan, at 23); Solomon, 126 Haw. at 285, 270 P.3d at 1015.4
The vast majority of military and their families live on Oahu because of its many
4 The percentage of the population of military and military families in Hawaii in 2010 is
not clear from the record, but some data indicates as many as 153,124 military and military
dependents. Doc. No. 28-12, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. D, at 13; Stip. Facts ¶ 6. This figure includes
military members who are deployed -- and thus are not counted as “usual residents” -- and their
dependents who live here (and thus may indeed have been counted as “usual residents”). As
detailed below, the Commission eventually “extracted” 42,322 active duty military personnel,
and 53,115 of their associated dependents as “non-permanent” Hawaii residents. Stip. Facts
¶¶ 8, 10. Regardless of the percentage, the military continues to constitute a significant and
important presence in Hawaii’s population.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 12 of 73 PageID
military installations including Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Schofield
Barracks, and Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station. But, whatever their percentage,
Hawaii elected officials still represent them -- it is a fundamental Constitutional
principle that elected officials represent all the people in their districts, including
those who do not or cannot vote. See, e.g., Garza v. Cnty. of L.A., 918 F.2d 763,
774 (9th Cir. 1990).
A dilemma thus arises because imbalances of potential constitutional
magnitude are created whether or not Hawaii’s non-resident military and family
members are factored into the apportionment base.
If they are included in the population base but vote elsewhere, Oahu voters
potentially have greater “voting power” than residents of other counties. See, e.g.,
Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 568 (“[A]n individual’s right to vote for state legislators is
unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when
compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State[.]”). That is, a
vote of an Oahu voter could count more than that of a non-Oahu voter. See, e.g.,
Bd. of Estimate of City of N.Y. v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 698 (1989) (“[A] citizen is
. . . shortchanged if he may vote for . . . one representative and the voters in another
district half the size also elect one representative.”); Chen v. City of Houston, 206
F.3d 502, 525 (5th Cir. 2000) (“If total population figures are used in an area in
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 13 of 73 PageID
which potentially eligible voters are unevenly distributed, the result will
necessarily devalue the votes of individuals in the area with a higher percentage of
potentially eligible voters.”).
But if this group is excluded, then Oahu residents (and residents in an Oahu
district with large concentrations of non-resident military) may have diluted
representation. See, e.g., Garza, 918 F.2d at 774 (“Residents of the more populous
districts . . . have less access to their elected representative. Those adversely
affected are those who live in the districts with a greater percentage of non-voting
populations[.]”); Chen, 206 F.3d at 525 (“[T]he area with the smaller number of
voters will find itself relatively disadvantaged. Despite the fact that it has a larger
population -- and thus perhaps a greater need for government services than the
other community -- it will find that its political power does not adequately reflect
There are also political dimensions. Excluding large numbers of non-
residents, most of whom live on Oahu, from the population base can -- as it did in
this instance -- result in a gain or loss of legislators between the basic island units
(here, the Big Island gained a State senate seat that Oahu lost). Stip. Facts ¶ 40.
Thus, including or excluding non-resident military and dependents could
contribute to a subtle shift in power among the Counties. Historically, residents of
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 14 of 73 PageID
each basic island unit “have developed their own and, in some instances severable
communities of interests” resulting in “an almost personalized identification of
residents of each county -- with and as an integral part of that county.” Burns v.
Gill, 316 F. Supp. 1285, 1291 (D. Haw. 1970). Forty-two years after Gill, many
individuals still identify themselves in relation to their Island. County residents
“take great interest in the problems of their own county because of that very
insularity brought about by the surrounding and separating ocean.” Id. See, e.g.,
Doc. No. 39-12, M. Solomon Decl. ¶ 9 (“There were also socio-economic and
cultural differences between the two parts of my canoe district [on Maui and the
Big Island] that predated statehood.”).5
5 The integrity of “basic island units” reaches far back. A three-judge court explained in
Hawaii is unique in many respects. It is the only state that has been successively
an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, a republic, and then a territory
of the United States before its admission as a state. Because each was insulated
from the other by wide channels and high seas and historically ruled first by
chiefs and then royal governors, after annexation the seven major, inhabited
islands of the State were divided up into the four counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii
and the City and County of Honolulu. All this resulted in a strongly centralized
form of government.
Holt v. Richardson, 238 F. Supp. 468, 470-71 (D. Haw. 1965), vacated, Burns, 384 U.S. 73.
Likewise, at the 1968 Hawaii Constitutional Convention when implementing apportionment
provisions in the State Constitution, committee members took into account the concept that:
(1) Islands or groups of islands in Hawaii have been separate and distinct
fundamental units since their first settlement by human beings in antiquity. . . .
The first constitution of the nation of Hawaii granted by King Kamehameha III in
1840, provided that there would be four governors “over these Hawaiian Islands -
one for Hawaii - one for Maui and the islands adjacent - one for Oahu, and one
for Kauai and the adjacent islands.” . . . Thereafter in every constitution of the
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 15 of 73 PageID
Notably, the Hawaii Constitution in Article IV, § 6, “recognizes the
geographic insularity and unique political and socio-economic identities of the
basic island units.” Doc. No. 28-3, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. A, at 35 (2012 Reapportionment
Plan, at 23). And thus the Hawaii Constitution requires that in apportioning a
population base “[n]o district shall extend beyond the boundaries of any basic
island unit.” Haw. Const. art. IV, § 6. The Commission articulated this interest as
a justification for population deviations among state districts -- avoiding bi-County
districts (often referred to as “canoe districts” because they are separated by water)
where a legislator represents people in different Counties. Doc. No. 28-3, Pls.’
Mot. Ex. A, at 33 (2012 Reapportionment Plan, at 21).6
nation, the territory and the state, the island units have been recognized as
separate political entities.
(2) . . . Each of the islands has had its unique geographic, topographic and
climatic conditions which have produced strikingly different patterns of economic
progress and occupational pursuits. Thus each unit of government has its own
peculiar needs and priorities which in some instances may be quite different from
any other county.
Doc. No. 35-6, Defs.’ Ex. 37 at 261-62. See also Doc. No. 39-15, D. McGregor Decl. ¶¶ 5-11
(explaining belief that each basic island unit’s history indicates each was a separate society or
community with unique identities, and indicating that by the year 1700 each unit was a separate
6 Besides considering the long history of the basic island units in addressing
apportionment, the 1968 Constitutional Convention also considered political factors -- Hawaii’s
centralized state government, which performs many functions that other states have delegated to
local government units. The apportionment committee explained:
In every other state in the union there are numerous minor governmental units --
town, cities, school districts, sewer districts and the like -- which exercise power
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 16 of 73 PageID
The Commission considered these and other factors in creating the 2012
Reapportionment Plan, the specifics of which we turn to next.
Steps Leading to the 2012 Reapportionment Plan
The August 2011 Plan
The Commission was certified on April 29, 2011, and promptly began the
2011 reapportionment process. The Hawaii Supreme Court in Solomon describes
in exacting detail the process the Commission took in formulating initial and
revised apportionment plans. Solomon’s description conforms to the record before
this court, and we thus draw extensively from Solomon here:
The Commission, at its initial organizational meetings, adopted
“Standards and Criteria” that it would follow for the 2011
reapportionment of the congressional and state legislative districts.
The “Standards and Criteria” for the state legislative districts stated:
Standards and criteria that shall be followed:
and in which the people may obtain local representation for local matters. Hawaii
has none of these. Although Hawaii has major political units called counties,
these units have substantially less power and authority over local affairs than in
most other states. The result is that Hawaii’s legislature deals exclusively with, or
at least effectively controls, many matters which are normally considered
typically local government services.
Doc. No. 35-6, Defs.’ Ex. 37 at 262. The committee gave examples of centralized services such
as (1) public education; (2) highways, harbors, and airports; (3) administration and collection of
taxes; (4) health and welfare activies; (5) the judicial system; (6) land use districts; (7) fishing,
forestry, minerals, agriculture, and land; and (8) labor and industrial relations. Id.
The committee’s conclusion was “obvious and inescapable: if a voter of the State of
Hawaii is to have meaningful representation in any kind of government, he must have effective
representation from his own island unit in the state legislature.” Id. at 263.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 17 of 73 PageID
The population base used shall be the “permanent resident”
population of the State of Hawaii. The permanent resident
population is the total population of the State of Hawaii as
shown in the last U.S. census less the following: non-resident
students and non-resident military sponsors.
At meetings on May 11 and 24, 2011, the Commission was
briefed on Hawaii’s population growth since the 2001
reapportionment, the history of Hawaii’s reapportionment, and the
constitutional and statutory provisions governing reapportionment. It
was provided with data from the 2010 Census showing a 12% increase
in the state’s total population consisting of increases of 24% in
Hawai‘i County, 21% in Maui County, 15% in Kauai County, and 9%
in Oahu County. It was informed of article IV, section 4 and 6’s
permanent resident basis for apportioning the state legislature and
informed -- by counsel to the 2001 Reapportionment Commission --
that the 2001 Commission computed the permanent residence base by
excluding nonresident military personnel and their dependents, and
nonresident college students. It was informed by Commission staff
that data on Hawaii’s nonresident military population had been
requested from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) through
the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) and that Hawaii’s
nonresident student population would be identified by their local
addresses and assigned to specific census blocks. The Commission, at
the conclusion of the May meetings, solicited advice from the
apportionment advisory councils as to whether nonresident military
and nonresident students should be excluded from the permanent
126 Haw. at 286, 270 P.3d at 1016 (internal footnote omitted).
The data obtained in May and June 2011 from the military on Hawaii’s non-
resident military population was apparently deemed insufficient. “The
Commission, at its June 28, 2011 meeting, voted 8-1 to apportion the state
legislature by using the 2010 Census count -- without exclusion of nonresident
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 18 of 73 PageID
military and dependents and nonresident students -- as the permanent resident
base.” Id. at 287, 270 P.3d at 1017.
Commission staff provided the following explanation as to
“permanent and non-permanent military residents.”
The non-permanent resident extraction model used in 1991 and
2001 [reapportionments] relied on receiving location specific
(address or Zip Code) residence information for the specific
non-permanent residents to be extracted.
In 2011, the data received from DMDC does not provide
residence information for military sponsors nor does it provide
specific breakdowns of permanent and non-permanent residents
This lack of specific data from DMDC does not allow the
model used previously to be used at this time.
Id. at 288, 270 P.3d at 1018 (square brackets in original).
And so, an initial apportionment plan was developed and accepted by the
Commission on or before August 3, 2011 that was based on 2010 Census figures.
The parties have stipulated that “[t]he State legislative reapportionment plan
accepted by the Commission for public hearings and comment on August 3, 2011
(‘August 2011 Plan’) did not extract from the 2010 Census count, any active duty
military personnel, military dependents, or students.” Stip. Facts ¶ 27. The Chair
of the Commission explains that this August 2011 Plan was “preliminarily
accepted for the purpose of public hearings and comment,” because of the
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 19 of 73 PageID
impending September 26, 2011 statutory deadline for a final plan and the statutory
requirement of conducting public hearings. Doc. No. 39-6, V. Marks Decl. ¶ 7.
This plan is apparently the August 2011 proposed reapportionment plan that
Kostick seeks to have implemented.
The September 26, 2011 Plan
Further proceedings followed the Commission’s June 28, 2011 decision to
use 2010 Census figures, and its corresponding development of the August 2011
Plan. The Commission was provided with additional data from military sources on
Hawaii’s “non-permanent military resident population and from Hawaii
universities on non-permanent student resident population.” Solomon, 126 Haw. at
287, 270 P.3d at 1017.
Commission staff thereafter developed its own “model” for the
“extraction of non-permanent residents” for the 2011
reapportionment. Commission staff operated on the premise that
non-permanent residents -- active duty military who declare Hawaii
not to be their home state and their dependents, and out-of-state
university students -- were to be identified according to the specific
location of their residences within each of the four counties. Because
the 2010 Census data and the university data did not include the
residence addresses for all of the non-permanent active duty military
residents and their dependents and the out-of-state university students,
Commission staff identified three groups of non-permanent residents:
Extraction A, Extraction B, and Extraction C. The groups were based
on the level of “certainty in determining [the residents’]
non-permanency and location.” Extraction A were residents whose
specific locations were certain and included out-of-state university
students with known addresses and active duty military, with “fairly
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 20 of 73 PageID
certain non-permanent status,” living in military barracks. Extraction
B included all residents in Extraction A, plus active duty military and
their dependents, with “less certain non-permanent status,” living in
on-base military housing. Extraction C included all residents in
Extraction A and Extraction B, plus out-of-state university students
with addresses identified only by zip code.
Id. at 288, 270 P.3d at 1018. The Commission staff’s “Extraction A” listed 16,458
active duty military, their dependents, and out-of-state university students (mostly
on Oahu); its “Extraction B” listed 73,552; and its “Extraction C” listed 79,821.
Id. Additionally, an “August 7, 2011 ‘Staff Summary’ showed a state population
of 47,082 non-permanent active duty military residents, 58,949 military
dependents, and 15,463 out-of-state university students” totaling 121,494 “non-
permanent” residents. Id. at 289, 270 P.3d at 1019.
The Commission held a September 13, 2011 public hearing in Hilo, Hawaii.
It received testimony on behalf of State Senator Malama Solomon (“Solomon”)
and three members of the Hawaii County Democratic Committee, advocating
extraction of the 121,494 “non-permanent” residents from the apportionment
population base. Such an extraction would increase Hawaii County’s senate seats
from three to four. Id. Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie also supported that
extraction, indicating that based upon the State Attorney General’s preliminary
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 21 of 73 PageID
view, “counting nonresidents is not warranted in law.” Id.7
On September 19, 2011, after much debate, “[t]he Commission adopted a
final apportionment plan that computed the permanent resident base by excluding
16,458 active duty military and out-of-state university students from the 2010
census population of 1,330,301.” Id. at 290, 270 P.3d at 1020; Stip. Facts ¶ 32.
That is, it chose “Extraction A,” primarily because of the certainty of that data.
The resulting apportionment allocated “as to the senate 18 seats to Oahu County, 3
seats for Hawaii County, 3 seats for Maui County, and 1 seat for Kauai County.”
Solomon, 126 Haw. at 290, 270 P.3d at 1020. The Commission filed this plan on
September 26, 2011 (“the September 26, 2011 Plan”). Id.; Stip. Facts. ¶ 32.
7 Solomon also references a letter from the Attorney General to Hawaii County legislator
Robert Herkes opining that “the Hawaii Supreme Court would likely hold that to the extent they
are identifiable, nonresident college students and nonresident military members and their
families cannot properly be included in the reapportionment population base the Commission
uses to draw the legislative district lines this year.” 126 Haw. at 287, 270 P.3d at 1017.
The [Attorney General] opinion was based on the legislative history of the 1992
‘permanent resident’ amendment to article IV, section 4, and the Hawaii Supreme
Court’s interpretation [in Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Gov’t v. County of
Hawaii, 108 Haw. 318, 120 P.3d 217 (2005)] of ‘resident population,’ as used [in]
the Hawaii County Charter, as excluding nonresident college students and
nonresident military personnel and their dependents from the population base for
purposes of apportioning county council districts. The opinion was forwarded to
Id. (footnote omitted).
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 22 of 73 PageID
The September 26, 2011 Plan is Challenged: Solomon v.
Abercrombie; and Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011
On October 10, 2011, Solomon and the three members of the Hawaii
County Democratic Committee filed a petition in the Hawaii Supreme Court,
challenging the September 26, 2011 Plan. The next day, Hawaii County resident
Michael Matsukawa filed a similar petition in the Hawaii Supreme Court. Stip.
Facts ¶ 33. Among other claims, these petitions asserted that the Commission
violated the State Constitutional requirement to base a reapportionment on
“permanent residents” by failing to extract all non-resident military, their
dependents, and non-resident students. Solomon’s petition asserted that the
Commission knew that extracting only 16,000 non-residents would not trigger the
loss of an Oahu-based senate seat, and that “the fear of Oahu’s loss of this senate
seat was the driving force” for the extraction. Solomon, 126 Haw. at 290, 270 P.3d
at 1020. They sought an order requiring the Commission to prepare and file a new
reapportionment plan for the State legislature that uses a population base limited to
“permanent residents” of the State of Hawaii. Stip. Facts ¶ 33. As far as we can
discern, however, the parties did not raise constitutional equal protection
On January 4, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued orders in the Solomon
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 23 of 73 PageID
and Matsukawa proceedings that invalidated the September 26, 2011 Plan as
having disregarded Article IV, § 4 of the Hawaii Constitution. The Hawaii
Supreme Court, among other things, ordered the Commission to prepare and file a
new reapportionment plan that allocates members of the State legislature among
the basic island units using a permanent resident population base. Stip. Facts ¶ 34.
On January 6, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued Solomon -- an opinion
covering both the Solomon and Matsukawa proceedings. Id. ¶ 35.
As for the requirement in Article IV, §§ 4 and 6, for the Commission to
apportion the state legislature by using a “permanent resident” base, Solomon held
that the requirement “mandate[s] that only residents having their domiciliary in the
State of Hawaii may be counted in the population base for the purpose of
reapportioning legislative districts.” Solomon, 126 Haw. at 292, 270 P.3d at 1022
(quoting Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Gov’t, 108 Haw. at 322, 120 P.3d at
221). To determine “the total number of permanent residents in the state and in
each county,” the Commission was required “to extract non-permanent military
residents and non-permanent university student residents from the state’s and the
counties’ 2010 Census population.” Id. It directed that
[i]n preparing a new plan, the Commission must first --pursuant to
article IV, section 4 -- determine the total number of permanent
residents in the state and in each county and use those numbers to
allocate the 25 members of the senate and 51 members of the house of
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 24 of 73 PageID
representatives among the four counties. Upon such allocation, the
Commission must then -- pursuant to article IV, section 6 -- apportion
the senate and house members among nearly equal numbers of
permanent residents within each of the four counties.
Id. at 294, 270 P.3d at 1024.
The 2012 Reapportionment Plan
Soon after Solomon was issued, the Commission commenced a series of
public meetings and obtained additional information regarding military personnel,
their family members, and university students. The Commission eventually
extracted 42,332 active duty military personnel, 53,115 military dependents, and
13,320 students from the 2010 Census population of “usual residents.” Stip. Facts
¶¶ 8, 10, 14, 36. This extraction totaled 108,767 persons, resulting in an adjusted
reapportionment population base of 1,251,534. Id. ¶ 37.
The active duty military were extracted if they “declared a state other than
Hawaii as their home state for income tax purposes,” and if they were included in
the 2010 Census. Doc. No. 28-12, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. D, at 2-2. That is, they were
extracted “based on military records or data denoting the personnel’s state of legal
residence.” Stip. Facts ¶ 8.
The extracted military family members were identified by associating them
with their active duty military sponsor. In other words, the Commission extracted
military dependents who were associated with or attached to an active duty military
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 25 of 73 PageID
person who had declared a state of legal residence other than Hawaii. Stip. Facts
¶ 10. The military did not provide the Commission with any data regarding the
military dependents’ permanent or non-permanent residency other than their
association or attachment to an active duty military sponsor who had declared a
state of residence other than Hawaii. Id. ¶ 12.
The students were extracted solely on the basis of (a) payment of non-
resident tuition, or (b) a home address outside of Hawaii. Id. ¶¶ 14, 18-19. The
students were from the University of Hawaii System, Hawaii Pacific University,
Chaminade University, and Brigham Young University (“BYU”) Hawaii. Id. ¶ 15.
No other Hawaii universities provided data to the Commission. Id. ¶ 16.
After extraction, the Commission reapportioned the adjusted population base
of 1,251,534 “permanent residents” by dividing the base by 25 Senate seats and 51
House seats. Id. ¶ 37. This resulted in an ideal Senate district of 50,061 permanent
residents, and an ideal House district of 24,540 permanent residents. Id. The
Commission then reapportioned within the four basic island units as set forth in
Article IV, § 6 of the Hawaii Constitution, and as guided by the criteria set forth in
Under the 2012 Reapportionment Plan: (a) the largest Senate District
(Senate District 8, Kauai basic island unit) contains 66,805 permanent residents
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 26 of 73 PageID
which is 16,744 (or 33.44 percent) higher than the ideal Senate district of 50,061
permanent residents; and (b) the smallest Senate District (Senate District 1, Hawaii
basic island unit) contains 44,666 permanent residents which is 5,395 (or 10.78
percent) less than the ideal. Id. ¶ 38. Thus, the range for the Senate Districts is
44.22 percent. The 2012 Reapportionment Plan resulted in one Senate seat moving
from the Oahu basic island unit to the Hawaii basic island unit. Id. ¶ 40.
As for the House districts, under the 2012 Reapportionment Plan: (a) the
largest House District (House District 5, Hawaii basic island unit) contains 27,129
permanent residents which is 2,589 (or 10.55 percent) higher than the ideal House
district of 24,540 permanent residents; and (b) the smallest House District (House
District 15, Kauai basic island unit) contains 21,835 permanent residents which is
2,705 (or 11.02 percent) less than the ideal. Id. ¶ 39. The range for the House
districts is 21.57 percent.
The extent of the deviations is driven largely by a Commission decision to
continue to avoid canoe districts. See Doc. No. 28-3, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. A, at 33 (2012
Reapportionment Plan, at 21). Canoe districts were eliminated in the 2001
reapportionment, after being imposed in 1982 when, as noted earlier, a three-judge
court in Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982), found a 1981
reapportionment plan to be unconstitutional, and ordered use of an interim plan
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 27 of 73 PageID
that utilized canoe districts as recommended by special masters. See Doc. No.
34-17, Defs.’ Ex. 27 (April 27, 1982 Final Report and Recommendations of
Special Masters, Travis v. King). The 2001 Reapportionment Commission did
away with canoe districts, concluding after experience and public input that such
districts were ineffective. See, e.g., Doc. No. 34-21 at 10 (2001 Reapportionment
Plan, at 25); id. at 13 (2001 Reapportionment Plan, at A-209).
The 2012 Reapportionment Plan was adopted and filed on March 8, 2012,
with notice published on March 22, 2012. Stip. Facts ¶ 36. It was presented to the
Legislature on March 30, 2012. Doc. No. 32, FAC ¶ 45.
Soon after the 2012 Reapportionment Plan was presented to the Legislature,
this action was filed on April 6, 2012. The Complaint requested a three-judge
district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. On April 10, 2012, Judge J. Michael
Seabright granted the request for a three-judge district court, determining that the
constitutional claims are “not insubstantial,” as necessary for such a court. See,
e.g., Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518 (1973). On April 17, 2012, the Chief
Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed the present panel, Ninth
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, and District Judges J. Michael Seabright
and Leslie E. Kobayashi.
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 28 of 73 PageID
Kostick filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 23, 2012. An
Amended Complaint was filed on April 27, 2012, which added two Plaintiffs to the
action, Ernest and Jennifer Laster, but otherwise did not substantially differ from
the original Complaint. An Opposition was filed on May 3, 2012, and a Reply on
May 8, 2012. We heard the Motion on May 18, 2012, and admitted evidence
without objection, most of which had previously been submitted as exhibits
already entered on the court’s docket. We also heard live testimony from Nago,
and considered extensive oral argument from the parties. We have considered the
evidentiary record, and oral and written argument of counsel, and rule as follows.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
There are two types of preliminary injunctions -- a prohibitory injunction
“preserve[s] the status quo pending a determination of the action on the merits,”
whereas a “mandatory injunction orders a responsible party to ‘take action.’”
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879
(9th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). “A mandatory injunction ‘goes
well beyond simply maintaining the status quo [p]endente lite [and] is particularly
disfavored.’” Id. (quoting Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th
Cir. 1980)). The remedies Kostick seeks here include both types of preliminary
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 29 of 73 PageID
A preliminary injunction “‘is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.’” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. A decisive showing as
to all factors is not required: under the “sliding scale” or “serious questions”
approach to preliminary injunctions, “the elements of the preliminary injunction
test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker
showing of another. For example, a stronger showing of irreparable harm to
plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits.”
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131 (citing Clear Channel Outdoor,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2003)). However, the
Supreme Court emphasized in Winter that a preliminary injunction is not
appropriate when there is only a “possibility of some remote future injury.”
Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citations omitted). Kostick must show that the conduct of
the Commission is likely to cause him constitutional harm. Id.
Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, “courts should be extremely
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 30 of 73 PageID
cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction,” and “should deny such relief
‘unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.’” Stanley v. Univ. of S.
Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson, 612 F.2d at 1114).
Generally, mandatory injunctions “are not granted unless extreme or very serious
damage will result and are not issued in doubtful cases or where the injury
complained of is capable of compensation in damages.” Anderson, 612 F.2d at
1115; see also Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (describing
that “the movant must make a heightened showing of the four factors” (citation and
quotation signals omitted)). “The burden of proof at the preliminary injunction
phase tracks the burden of proof at trial.” Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645
F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2011). The parties challenging state apportionment
legislation bear the burden of proving disparate representation. Karcher v.
Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 730-731 (1983). It falls on Kostick to show that he is
likely to establish a constitutional violation at trial.
Kostick makes a bifurcated equal protection challenge to Hawaii’s
reapportionment plan. He first protests the extraction of non-resident military
personnel, their dependents, and non-resident students. He argues that using a
population base that does not include the extracted individuals violates equal
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 31 of 73 PageID
protection. Next, even if such an extraction is allowed, Kostick argues that
deviations in the 2012 Reapportionment Plan’s subsequent reapportionment of the
resulting population base are constitutionally problematic. We now turn to these
A. Count One (Equal Protection Challenge: Population Basis)
We first address the overriding question of constitutional injury, and
conclude that Kostick has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the
merits. Even if Kostick were able to make this threshold showing, we find that the
equities tip decisively in the Commission’s favor. The record shows that the
remedy Kostick seeks would require postponement of the state primary election, an
integral part of the electoral process, and even put the general election in jeopardy.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Kostick argues that by seeking to apportion based only on a permanent
resident basis, and extracting non-resident military, their dependents, and non-
resident students from the apportionment population base, Hawaii violated the
principle of equal representation. On this record, Kostick fails to meet his
preliminary injunction burden. To begin, the Supreme Court has explicitly
affirmed that a state may legitimately restrict the districting base to citizens, which
in this case, corresponds to permanent residents. Discriminating among non-
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 32 of 73 PageID
resident groups in the course of extraction may be problematic -- yet, the record
reveals that Hawaii extracted all non-resident populations that exist in sufficient
numbers to affect the apportionment of districts, and regarding which it could
obtain reliable data without discriminating among them. Kostick does not show
that Hawaii attempted to single out non-resident servicemembers, servicemember
dependents, or non-resident students for any reason other than their lack of
permanent residency. Finally, the record shows that the means Hawaii chose to
achieve the result were rational and, even using the standard urged by Kostick,
pass close constitutional scrutiny. There is no indication that Hawaii’s methods
resulted in the exclusion of state residents from the population basis sufficient to
affect legislative apportionment.
Use of Permanent Resident Population Base
In considering Kostick’s claim, we have the benefit of longstanding
Supreme Court precedent, including the 1966 case stemming from Hawaii&rsqu