TRAVIS v. KING
552 F.Supp. 554 (1982)
Craig TRAVIS, Faith Evans, Carmen Bostick, George Starbuck, Les Skillings, Laura Bolles and Dave Ellis, Plaintiffs,
Alice Scott, Anne F. Lee and Rhoda Miller, Plaintiffs in Intervention,
Jean KING, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii; Ruben P. Mallari, John E.K. Akana, Franklin S. Kometani, Robert A. McFarlane, Franklin M. Mukai, Tom Okuda, D.W. Rose, James V. Hall and Carla Coray, Defendants.
HAWAII COUNTY COMMITTEE, Democratic Party of Hawaii, Catherine Filson, Frances Hasegawa, Dixie Kaetsu, Leslie Hill, William Kikuchi, Takeshi Kudo, Tracey Lauder, Luther Nathaniel, Sr., John Santangelo and James Simpson, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Jean KING, in her capacity as Lieutenant Governor and Chief Elections Officer of the State of Hawaii, Defendant.
Civ. Nos. 81-0433, 81-0438.
United States District Court, D. Hawaii.
October 13, 1982.
John S. Carroll, David A. Ezra, Michael F. O'Connor/Steven Thomas, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Craig Travis et al.
Peter J. Herman, Charles H. Hurd, Welcome S. Fawcett, Honolulu, Hawaii for intervenors Lee, Scott and Miller.
Tany S. Hong, Atty. Gen. by Francis Paul K.A. Keeno, Deputy Atty. Gen., James T. Funaki, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants.
Steven K. Christensen, Hilo, Hawaii, William J. McCarthy, Jr., Kealakekua, Hawaii, Wayne C. Metcalf, III, Robert P. Marx, Hilo, Hawaii, for Hawaii County Committee et al.
Before CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, and KING and WILLIAMS, District Judges.
SPENCER WILLIAMS, District Judge:
In 1962, the United States Supreme Court found the issue of legislative malapportionment justiciable.1 Since that time, efforts by the State of Hawaii to redraw the lines of local, state and congressional districts have been subjected to numerous attacks in both state and federal courts.2 The present action involves a challenge to the state's most recent reapportionment effort, its 1981 legislative and congressional reapportionment plan as embodied in the Report and Reapportionment Plan of the 1981 Reapportionment Commission (1981 Plan), submitted to the state's Lt. Governor on September 28, 1981. Plaintiffs and intervenors claim the 1981 Plan violates both State and Federal Constitutional provisions. The imminence of the upcoming 1982 primary and general elections mandated that this litigation be handled expeditiously.3 The court, therefore, ordered the parties to submit all evidence in written form, in lieu of any live testimony. Oral argument on the matter was held before the full court on March 24, 1982. By its interlocutory order, dated March 25, 1982, the court announced its decision that (1) as it pertains to the state legislature's reapportionment, the 1981 Plan violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and (2) as it pertains to the congressional reapportionment, the 1981 Plan violates article 1, § 2 of the United States Constitution as well as the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.4 The order stated that a full opinion would be issued at a later date. The following memorandum constitutes that opinion.
The State of Hawaii's previous efforts at reapportionment, on both state and local
levels, are well documented in prior decisions of this and other courts.5 The present effort began in March of 1981 with the formation of the 1981 Reapportionment Commission pursuant to article IV, § 2 of the Hawaii State Constitution. As to reapportionment of the state legislature, the state constitution directed the Commission to perform two primary tasks:
First, it was required to apportion the total number of seats in the State senate and the State house of representatives among the basic island units of the State. Second, it was required to apportion the members allocated to each basic island unit among the districts therein and to redraw district lines where necessary in such a manner that for each house the average number of registered voters per member in each district is as nearly equal to the average for the basic island units as practicable.6