On January 6, 2011, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued two opinions in the reapportionment challenges, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-000074. Here’s a summary, as well as some thoughts on the court’s rulings (as far as we can tell, the two opinions are identical).
- To satisfy the one-person-one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the states must use a method of counting people that approximates “population.”
- Under the Hawaii Constitution, the only people who are counted for determining “population” for purposes of reapportionment are “permanent residents.” See Haw. Const. art. IV, § 4 (“The [reapportionment] ommission shall allocate the total number of members of each house of the state legislature being reapportioned among the four basic island units … using the total number of permanent residents in each of the basic island units and computed by the method known
Continue Reading HAWSCT’s Reapportionment Decision – Who Are “Permanent Residents?”


