2012

12.WATHIThere is still time to join us for the upcoming Hawaii Water Law conference, to be held in Honolulu on January 11, 2012. I am the planning co-chair along with Jesse Souki, Director of the State of Hawaii Office of Planning.

In addition to Jesse and me, we’ve assembled a diverse and talented faculty: UH lawprof David Callies will speak with Elijah Yip (Cades) on the latest developments in water law and public trust litigation. State Water Commissioner Lawrence Miike will update us on the latest goings-on at the Commission. My Damon Key partner Greg Kugle is speaking with Leo Asuncion, the Manager of the Coastal Zone Management Program at the State Office of Planning on coastal issues.

After lunch, we have a special guest, Ed Thomas (a lawyer and President of the National Hazard Mitigation Association, and a nationaly known expert in floodplain management and…

Continue Reading Hawaii Water Law Conference (Jan. 11, 2012)

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?”

In Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 2D11-2797 (Dec. 30, 2011), the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) held that land owned by the Miccosukee Tribe was not immune from being condemned by the State o Florida.

The tribe purchased three parcels but did not immediately take action to have the federal government take title in trust for the tribe (which apparently would have protected it). Six years later, it filed a “fee-to-trust” application with the feds, but before the Department of the Interior could take any action, Florida instituted an eminent domain action to take the parcels for an Everglades restoration project. The tribe asserted sovereign immunity, but the court allowed the taking.

The appeals court affirmed, concluding that because a condemnation action is “in rem” (against the land) and not “in personam,” the tribe’s immunity from lawsuits did not extent…

Continue Reading Fla App: Indian-Owned Land Is Not “Aboriginal Land” Immune From Eminent Domain

AFBF-annual
On Monday, January 9, 2012, I’ll be speaking to my American Farm Bureau Federation colleagues, who are in town for the AFBF annual meeting.

The title of my presentation is “Agriculture and Property Rights: Why Hawaii Matters.” I’ll be talking water rights, GMO, right-to-farm, eminent domain, and other issues to the lawyers who represent farmers and ranchers. I’ll record it and post it here on Monday.

Check out the AFBF’s annual meeting blog here.Continue Reading Agriculture And Property Rights: Why Hawaii Matters

On January 6, 2011, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued two opinions in the Big Island reapportionment cases, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-0000741.

Here (and below) is the opinion in Solomon v. Abercombie (the opinion in the other case is identical).

Here is the oral argument:

Stream it above or download it here. Our live blog of the oral argument: 

Here’s a description of the issues from the Judiciary web site:

Petitioners Malama Solomon, Louis Hao, Patricia Cook, Steven Pavao, and Michael Matsukawa filed petitions for writs of mandamus: (1) invalidating the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature adopted and filed on September 26, 2011 by the State of Hawai`i 2011 Reapportionment Commission; (2) directing the Reapportionment Commission to prepare and file a new reapportionment plan for the state legislature; and (3)…

Continue Reading Hawaii Reapportionment Case

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Blight barons of redevelopment plot comeback – Steven Greenhut (O.C. Register): “As of February, anyway, redevelopment is dead in California, the victim of an absurdly arrogant legal and political strategy pursued by redevelopment’s chief defenders. This is wonderful news, made even better by the teeth-gnashing of public officials who have routinely abused their powers under redevelopment law. Cry me a river. But before I gloat too much, we need to remember that this victory already resembles one of those cheap horror movies where the Evil Thing has been vanquished, and all appears well, then its hand pokes out from the grave just as the credits begin.”
  • RDA Timeline: Hatchet to Fall Feb. 1 – via California Planning & Development Report: “State senators Alex Padilla and Luis Alejo have reportedly introduced Senate Bill 659, which would extend the deadline for agencies’ dissolution for several

…
Continue Reading Redevelopment Developments

The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the redistricting cases. Here it is.

More to come after a chance to digest it.

Here is the oral argument:

Stream it above or download it here. Our live blog of the oral argument is here.

Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732 (Haw. Jan 6, 2012)Continue Reading Opinion And Oral Argument Recording In Hawaii Supreme Court Redistricting Case

No one exiting the Hawaii Supreme Court courtroom yesterday after oral arguments in the redistricting cases (live blog archive here) should have had much doubt about what the court was going to do: it was quite clear it would invalidate the Hawaii Reapportionment Commission’s recent efforts at districting and divvying up the seats in the Hawaii Legislature. The Hawaii Constitution’s mandate to “us[e] the total number of permanent residents in each of the basic island units and computed by the method known as the method of equal proportions,” made the Commission’s approach of including nonpermanent residents in the population base ripe for challenge, despite the Commission’s apparent best efforts to work with the available data.

Late in the day, the court issued two orders (here and here) granting the writs of mandamus in the respective cases, concluding:

[T]he petition for a writ of mandamus and judicial review…

Continue Reading HAWSCT: “Best Efforts” Are Not Good Enough In Reapportionment. But…

If our tech cooperates, on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m., we’ll be live blogging the Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in the Big Island reapportionment cases, Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732, and Matsukawa v. Hawaii, No. SCPW-11-0000741. These are original jurisdiction mandamus actions.

Sign up for an email alert in the window below, or simply bookmark this page and return on January 4. In the interim, we will track down the briefs and post them on the blog.

More about the cases below the live blog window.

Here’s a description of the issues from the Judiciary web site:

Petitioners Malama Solomon, Louis Hao, Patricia Cook, Steven Pavao, and Michael Matsukawa filed petitions for writs of mandamus: (1) invalidating the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature adopted and filed on September 26, 2011 by the State…

Continue Reading Live Blog: Hawaii Supreme Court Oral Arguments In Reapportionment Case

California followers: be sure to register and join in on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, starting at 2:00 p.m. PST as Rick Rayl, Brad Kuhn (California Eminent Domain Report) and their firm colleagues present a webinar, “Supreme Court Upholds Elimination of Redevelopment in California – Now What?“

This, of course, refers to last week’s California Supreme Court decision upholding the state legislature’s wipeout of the 400+ redevelopment agencies in California. Join in and find out “now what,” and what happens next.

Details here. Continue Reading California Redevelopment Alert: Free Webinar, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012