Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 25
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2 (2026)

  Duties

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §25-2  Duties.  (a)  Legislative reapportionment.  The commission shall reapportion the members of each house of the legislature on the basis, method, and criteria prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and article IV of the Hawaii State Constitution.  For purposes of legislative reapportionment, a "permanent resident" means a person having the person's domiciliary in the State. In determining the total number of permanent residents for purposes of apportionment among the four basic island units, the commission shall only extract non-permanent residents from the total population of the State counted by the United States Census Bureau for the respective reapportionment year.  The commission shall conduct public hearings and consult with the apportionment advisory council of each basic island unit.  No more than one hundred days from the date on which all members are certified, the commission shall cause to be given in each basic island unit, public notice subject to section 1-28.5 of a legislative reapportionment plan prepared and proposed by the commission.  At least one public hearing on the proposed reapportionment plan shall be held in each basic island unit after initial public notice of the plan.  At least twenty days' notice shall be given of the public hearing.  The notice shall include a statement of the substance of the proposed reapportionment plan, and of the date, time, and place where interested persons may be heard thereon.  The notice shall be given at least once in the basic island unit where the hearing will be held.  All interested persons shall be afforded an opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing, for consideration by the commission.  After the last of the public hearings, but in no event later than one hundred fifty days from the date on which all members of the commission are certified, the commission shall determine whether the plan is in need of correction or modification, make the correction or modification, if any, and file with the chief election officer, a final legislative reapportionment plan.  Within fourteen days after the filing of the final reapportionment plan, the chief election officer shall cause public notice subject to section 1-28.5 to be given of the final legislative reapportionment plan which, upon public notice, shall become effective as of the date of filing and govern the election of members of the next five succeeding legislatures.

     (b)  Congressional reapportionment.  At times that may be required by the Constitution and that may be required by law of the United States, the commission shall redraw congressional district lines for the districts from which the members of the United States House of Representatives allocated to this State shall be elected.  The commission shall first determine the total number of members to which the State is entitled and shall then apportion those members among single member districts so that the average number of persons in the total population counted in the last preceding United States census per member in each district shall be as nearly equal as practicable.  In effecting the reapportionment and districting, the commission shall be guided by the following criteria:

     (1)  No district shall be drawn so as to unduly favor a person or political party;

     (2)  Except in the case of districts encompassing more than one island, districts shall be contiguous;

     (3)  Insofar as practicable, districts shall be compact;

     (4)  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;

     (5)  Where practicable, state legislative districts shall be wholly included within congressional districts; and

     (6)  Where practicable, submergence of an area in a larger district wherein substantially different socio-economic interests predominate shall be avoided.

     Not more than one hundred days from the date on which all members are certified, the commission shall cause public notice to be given of a congressional reapportionment plan prepared and proposed by the commission.  The commission shall conduct public hearings on the proposed plan in the manner prescribed under subsection (a).  At least one public hearing shall be held in each basic island unit after initial public notice of the plan.  After the last of the public hearings, but in no event later than one hundred fifty days from the date on which all members of the commission are certified, the commission shall determine whether or not the plan is in need of correction or modification, make the correction or modification, if any, and file with the chief election officer, a final congressional reapportionment plan.  Within fourteen days after filing of the final reapportionment plan, the chief election officer shall cause public notice to be given of the final congressional reapportionment plan which, upon public notice, shall become effective as of the date of filing and govern the election of members of the United States House of Representatives allocated to this State for the next five succeeding congresses. [L 1969, c 79, §2; am L 1979, c 51, §3; am L 1992, c 320, §3; am L 1998, c 2, §8; am L 2021, c 14, §5]

 

Note

 

  L 1990, c 199 amendment canceled by nonratification of amendments to Const. art. IV, §§4 to 6.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Trailblaze or Retreat?  Political Gerrymandering After Vieth v. Jubelirer.  27 UH L. Rev. 269.

 

Case Notes

 

  Plaintiff citizens had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on their claim that Hawaii's legislative reapportionment plan's use of a permanent resident base, coupled with extraction of military personnel, their dependents, and students, constituted an equal protection violation for the purpose of a preliminary injunction; further, the equities and public interest tipped overwhelmingly in defendant reapportionment commission's favor, as any preliminary relief at this stage would significantly upend the election process; plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction denied.  878 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (2012).

  Hawaii's choice of a permanent resident population base for the 2012 reapportionment plan was constitutionally permissible; among other things, there was no evidence that Hawaii discriminated unreasonably among non-resident groups.  960 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (2013).

  Plaintiffs had standing to assert equal protection challenges to Hawaii's 2012 reapportionment plan, where plaintiffs had suffered the injury of losing an Oahu senate seat and three of the plaintiffs lived in underrepresented districts.  960 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (2013).

  Where plaintiffs contended that the reapportionment commission violated the equal protection clause by apportioning Hawaii's legislative districts unequally, the reapportionment commission's justifications for the challenged population deviations embodied rational, legitimate, and substantial state policies, and the 2012 reapportionment plan reasonably advanced those policies in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner.  960 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (2013).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). · cites it 2× “" [4] The States, of course, have taken their own steps to prevent abusive districting practices. A number have adopted standards for redistricting, and measures designed to insulate the process from politics.”
Solomon v. Abercrombie., 270 P.3d 1013 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 10× “” HRS § 25-2(a) (2009). The reapportionment commission, within 150 days from the date that its members are *286 certified, “shall file with the chief election officer a reapportionment plan for the state legislature .”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). “See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b) (prohibiting congressional districts drawn “so as to unduly favor a person or political party”; and requiring districts, to the extent possible, to be contiguous, compact, and of equal population, to respect political boundaries, and to avoid…”
Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “Section 25-2(b) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.”
Hicks v. The 2021 Hawai'i Reapportionment Comm'n & Its Members., 511 P.3d 216 (Haw. 2022). · cites it 38× “The Commission says it satisfied its obligations under article IV, section 6 and HRS § 25-2(b) by considering the constitutional and statutory district within district guidelines (collectively the district within district guidelines) in developing the Plan.”
Kostick v. Nago, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “IV, § 9; HRS § 25-2(b) (2012) (requiring use of “persons in the total population counted in the last preceding United States census” as the relevant population base).”
Kostick v. Nago, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “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).”
State v. State of Hawai'i 2021 Reappointment Comm'n (Haw. 2021). · cites it 10× “IV, § 2 and HRS § 25-2. Article IV, Section 2 of the Hawai#i Constitution sets forth deadlines regarding the formation of the Commission and the submission of legislative reapportionment and congressional reapportionment plans: Section 2.”
Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Comm'n. (Haw. 2012). · cites it 8× “" Article IV, section 2; HRS § 25-2(a). "Within fourteen days after the filing of the final reapportionment plan, the chief election officer shall cause public notice to be given of the final legislative reapportionment plan which, upon public notice, shall become effective as…”
Solomon v. Abercrombie (Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “How the Commission identifies the non-permanent resident population for apportionment under article IV, section 4 and whether the Commission must follow the procedures set forth in HRS § 25-2 in preparing and filing a new reapportionment plan were not issues in petitioners'…”
Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Comm'n (Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “How the Commission identifies the non-permanent resident population for apportionment under article IV, section 4 and whether the Commission must follow the procedures set forth in HRS § 25-2 in preparing and filing a new reapportionment plan were not issues in petitioner's…”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida (11th Cir. 2012). “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2 (b) (prohibiting congressional districts drawn “so as to unduly favor a person or political party”; and requiring districts, to the extent possible, to be contiguous, compact, and of equal population, to respect political boundaries, and to avoid…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2(a) — 3 cases
Solomon v. Abercrombie., 270 P.3d 1013 (Haw. 2012). “” HRS § 25-2(a) (2009). The reapportionment commission, within 150 days from the date that its members are *286 certified, “shall file with the chief election officer a reapportionment plan for the state legislature .”
Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Comm'n. (Haw. 2012). “" Article IV, section 2; HRS § 25-2(a). "Within fourteen days after the filing of the final reapportionment plan, the chief election officer shall cause public notice to be given of the final legislative reapportionment plan which, upon public notice, shall become effective as…”
State v. State of Hawai'i 2021 Reappointment Comm'n (Haw. 2021). “IV, § 2 and HRS § 25-2. Article IV, Section 2 of the Hawai#i Constitution sets forth deadlines regarding the formation of the Commission and the submission of legislative reapportionment and congressional reapportionment plans: Section 2.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b) — 6 cases
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). “See Haw.Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b) (prohibiting congressional districts drawn “so as to unduly favor a person or political party”; and requiring districts, to the extent possible, to be contiguous, compact, and of equal population, to respect political boundaries, and to avoid…”
Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982). “Section 25-2(b) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.”
Kostick v. Nago, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Haw. 2013). “IV, § 9; HRS § 25-2(b) (2012) (requiring use of “persons in the total population counted in the last preceding United States census” as the relevant population base).”
Hicks v. The 2021 Hawai'i Reapportionment Comm'n & Its Members., 511 P.3d 216 (Haw. 2022). “The Commission says it satisfied its obligations under article IV, section 6 and HRS § 25-2(b) by considering the constitutional and statutory district within district guidelines (collectively the district within district guidelines) in developing the Plan.”
Kostick v. Nago, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Haw. 2012). “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).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b)(5) — 1 case
Hicks v. The 2021 Hawai'i Reapportionment Comm'n & Its Members., 511 P.3d 216 (Haw. 2022). “The Commission says it satisfied its obligations under article IV, section 6 and HRS § 25-2(b) by considering the constitutional and statutory district within district guidelines (collectively the district within district guidelines) in developing the Plan.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.