US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SA: Challenge over redistricting will imperil voting, state says
McKeown noted that finding in favor of Thomas' first claim — that the actual population should be used — would merely redistribute people on existing maps and be less disruptive than requiring a new set of maps, as called for in the lawsuit's second claim on districts of unequal size.
Thomas acknowledged that if the court agreed with his actual population count, the second claim could be addressed at a later time.
"Ultimately there's a reason count one is count one, because it's obviously the most pressing issue in the case," Thomas said. "You just can't not count 100,000-plus people who are here."
KHON: Judges now deciding on redistricting case
"It's just a backdoor way of saying that military folks and their families aren't true members of our community," said Robert Thomas, plaintiff's attorney.
But the State Attorney General's office says, there is a way they can be counted.
"I mean if they do feel that they are a permanent resident of Hawaii, there is a form they can fill out and file," said State Deputy Attorney General Brian Aburano.
PR: Reapportionment
Plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Thomas characterized the task as “mission difficult, not mission impossible,” if the three-judge panel were to grant an injunction.
Thomas contends the population count should include all residents counted by the U.S. Census as usual residents, about 1.3 million people for Hawaii.
He acknowledged that previous case law allows a “permissible” population base that may exclude nonpermanent residents, but argued that the burden is on the state to show that doing so would result in a set of maps that would be similar to maps generated if the actual base population was used.
“It’s up to the state to tell us,” he said. “The state has deprived us of the tools by which to analyze their choice.”
SA: Court could erase map of new state legislative boundaries
SA: Rejection of political maps would create 'chaos,' state argues
CB: Redistricting Challenge Could Result in Two Hawaii Primaries
BAN: Three-Judge Court Hears Hawaii Redistricting Case