Court review of reapportionment

Original jurisdiction is vested in the supreme court of the State to be exercised on the petition of any registered voter whereby it may compel, by mandamus or otherwise, the appropriate person or persons to perform their duty or to correct any error made in a reapportionment plan, or it may take such other action to effectuate the purposes of this section as it may deem appropriate. Any such petition shall be filed within forty-five days of the date specified for any duty or within forty-five days after the filing of a reapportionment plan. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] Revision Note Renumbered from section 9 under the authority of Resolution No. 29 of the 1978 Constitutional Convention. Attorney General Opinions Delegates to convention devising reapportionment plan are not prohibited from becoming candidates under the new plan. Att. Gen. Op. 77-3. Case Notes Use of registered voters as basis of apportionment. 384 U.S. 73, 84, 90, upon review of 238 F. Supp. 468, 240 F. Supp. 724. Whether reapportionment can be as infrequent as every ten years if registered voters used as basis raised but not decided. 384 U.S. 73, 96, upon review of 238 F. Supp. 468, 240 F. Supp. 724. Last clause providing for minimum representation is invalid. 316 F. Supp. 1285. Method of equal proportions is constitutionally permissible; so is use of registered voters as basis of apportionment. 316 F. Supp. 1285. Provisions for minimum representation and fractional voting are invalid. 316 F. Supp. 1285. Direction for first reapportionment held applicable to initial state elections held pursuant to §§6 and 7(a) of Hawaii Admission Act, 73 Stat 4. 43 H. 261. Departure from strict adherence to allocation under method of equal proportions permitted to balance off inequities. 55 H. 85, 515 P.2d 1253. Determination that first senatorial district shall consist of the whole island of Hawaii does not violate criterion that "insofar as practicable, districts shall be compact". 55 H. 89, 515 P.2d 1249.