we recognize that the right to representation is fundamental, “a federal court cannotlightly interfere with or enjoin a state election.”
Sw. Voter Registration Educ.Project v. Shelley
, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (per curiam).
Hawaii reapportions its state legislative and federal congressional districtsevery ten years, after the decennial United States Census (“the Census”), basedupon changes in population.
Haw. Const. art. IV, § 1. The HawaiiConstitution as amended in 1992 requires reapportionment of Hawaii’s legislativedistricts to be based upon “permanent residents,”
§ 4, as opposed to the Census’count of “usual residents.” And to pass constitutional muster, any resultingreapportionment must comply with the principles of “one person, one vote.”
Reynolds v. Sims
, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting
Gray v. Sanders
, 372 U.S.368, 381 (1963)).In this action, Plaintiffs Joseph Kostick, Kyle Mark Takai, David P.Brostrom, Larry S. Veray, Andrew Walden, Edwin J. Gayagas, Ernest Laster, andJennifer Laster (collectively, “Kostick”) challenge aspects of the March 30, 2012Supplement to the 2011 Reapportionment Commission Final Report andReapportionment Plan (“the 2012 Reapportionment Plan”), which Hawaii hasbegun implementing for its 2012 primary and general elections. The 2012
Case 1:12-cv-00184-JMS-LEK-MMM Document 52 Filed 05/22/12 Page 3 of 73 PageID#: 1949