SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 4
Download to read offline
NEIL ABERCROMBIE                                                                  DAVID M . LOUIE
             GOVERNOR                                                                     ATTORNEY GENERAL



                                                                                        RUSSELL A. SUZUKI
                                             STATE OF HAWAII                        FIRST DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                      DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORN EY GENERAL
                                                  425   QUEEN S TR EET
                                               HONOLULU. HAWAII96813
                                                  (808) 586-1 500



                                                April 28, 2011



       The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr.
       State Capitol, Room 220
       Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

               Re:      Reapportionment Commission: Applicability of Sunshine Law and
                        Government Records Law

       Dear Senator Ihara:

                      This responds to your request for our advice as to ''whether the Reapportionment
       Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law and open records law." See your email dated April
       25,2011, a copy of which is enclosed. More specifically, you have asked for our advice
       concerning the 2011 Reapportionment Commission's approval of its rules which include a 3-day
       notice requirement for its public meetings and a 48 -hour requirement for the submission of
       written testimony for those who would like to testify on an agenda item. Id.

                       As you state in your email, the Attorney General advised the 2001
       Reapportionment Commission about the Sunshine Law and concluded that it is unclear whether
       the Reapportionment Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law. To the best of our knowledge,
       the 2001 Commission did not seek our advice concerning the "open records law".l However, it
       is our view that written material maintained by the Reapportionment Commission is likely
       subject to public inspection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F unless disclosure is otherwise
       limited or restricted.

               The Sunshine Law, Part I of Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92

                      As stated above, it is unclear whether the Reapportionment Commission is subject
       to the Sunshine Law.

                    On one hand, it could be argued that the Sunshine Law applies to the
       Reapportionment Commission because:




       I We understand the term "open records law" to refer to the Uniform Information Practices Act,
       Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F, pertaining to government records. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-ll.
4l6l20JDOC
The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr.
April 28, 2011
Page 2


                1.      The Sunshine Law requires that "every meeting of all boards shall be open
to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting unless otherwise provided.
    " See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-3. A "board" is:

              any agency, board, commission, authority, or committee of the
              State or its political subdivisions which is created by constitution,
              statute, rule, or executive order, to have supervision, control,
              jurisdiction or advisory power over specific matters and which
              is required to conduct meetings and to take official actions.

See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-2(1).

                 The Reapportionment Commission is a commission created by the Constitution of
the State of Hawaii (the "State Constitution") and Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 25. It has supervision
and control over reapportionment of the State's legislature and redistricting of the State's
congressional districts. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25 -2. It is required to conduct meetings and take
official action. Id.

                2.      Section 92-1, Haw. Rev. Stat. provides, and the Attorney General's
opinions in the past have held, that the provisions ofthe Sunshine Law should be liberally
construed to implement the policy behind that Law (i.e., that the discussions, deliberations,
decisions and actions of government agencies shall be conducted as openly as possible in order
to protect the people's right to know) and that any exceptions to the open meeting requirements
of the Law shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. See Op. Atty. Gen. No. 86-5 and
75-11.

                3.    The Reapportionment Commission is not specifically and clearly excepted
from the Sunshine Law. Even if the Reapportionment Commission is part of the legislative
branch, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92- 10 expressly excepts only the state legislature and its members
from the open meeting requirements and provisions regarding enforcement, penalties and
sanctions of the Sunshine Law. No member of the 2011 Reapportionment Commission is a
current legislator.

             On the other hand, it could be argued that the Sunshine Law does not apply to the
Reapportionment Commission because:

                1.      The Reapportionment Commission is created under Art. IV ofthe State
Constitution. Article IV sets out the procedure tor selecting the Commission's members, the
creation of a proposed reapportionment plan, public notice of, and public hearings on, the
proposed plan, for tIling of the final reapportionment plan and for mandamus and judicial review
by the supreme court to compel performance of any duties of the Commission, to correct any
errors in the reapportionment plan, or to compel such other actions in order to effectuate the
purposes of Art. IV. See Art. IV, Sec. 10 of the State Constitution. Despite its comprehensive




416120JDOC
The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr.
April 28, 2011
Page 3


and detailed provisions, the State Constitution does not expressly provide that the Commission is
subject to the Sunshine Law.

                2.      Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-11, any final action taken in violation of
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-3 (requiring open meetings) and 92-7 (requiring notice of all meetings)
shall be voidable upon proof of a willful violation ofthose sections. Allowing final actions of
the Reapportionment Commission to be voided under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-11 ofthe Sunshine
Law would appear to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme set out for the Commission -
particularly the judicial review provided for in Art. IV, Sec. 10 of the State Constitution.

               3.      Reapportionment is generally considered a legislative function and the
Reapportionment Commission appears to fall under the legislative branch. Under Art. III,
section 12 ofthe State Constitution, the legislature is to make rules for its own proceedings.
Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-3, the legislature has provided that the Reapportionment
Commission is to make, and be governed by, its own rules of practice and procedure. See Art.
IV, Section 2 of the State Constitution ("The Commission shall act by majority vote of its
membership and shall establish its own procedures, except as may be provided by law.").
Further, in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92- 10, the legislature excepted itself and its members from the
Sunshine Law.

       .       In short, it is unclear whether the Reapportionment Commission is covered by the
Sunshine Law. In light of this uncertainty as well as, the Commission's express constitutional
and statutory authority to establish its own policies and procedures, at the April 21, 2011
meeting, the 2011 Commission voted to adopt rules that generally follow the requirements of the
Sunshine Law with slight modifications (i.e., reducing the 6 day notice requirement to 3 days and
requiring the submission of written testimony 48 hours in advance of a meeting) which the
Commission believes are necessitated by the time constraints and deadlines imposed by the State
Constitution. It also bears noting that 3 days notice is a minimum requirement and the
Commission may post notice of its meetings earlier. Further, with respect to the submission of
written testimony in advance ofthe meeting, Rule 11 (g), Rules of the 2011 Reapportionment
Commission, provides that "[n]othing in this rule shall prevent the Commission from soliciting
oral remarks from persons present at the meeting or from inviting persons to make presentations
to the Commission on any particular matter that relates to items on the Commission's agenda."

           The Uniform Information Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F

             You also asked about the applicability of the government records law, the
Uniform Information Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F. 2

              Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-3, a "government record" is "information
maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic or other physical form." "All



2   You may also wish to pose this question to the Office oflnformation Practices.


416120J DO("
The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr.
April 28, 2011
Page 4


government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law."
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-ll (a).

               Thus, documents, files, reports, correspondence and the like, whether in physical
hard copy or electronic form, maintained by the Reapportionment Commission constitute
government records and are subject to public inspection unless disclosure is restricted or limited
by law. For example, under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-12(1), an agency's rules of process or
procedure (in their final form, as adopted) are subject to public inspection and Haw. Rev. Stat.
chapter 92F does not otherwise limit or restrict their disclosure.

               However, as the 2001 Reapportionment Commission stated in a letter to Common
Cause Hawaii dated July 31, 2001, preliminary or draft plans or proposals including, for
example, proposed alternative redistricting plans, are not subject to disclosure and remain
confidential pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 92F-13(3) (the deliberative process privilege) and
92F-13(5) (confidential draft working papers oflegislative committees and work product). A
copy of the 2001 Reapportionment Commission's July 31,2001 letter is enclosed for your
information. Without waiving its right to withhold the proposed alternative redistricting plan,
the 2001 Commission nevertheless voted to release a copy to Common Cause.

               If you have other questions concerning the 2011 Reapportionment Commission,
please contact me.


                                      Very truly yours,


                                     e~
                                      Deputy Attorney General




Davi          e
Attorney General
State of Hawaii



Enclosures

c:     2011 Reapportionment Commissioners wi encs.
       Mr. Scott N ago, Secretary to
         2011 Reapportionment Commission wi encs.




416120JDOC

More Related Content

What's hot

From Dualism - monism
From Dualism - monismFrom Dualism - monism
From Dualism - monism
Quincy Kiptoo
 
The code of civil procedure, 1908
The code of civil procedure, 1908The code of civil procedure, 1908
The code of civil procedure, 1908
Leo Lukose
 
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared ResourceLaw-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
lawexchange.co.uk
 
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
xareejx
 
17.12.2012 power (1)
17.12.2012 power (1)17.12.2012 power (1)
17.12.2012 power (1)
awasalam
 
The arya marriage validation act
The arya marriage validation actThe arya marriage validation act
The arya marriage validation act
Leo Lukose
 
Indian legal and constitutional history
Indian legal and constitutional historyIndian legal and constitutional history
Indian legal and constitutional history
nileshlegal
 

What's hot (20)

Ch1
Ch1Ch1
Ch1
 
From Dualism - monism
From Dualism - monismFrom Dualism - monism
From Dualism - monism
 
The code of civil procedure, 1908
The code of civil procedure, 1908The code of civil procedure, 1908
The code of civil procedure, 1908
 
Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Supreme Court Rules, 2013Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Supreme Court Rules, 2013
 
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared ResourceLaw-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
 
Civil procedure code 1908
Civil procedure code 1908Civil procedure code 1908
Civil procedure code 1908
 
Fundamental rights is part
Fundamental rights is partFundamental rights is part
Fundamental rights is part
 
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Sources of law – subsidiary legislation part 2
 
House of Lords Delegated Legislation procedure
House of Lords Delegated Legislation procedureHouse of Lords Delegated Legislation procedure
House of Lords Delegated Legislation procedure
 
Reception of equity in malaysia (Topic 2)
Reception of equity in malaysia (Topic 2)Reception of equity in malaysia (Topic 2)
Reception of equity in malaysia (Topic 2)
 
17.12.2012 power (1)
17.12.2012 power (1)17.12.2012 power (1)
17.12.2012 power (1)
 
About sandiganbayan
About sandiganbayanAbout sandiganbayan
About sandiganbayan
 
The arya marriage validation act
The arya marriage validation actThe arya marriage validation act
The arya marriage validation act
 
241716493 separation-of-powers-cases
241716493 separation-of-powers-cases241716493 separation-of-powers-cases
241716493 separation-of-powers-cases
 
Sandigan bayan
Sandigan bayanSandigan bayan
Sandigan bayan
 
Indian legal and constitutional history
Indian legal and constitutional historyIndian legal and constitutional history
Indian legal and constitutional history
 
Dotrine of eclipse
Dotrine of eclipseDotrine of eclipse
Dotrine of eclipse
 
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.
 
Legal History Presentation.
Legal History Presentation.Legal History Presentation.
Legal History Presentation.
 
Judicial plan of 1772
Judicial plan of 1772Judicial plan of 1772
Judicial plan of 1772
 

Viewers also liked

Feb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
Feb 23 Senate Floor on William AilaFeb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
Feb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
State of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
State of Hawaii Trial MemorandumState of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
State of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Motion to strike respondents declaration
Motion to strike respondents declarationMotion to strike respondents declaration
Motion to strike respondents declaration
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Operating budget ordinance fy 2012
Operating budget ordinance   fy 2012Operating budget ordinance   fy 2012
Operating budget ordinance fy 2012
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Feb 2011 letter re new developments final
Feb 2011 letter re new developments finalFeb 2011 letter re new developments final
Feb 2011 letter re new developments final
Honolulu Civil Beat
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Feb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
Feb 23 Senate Floor on William AilaFeb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
Feb 23 Senate Floor on William Aila
 
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
The employers' memorandum in opposition to hsta's motion to strike declaratio...
 
State of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
State of Hawaii Trial MemorandumState of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
State of Hawaii Trial Memorandum
 
Oct. 11 Hud Letter to City
Oct. 11 Hud Letter to CityOct. 11 Hud Letter to City
Oct. 11 Hud Letter to City
 
Motion to strike respondents declaration
Motion to strike respondents declarationMotion to strike respondents declaration
Motion to strike respondents declaration
 
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
Waimanalo gulchsanitaryhi ao_cforrmvlactn_jan2011
 
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
9.27 supreme court ruling on HSTA
 
2011 01-15 thru01-17
2011 01-15 thru01-172011 01-15 thru01-17
2011 01-15 thru01-17
 
2011 01-24
2011 01-242011 01-24
2011 01-24
 
2009 williams & jensen contract
2009 williams & jensen contract2009 williams & jensen contract
2009 williams & jensen contract
 
Operating budget ordinance fy 2012
Operating budget ordinance   fy 2012Operating budget ordinance   fy 2012
Operating budget ordinance fy 2012
 
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
Bombardier Circuit Court Filing 8.15.11
 
Q mark rail survey
Q mark rail surveyQ mark rail survey
Q mark rail survey
 
Doug Chin Letter: May 17, 2011
Doug Chin Letter: May 17, 2011Doug Chin Letter: May 17, 2011
Doug Chin Letter: May 17, 2011
 
2011 01-21
2011 01-212011 01-21
2011 01-21
 
HART Safety & Security
HART Safety & SecurityHART Safety & Security
HART Safety & Security
 
Global Horizons Hawaii filing
Global Horizons Hawaii filingGlobal Horizons Hawaii filing
Global Horizons Hawaii filing
 
Feb 2011 letter re new developments final
Feb 2011 letter re new developments finalFeb 2011 letter re new developments final
Feb 2011 letter re new developments final
 
Chapitre 1
Chapitre 1Chapitre 1
Chapitre 1
 
Catalogue pacari france torréfié
Catalogue pacari france torréfiéCatalogue pacari france torréfié
Catalogue pacari france torréfié
 

Similar to Reapportionment AG opinion

Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
Caleb Green
 
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home ExamThomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
Thomas Newman
 
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
Nyi Maw
 
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.pptPresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
xsnnwxfcyx
 
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
Caleb Green
 
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
marshapasong1
 
Judicial review a power point presentation (1)
Judicial review   a power point presentation (1)Judicial review   a power point presentation (1)
Judicial review a power point presentation (1)
awasalam
 

Similar to Reapportionment AG opinion (20)

Court of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in LeandroCourt of Appeals response in Leandro
Court of Appeals response in Leandro
 
Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
Cohen Opinion (2015)(Revision 1)(New Logo)
 
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home ExamThomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
Thomas Newman LAWS404 Take Home Exam
 
THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT ...
THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT ...THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT ...
THE APPROACH OF THE COURTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT ...
 
America's Founding Documents | Constitution of the United States of America I...
America's Founding Documents | Constitution of the United States of America I...America's Founding Documents | Constitution of the United States of America I...
America's Founding Documents | Constitution of the United States of America I...
 
Hawaii - Case and Controversy - Hawaii Medical Board-RICO - The Rule of Law -...
Hawaii - Case and Controversy - Hawaii Medical Board-RICO - The Rule of Law -...Hawaii - Case and Controversy - Hawaii Medical Board-RICO - The Rule of Law -...
Hawaii - Case and Controversy - Hawaii Medical Board-RICO - The Rule of Law -...
 
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
Chapter 3 procedural_rights_week_3
 
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.pptPresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
PresentationAdministrativeLawprocedural fairness.ppt
 
Legislation and delegated legislation
Legislation and delegated legislationLegislation and delegated legislation
Legislation and delegated legislation
 
EPA CAA Email 2.26.03
EPA CAA Email 2.26.03EPA CAA Email 2.26.03
EPA CAA Email 2.26.03
 
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
JC Decision(Murdock vs. Bylaw 210)
 
Hawaii DOT Consent Decree with EPA, DOH, DOJ
Hawaii DOT Consent Decree with EPA, DOH, DOJHawaii DOT Consent Decree with EPA, DOH, DOJ
Hawaii DOT Consent Decree with EPA, DOH, DOJ
 
1 aca 1 bill
1 aca 1 bill1 aca 1 bill
1 aca 1 bill
 
239604724 pub-off-case-digests
239604724 pub-off-case-digests239604724 pub-off-case-digests
239604724 pub-off-case-digests
 
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of GovernorIN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
 
Notice of intervention. Leandro
Notice of intervention. LeandroNotice of intervention. Leandro
Notice of intervention. Leandro
 
Holcomb Appeals - Part 3
Holcomb Appeals - Part 3Holcomb Appeals - Part 3
Holcomb Appeals - Part 3
 
CISPA-complete draft.
CISPA-complete draft.CISPA-complete draft.
CISPA-complete draft.
 
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
525837275-Civil-Law-Reviewer-Rabuya.pdf
 
Judicial review a power point presentation (1)
Judicial review   a power point presentation (1)Judicial review   a power point presentation (1)
Judicial review a power point presentation (1)
 

More from Honolulu Civil Beat

More from Honolulu Civil Beat (20)

Gov. David Ige response to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo
Gov. David Ige response to U.S. Rep. Anna EshooGov. David Ige response to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo
Gov. David Ige response to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo
 
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...
 
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and ControlsAudit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls
 
2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD
2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD 2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD
2019 Use of Force Annual Report HPD
 
Office of Health Equity Goals Draft 10
Office of Health Equity Goals Draft 10Office of Health Equity Goals Draft 10
Office of Health Equity Goals Draft 10
 
NHPI COVID-19 Statement
NHPI COVID-19 StatementNHPI COVID-19 Statement
NHPI COVID-19 Statement
 
DLIR Response Language Access
DLIR Response Language AccessDLIR Response Language Access
DLIR Response Language Access
 
Language Access Letter To DLIR
Language Access Letter To DLIRLanguage Access Letter To DLIR
Language Access Letter To DLIR
 
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profilingACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
 
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profilingACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
ACLU Letter to HPD regarding racial profiling
 
Jane Doe v. Rehab Hospital
Jane Doe v. Rehab HospitalJane Doe v. Rehab Hospital
Jane Doe v. Rehab Hospital
 
Coronavirus HPHA
Coronavirus HPHA Coronavirus HPHA
Coronavirus HPHA
 
OHA Data Request
OHA Data RequestOHA Data Request
OHA Data Request
 
Letter from Palau to Guam
Letter from Palau to GuamLetter from Palau to Guam
Letter from Palau to Guam
 
Guam Governor's Letter to Pence
Guam Governor's Letter to Pence Guam Governor's Letter to Pence
Guam Governor's Letter to Pence
 
OHA Analysis by Akina
OHA Analysis by AkinaOHA Analysis by Akina
OHA Analysis by Akina
 
Case COFA Letter
Case COFA LetterCase COFA Letter
Case COFA Letter
 
List Of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers
List Of Pro Bono Legal Service ProvidersList Of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers
List Of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers
 
Arbitration Hearing Transcript December 2018
Arbitration Hearing Transcript December 2018Arbitration Hearing Transcript December 2018
Arbitration Hearing Transcript December 2018
 
Caldwell Press Release
Caldwell Press ReleaseCaldwell Press Release
Caldwell Press Release
 

Reapportionment AG opinion

  • 1. NEIL ABERCROMBIE DAVID M . LOUIE GOVERNOR ATTORNEY GENERAL RUSSELL A. SUZUKI STATE OF HAWAII FIRST DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORN EY GENERAL 425 QUEEN S TR EET HONOLULU. HAWAII96813 (808) 586-1 500 April 28, 2011 The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr. State Capitol, Room 220 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Re: Reapportionment Commission: Applicability of Sunshine Law and Government Records Law Dear Senator Ihara: This responds to your request for our advice as to ''whether the Reapportionment Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law and open records law." See your email dated April 25,2011, a copy of which is enclosed. More specifically, you have asked for our advice concerning the 2011 Reapportionment Commission's approval of its rules which include a 3-day notice requirement for its public meetings and a 48 -hour requirement for the submission of written testimony for those who would like to testify on an agenda item. Id. As you state in your email, the Attorney General advised the 2001 Reapportionment Commission about the Sunshine Law and concluded that it is unclear whether the Reapportionment Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law. To the best of our knowledge, the 2001 Commission did not seek our advice concerning the "open records law".l However, it is our view that written material maintained by the Reapportionment Commission is likely subject to public inspection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F unless disclosure is otherwise limited or restricted. The Sunshine Law, Part I of Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92 As stated above, it is unclear whether the Reapportionment Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law. On one hand, it could be argued that the Sunshine Law applies to the Reapportionment Commission because: I We understand the term "open records law" to refer to the Uniform Information Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F, pertaining to government records. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-ll. 4l6l20JDOC
  • 2. The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr. April 28, 2011 Page 2 1. The Sunshine Law requires that "every meeting of all boards shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting unless otherwise provided. " See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-3. A "board" is: any agency, board, commission, authority, or committee of the State or its political subdivisions which is created by constitution, statute, rule, or executive order, to have supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power over specific matters and which is required to conduct meetings and to take official actions. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-2(1). The Reapportionment Commission is a commission created by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii (the "State Constitution") and Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 25. It has supervision and control over reapportionment of the State's legislature and redistricting of the State's congressional districts. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25 -2. It is required to conduct meetings and take official action. Id. 2. Section 92-1, Haw. Rev. Stat. provides, and the Attorney General's opinions in the past have held, that the provisions ofthe Sunshine Law should be liberally construed to implement the policy behind that Law (i.e., that the discussions, deliberations, decisions and actions of government agencies shall be conducted as openly as possible in order to protect the people's right to know) and that any exceptions to the open meeting requirements of the Law shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. See Op. Atty. Gen. No. 86-5 and 75-11. 3. The Reapportionment Commission is not specifically and clearly excepted from the Sunshine Law. Even if the Reapportionment Commission is part of the legislative branch, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92- 10 expressly excepts only the state legislature and its members from the open meeting requirements and provisions regarding enforcement, penalties and sanctions of the Sunshine Law. No member of the 2011 Reapportionment Commission is a current legislator. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Sunshine Law does not apply to the Reapportionment Commission because: 1. The Reapportionment Commission is created under Art. IV ofthe State Constitution. Article IV sets out the procedure tor selecting the Commission's members, the creation of a proposed reapportionment plan, public notice of, and public hearings on, the proposed plan, for tIling of the final reapportionment plan and for mandamus and judicial review by the supreme court to compel performance of any duties of the Commission, to correct any errors in the reapportionment plan, or to compel such other actions in order to effectuate the purposes of Art. IV. See Art. IV, Sec. 10 of the State Constitution. Despite its comprehensive 416120JDOC
  • 3. The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr. April 28, 2011 Page 3 and detailed provisions, the State Constitution does not expressly provide that the Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law. 2. Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-11, any final action taken in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-3 (requiring open meetings) and 92-7 (requiring notice of all meetings) shall be voidable upon proof of a willful violation ofthose sections. Allowing final actions of the Reapportionment Commission to be voided under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-11 ofthe Sunshine Law would appear to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme set out for the Commission - particularly the judicial review provided for in Art. IV, Sec. 10 of the State Constitution. 3. Reapportionment is generally considered a legislative function and the Reapportionment Commission appears to fall under the legislative branch. Under Art. III, section 12 ofthe State Constitution, the legislature is to make rules for its own proceedings. Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 25-3, the legislature has provided that the Reapportionment Commission is to make, and be governed by, its own rules of practice and procedure. See Art. IV, Section 2 of the State Constitution ("The Commission shall act by majority vote of its membership and shall establish its own procedures, except as may be provided by law."). Further, in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92- 10, the legislature excepted itself and its members from the Sunshine Law. . In short, it is unclear whether the Reapportionment Commission is covered by the Sunshine Law. In light of this uncertainty as well as, the Commission's express constitutional and statutory authority to establish its own policies and procedures, at the April 21, 2011 meeting, the 2011 Commission voted to adopt rules that generally follow the requirements of the Sunshine Law with slight modifications (i.e., reducing the 6 day notice requirement to 3 days and requiring the submission of written testimony 48 hours in advance of a meeting) which the Commission believes are necessitated by the time constraints and deadlines imposed by the State Constitution. It also bears noting that 3 days notice is a minimum requirement and the Commission may post notice of its meetings earlier. Further, with respect to the submission of written testimony in advance ofthe meeting, Rule 11 (g), Rules of the 2011 Reapportionment Commission, provides that "[n]othing in this rule shall prevent the Commission from soliciting oral remarks from persons present at the meeting or from inviting persons to make presentations to the Commission on any particular matter that relates to items on the Commission's agenda." The Uniform Information Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F You also asked about the applicability of the government records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chap. 92F. 2 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-3, a "government record" is "information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic or other physical form." "All 2 You may also wish to pose this question to the Office oflnformation Practices. 416120J DO("
  • 4. The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr. April 28, 2011 Page 4 government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-ll (a). Thus, documents, files, reports, correspondence and the like, whether in physical hard copy or electronic form, maintained by the Reapportionment Commission constitute government records and are subject to public inspection unless disclosure is restricted or limited by law. For example, under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-12(1), an agency's rules of process or procedure (in their final form, as adopted) are subject to public inspection and Haw. Rev. Stat. chapter 92F does not otherwise limit or restrict their disclosure. However, as the 2001 Reapportionment Commission stated in a letter to Common Cause Hawaii dated July 31, 2001, preliminary or draft plans or proposals including, for example, proposed alternative redistricting plans, are not subject to disclosure and remain confidential pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 92F-13(3) (the deliberative process privilege) and 92F-13(5) (confidential draft working papers oflegislative committees and work product). A copy of the 2001 Reapportionment Commission's July 31,2001 letter is enclosed for your information. Without waiving its right to withhold the proposed alternative redistricting plan, the 2001 Commission nevertheless voted to release a copy to Common Cause. If you have other questions concerning the 2011 Reapportionment Commission, please contact me. Very truly yours, e~ Deputy Attorney General Davi e Attorney General State of Hawaii Enclosures c: 2011 Reapportionment Commissioners wi encs. Mr. Scott N ago, Secretary to 2011 Reapportionment Commission wi encs. 416120JDOC