A three-judge panel is hearing the case by Hawaii plaintiffs this morning who argue the state’s new political boundaries are unconstitutional because they were drawn up using a base population that does not count military personnel and dependents.

Civil Beat was granted permission to live-blog the hearing, which starts at 10 a.m.

The federal lawsuit aims to halt the upcoming elections through a preliminary injunction. The Aug. 11 primary is less than three months away, and the state Office of Elections says it’s too late to start over. June 5 marks the filing deadline for candidates.

Robert Thomas, attorney for the plaintiffs, noted that the motion is preliminary. If it’s denied, he told Civil Beat this morning, the court could still rule that the plan be redone after this year’s election.

The motion is before U.S. District Judges J. Michael Seabright and Leslie Kobayashi, and U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego.

“A preliminary injunction may be extraordinary relief, but here it is necessary to remedy an extraordinary wrong,” the motion says.

In the lawsuit, state Rep. Mark Takai and five other Hawaii voters argue the redistricting plan is unconstitutional and discriminatory because it removed more than 100,000 military personnel, their dependents and out-of-state university students from political district population totals. Four of the six plaintiffs are military personnel or veterans.

The Reapportionment Commission had previously come up with a plan that excluded less military members, but that plan also was challenged in court. The Hawaii Supreme Court tossed that plan, ruling that it violated the Hawaii Constitution and had to be redone.

If military personnel and their dependents are added back into the base population, it could eliminate a fourth Senate seat the Big Island gained, and add back a Senate seat Oahu lost, under the existing plan.

— Nanea Kalani