Hawaii gets high marks in the State Integrity Investigation for its redistricting process for trying to make sure the public has input.

The state got an A, or 90 percent score for redistricting. But even with that grade, Hawaii was not at the top of the list. Ten states, including California and Florida, earned 100 percent scores. Hawaii tied for 14th place with four other states: Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Kentucky, with a 5 percent score, came in last.

Even if not all Hawaii residents ultimately agreed with the commission’s plan (neighbor island residents sued last fall), Hawaii got credit for its attempts to make the redistricting process inclusive and open. There state put on 13 public meetings throughout the islands and made information available online.

Overall, the State Integrity Investigation ranked Hawaii 10th after Civil Beat reporters researched 330 “Corruption Risk Indicators” across 14 categories of government. (Click here to learn more about the methodology used for the project.)

Bottom line: Hawaii benefits from having a bi-partisan commission and many public meetings on the redistricting process. However, some feel the commission is not adequately shielded from political interference.

Here’s the basis of the A grade. Each day we’ll print a different question and the criteria used to come up with a score for each question. It’s your turn to evaluate whether Civil Beat got it right and to share what you think should be done to improve the situation. Share your comments at the bottom of this story.

Here’s the question the State Integrity Investigation asked about redistricting.

Is the state redistricting process open and transparent?

Overall score: 90%

Here are the criteria Civil Beat used to answer that question and what we found.

1. In practice, for the latest redistricting round, public meetings were or are being held on the redistricting process.

Notes: Redistricting is also called reapportionment in Hawaii. Thirteen public meetings were scheduled from August 30, 2011 to September 16. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, three public advocacy groups asked the redistricting panel for a six days notice to allow more public participation and time to submit a request for testimony. In August 2011, West Oahu residents attended a public hearing at Kapolei High School to testify against a redistricting plan to split up Makakilo, Kapolei and Ko Olina, according to Honolulu Star-Advertiser. According to Honolulu Civil Beat, two Big Island politicians exchanged comments during public testimony at the Reapportionment Commission meeting in September 2011.

Holding meetings widely across the state holds particular challenges in a state divided into major island groups. Here’s a story from the Big Island, the island farthest from Oahu’s Honolulu, where the decisions are made.

Fourth senate seat still possible.
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Wednesday, September 14, 2011.
Author/Byline: BRENDAN SHRIANE, WEST HAWAII TODAY.
Section: Local News.
MEMBERS OF REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION VISIT KONA.

Sources:

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gary T. Kubota, 4/29/11, “Redistricting panel’s rules inhibit public’s participation, groups say”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, staff, 8/30/11, “West Oahu residents oppose political redistricting”

• Honolulu Civil Beat, Nanea Kalani, 9/20/11, “Nonaka: I’ll Pay You $1 Million if My Mom Runs for Senate”

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: Public meetings were an integral part of the redistricting process. Meetings were numerous, widely held across the state, and provided ample forum for the public to participate in the redistricting policy debate.
Fair: Public meetings on the redistricting process were held, but were limited in important ways. Meetings were inaccessible to important parts of the state population, and/or were too general and vague to impact the redistricting policymaking process in a meaningful way.
Very Weak: Public meetings on the redistricting process were not held, or were so limited or generalized as to render them meaningless.

2. In practice, for the latest redistricting round, public hearings were or are being held to solicit input on new district maps.

Notes: Redistricting is also called reapportionment in Hawaii. Thirteen public meetings were scheduled from August 30, 2011 to September 16. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, three public advocacy groups asked the redistricting panel for a six days notice to allow for more public participation and time to submit a request for testimony. The meetings were attended by the public. In August 2011, West Oahu residents attended a public hearing at Kapolei High School to testify against a redistricting plan to split up Makakilo, Kapolei and Ko Olina, according to Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

Neighbor island residents also attended public meetings, but did not feel their concerns were being heard by Reapportionment Commission members. As a result, they filed suit challenging the inclusion of nonresident students, nonresident military family and incarcerated felons in the population count.

Residents of the Big Island — the fastest growing population base in the state — were the ones threatened. Their successful legal challenge resulted in a fourth Senate seat added to the Big Island at the expense of Oahu and Honolulu, where the majority of the population resides.

Sources:

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gary T. Kubota, 4/29/11, “Redistricting panel’s rules inhibit public’s participation, groups say”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, staff, 8/30/11, “West Oahu residents oppose political redistricting”

• Honolulu Civil Beat, Nanea Kalani, 7/12/11, “Hawaii Redistricting Panel Braces for Legal Challenge”

• Honolulu Civil Beat, Michael Levine, 2/28/12, “Hawaii Supreme Court Rejects Redistricting Plan”

Score: 75%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: Public meetings to solicit input on new district maps were an integral part of the redistricting process. Meetings were numerous, widely held across the state, and provided ample forum for the public to participate in shaping district maps.
Fair: Public meetings to solicit input on new district maps on the redistricting process were held, but were limited in important ways. Meetings were inaccessible to important parts of the state population, and/or were too general and vague to impact district maps in a meaningful way.
Very Weak: Public meetings to solicit input on new district maps were not held, or were so limited or generalized as to render them meaningless.

Reviewer Notes: Residents of the Big Island, also known as Hawaii Island — the fastest growing population base in the state — were the ones who threatened, then followed through on a successful lawsuit, resulting in a fourth Senate seat added to the Big Island at the expense of Oahu and Honolulu, where the majority of the population resides.

This lawsuit came about despite public hearings on the Big island, because constituents believed the Reapportionment Commission was not listening to their concerns.

Residents threaten to sue Reapportionment Commission.
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Tuesday, September 13, 2011.
Author/Byline: NANCY COOK LAUER, WEST HAWAII TODAY.
Section: Local News.

Reapportionment lawsuit filed.
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Wednesday, October 12, 2011.
Author/Byline: NANCY COOK LAUER, WEST HAWAII TODAY.
Section: Local News.

Map unconstitutional
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Wednesday, January 4, 2012.
Section: Local News.
HIGH COURT ORDERS NEW STATE REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN.

3. In practice, for the latest redistricting round, schedules of these meeting and/or hearings were or are available to the public.

Notes: The public meeting schedule was available on the Office of Elections website at (http://hawaii.gov/elections/reapportionment/2011/public_hearings/public_hearings_2011-08-09.pdf).

Residents of the Big Island of Hawaii, the ones most vested in the outcome of the Reapportionment Commission’s decision because the fastest-growing island in the state was due a fourth state senator, were made aware of the public hearings coming to this rural island.

Reapportionment Commission holds public hearings.
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Friday, September 9, 2011.
Author/Byline: NANCY COOK LAUER, WEST HAWAII TODAY.
Section: Local News.

Sources:

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Derrick DePledge, 7/20/11, “Political Radar: Sunshine”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, B.J. Reyes, 6/2/11, “Political Radar: Remap Quest”

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: Public meetings to discuss the redistricting process and proposed maps were advertised well in advance. Meeting notices were posted both online and in conspicuous public areas and were fulsome in their detail.
Fair: Public meetings to discuss the redistricting process and proposed maps were advertised in advance, but some barriers existed with respect to easy access to such notices. Notices of meetings may not have been posted online, and/or lacked important details.
Very Weak: Public meetings to discuss the redistricting process and proposed maps were not advertised at all, or were advertised so poorly or at the last minute as to rendering them meaningless.

4. In practice, for the latest redistricting round, the state government accepted or is accepting redistricting plans submitted by the public.

Notes: The public could visit the Reapportionment Commission’s website to create a redistricting plan and submit it to the panel for review, according to Associated Press. The software was available to the public on July 8, 2011, but the public had until July 20, 2011 to submit their plans, according to West Hawaii Today. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that the commission would review the public’s submitted plans. The public had two weeks to design their own maps.

The software obtained by the Reapportionment Commission from the national leader in GIS software, ESRI, provided a much smoother interaction than the previous commission had a decade ago. The public had the ability to submit their own maps and have them considered. Two weeks is ample time to submit maps and have them considered. In addition, the state Reapportionment Commission shared its software and staff with the four county Redistricting Commissions at a nominal price, allowing much greater public participation at the local level than would otherwise have been possible.

Software glitch holds up new maps.
West Hawaii Today (Kailua-Kona, HI) – Thursday, July 28, 2011.
Author/Byline: NANCY COOK LAUER, WEST HAWAII TODAY.
Section: Local News.

Sources:

• Associated Press, staff, 7/14/11, “Residents can create election district maps on state website”

• West Hawaii Today, Brendan Shriane, 7/1/11, “Design your own district”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Richard Borreca, 7/19/11, “Don’t like your lawmaker? Draw your own boundaries”

Score: 75%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: Redistricting plans developed by CSOs — including individuals, researchers, and public interest groups — were given equal consideration by government decision makers. They were accepted without discrimination and were considered alongside more official redistricting plans as part of the normal policymaking process.
Fair: Redistricting plans developed by CSOs — including individuals, researchers, and public interest groups — were accepted by the government, but with some reservations or caveats. Public plans may not have enjoyed equal status as those developed by official government actors, or public plans were only able to be submitted during an overly restrictive window of time.
Very Weak: Public plans were not allowed for consideration by the redistricting policy making body, and/or were given such discriminatory treatment at the hands of government actors, rendering them meaningless in the overall process.

5. In practice, for the latest redistricting round, the government made or is making a redistricting website or online source of redistricting information available to the public.

Notes: The public can access the Redistricting and Reapportionment from the state Office of Elections website at (http://hawaii.gov/elections/reapportionment/). The Honolulu Star-Advertiser called the website an “informative ‘guide to redistricting.'” The website included proposed maps and information about redistricting.

Sources:

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, staff, 4/21/11, “Our View: As Hawaii changes, so do voting maps”

• West Hawaii Today, Nancy Cook Lauer, 8/11/11, “Redistricting commission considers political boundary maps”

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: The government provided the public with an online resource (or online resources) describing the redistricting process including the policies and procedures governing the process; the census and other data used to guide district formation; and how members of the public could contribute to the redistricting process.
Fair: The government provided the public with an online resource (or online resources) describing the redistricting process, but important information may not have been included. Omissions may have included the policies and procedures governing the process; the census and other data used to guide district formation; and how members of the public could contribute to the redistricting process.
Very Weak: The government did not provide the public with an online resource describing the redistricting process, or the online resource was so lacking in important information and details as to render it useless.