Rice, Harold F. v. Cayetano, Benjamin, Gov. of Hawaii (02/23/2000)

By: by Elisabeth Krebs, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Did the appeals court err in holding that 14th and 15th Amendments permit the adoption of an explicit racial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials?

Brief

Harold Rice was born in Hawaii and has lived there all his life. He can trace his ancestry back to two members of the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to the Revolution of 1893, the year the kingdom was overthrown and replaced by a provisional government (the Republic of Hawaii) that sought annexation to the United States.

But Rice is neither a full-blooded Hawaiian nor does he have enough Hawaiian blood to qualify as a ""native Hawaiian."" He is Caucasian, and as such, he cannot vote in the election for the board ofees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

When Hawaii was annexed to the United States in 1898, an estimated 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands were ceded to the United States. The Annexation Act of 1898 provided that all profits from public lands were to solely benefit the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

In 1920, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act set aside 200,000 acres of public lands as ""available lands"" for nominal price leases to native Hawaiians. The number of full-blooded Hawaiians was decreasing and the HHCA thought the Hawaiian race required rehabilitation by being returned to the land.

But since none of the benefits actually went to the native Hawaiian population, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978 to hold title to and manage the property in for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. It is governed byees who are elected in special elections.

Only people who meet the blood quantum requirement for native Hawaiian or Hawaiian may vote. To qualify as native Hawaiian one must be ""a descendent of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian islands previous to 1778.""

Rice fails to meet the definition. Nor is he a beneficiary of thes. In March 1996, he applied to vote in the August election for theees of OHA. His application was denied.

Rice brought action against the governor of Hawaii, Benjamin J. Cayetano, on the grounds that his exclusion from voting violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 14th and 15th Amendments. It violates the 15th Amendment, Rice argued, because it limits the right to vote in statewide elections forees to those of Hawaiian race. It violates the 14th Amendment because the racial classification fails the test of strict scrutiny which must be applied to all distinctions based on race.

Hawaii, on the other hand, emphasized that the restriction is not a racial one, but a legal one based on who benefits from thes. Hawaii argued that the federal government and the state of Hawaii have the same special relationship with and the same unique obligation to Hawaiians as the federal government has to Indian tribes.

The district court concluded that the voting restriction is not a racial one, but a political and legal one. Since Hawaiians are the only people who are legally interested in how the funds from thes are handled, it makes sense for them to decide who should administer the. The court also concluded that Hawaii was not violating the 15th Amendment because the election at issue is not a general election for government officials performing governmental duties. Further, voter qualification does not exclude those who have any interest in the outcome of the special election forees.

On June 22, 1998, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that ""the scheme for electingees ultimately responds to the states compelling responsibility to honor the, and the restriction on voter eligibility is precisely tailored to the perceived value that a board chosen from among those who are interested parties would be the best way to insure proper management and adherence to the needed fiduciary principles.""

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 22, 1999.

On Feb. 23, 2000, a Court, divided 7-2, reversed, striking down as racially discriminatory Hawaii's practice of letting only people with Hawaiian blood vote for leaders of a program that benefits descendants of the island's original residents.

The Court invoked the 15th Amendment, noting that the equality of races lies at the most basic level of the democratic process, the exercise of the voting franchise. ""In this case the Fifteenth Amendment invalidates the electoral qualification based on ancestry,"" wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

""When the culture and way of life of a people are all but engulfed by a history beyond their control, their sense of loss may extend down through generations and their dismay may be shared by many members of the larger community,"" Justice Kennedy wrote.

But he added in invalidating a provision of Hawaii's constitution that Hawaii's attempt ""to address these realities"" must keep in mind that the federal Constitution ""has become the heritage of all citizens of Hawaii.""

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for himself and Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the majority's decision ""rests largely on the repetition of glittering generalities that have little, if any, application to the compelling history of the state of Hawaii.""