Rice v. Cayetano

From dKosopedia

Category: Hawaii

On April 25, 1996, Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice filed suit in United States District Court for the District of Hawaii challenging the Hawaiian-only voting policy for trustee elections to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). OHA was concieved by the 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention and the amendment passed by Hawaii's voters. OHA administers trust assets from ceded lands to benefit Native Hawaiians, and its elections are run by the Hawaii state government. OHA's trustees are by constitution, native Hawaiians elected by native Hawaiians.

Rice, who is Caucasian and traces his family history in Hawai'i to the mid-1800s, filed his claim under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for equal protection of all citizens under the law; and the 15th amendment, which prevents discrimination in state voting due to race, among other things.

In May 1997, U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra upheld OHA's Hawaiian-only voting policy. Ezra based his ruling on the unique status of the Hawaiian people and on the fact that Hawaiians are OHA's only direct beneficiaries. His opinion was upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the following year.

In March 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and oral arguments were held on October 6, 1999. Attorneys for Mr. Rice included Theodore Olson, the current U.S. Solicitor General under President Bush.

On February 23, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7 to 2 decision that OHA's voting restriction was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that, "A state may not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, and this law does so." Justices William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer concurred in the opinion. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote dissents.

On November 7, 2000, the state allowed non-Hawaiians to elect trustees to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Although the U.S. Supreme Court decision was narrowly tailored to state voting rights and did not address wider issues around Hawaiian rights, Rice v. Cayetano played a pivotal role in opening the door to significant legal challenges in that arena.

External Links

• Rice v. Cayetano ruling with links to dissenting opinions (Cornell University)
• Gordon, Mike. Rice v. Cayetano Honolulu Advertiser, July 2, 2006.