Rice v Cayetano, 98818

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtKennedy
Citation528 U.S. 495,120 S.Ct. 1044,145 L.Ed.2d 1007
PartiesSyllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICE v. CAYETANO, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT818
Decision Date23 February 2000
Docket Number98818

528 U.S. 495
120 S.Ct. 1044
145 L.Ed.2d 1007

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RICE
v.
CAYETANO, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 98 818.

Argued October 6, 1999
Decided February 23, 2000

The Hawaiian Constitution limits the right to vote for nine trustees chosen in a statewide election. The trustees compose the governing authority of a state agency known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA. The agency administers programs designed for the benefit of two subclasses of Hawaiian citizenry, "Hawaiians" and "native Hawaiians." State law defines "native Hawaiians" as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Islands before 1778, and "Hawaiians" a larger class that includes "native Hawaiians" as descendants of the peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. The trustees are chosen in a statewide election in which only "Hawaiians" may vote. Petitioner Rice, a Hawaiian citizen without the requisite ancestry to be a "Hawaiian" under state law, applied to vote in OHA trustee elections. When his application was denied, he sued respondent Governor (hereinafter State), claiming, inter alia, that the voting exclusion was invalid under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Federal District Court granted the State summary judgment. Surveying the history of the Islands and their people, it determined that Congress and Hawaii have recognized a guardian-ward relationship with the native Hawaiians, which is analogous to the relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. It examined the voting qualifications with the latitude applied to legislation passed pursuant to Congress' power over Indian affairs, see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, and found that the electoral scheme was rationally related to the State's responsibility under its Admission Act to utilize a part of the proceeds from certain public lands for the native Hawaiians' benefit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that Hawaii "may rationally conclude that Hawaiians, being the group to whom trust obligations run and to whom OHA trustees owe a duty of loyalty, should be the group to decide who the trustees ought to be." 146 F.3d 1075, 1079.

Held: Hawaii's denial of Rice's right to vote in OHA trustee elections violates the Fifteenth Amendment. Pp. 15 28.

(a) The Amendment's purpose and command are set forth in explicit and comprehensive language. The National Government and the States may not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. The Amendment reaffirms the equality of races at the most basic level of the democratic process, the exercise of the voting franchise. It protects all persons, not just members of a particular race. Important precedents give instruction in the instant case. The Amendment was quite sufficient to invalidate a grandfather clause that did not mention race but instead used ancestry in an attempt to confine and restrict the voting franchise, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 364 365; and it sufficed to strike down the white primary systems designed to exclude one racial class (at least) from voting, see, e.g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 469 470. The voting structure in this case is neither subtle nor indirect; it specifically grants the vote to persons of the defined ancestry and to no others. Ancestry can be a proxy for race. It is that proxy here. For centuries Hawaii was isolated from migration. The inhabitants shared common physical characteristics, and by 1778 they had a common culture. The provisions at issue reflect the State's effort to preserve that commonality to the present day. In interpreting the Reconstruction Era civil rights laws this Court has observed that racial discrimination is that which singles out "identifiable classes of persons solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics." Saint Francis College v. Al&nbhyph;Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613. The very object of the statutory definition here is to treat the early Hawaiians as a distinct people, commanding their own recognition and respect. The history of the State's definition also demonstrates that the State has used ancestry as a racial definition and for a racial purpose. The drafters of the definitions of "Hawaiian" and "native Hawaiian" emphasized the explicit tie to race. The State's additional argument that the restriction is race neutral because it differentiates even among Polynesian people based on the date of an ancestor's residence in Hawaii is undermined by the classification's express racial purpose and its actual effects. The ancestral inquiry in this case implicates the same grave concerns as a classification specifying a particular race by name, for it demeans a person's dignity and worth to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities. The State's ancestral inquiry is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment for the further reason that using racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve. The law itself may not become the instrument for generating the prejudice and hostility all too often directed against persons whose particular ancestry is disclosed by their ethnic characteristics and cultural traditions. The State's electoral restriction enacts a race-based voting qualification. Pp. 15 21.

(b) The State's three principal defenses of its voting law are rejected. It argues first that the exclusion of non-Hawaiians from voting is permitted under this Court's cases allowing the differential treatment of Indian tribes. However, even if Congress had the authority, delegated to the State, to treat Hawaiians or native Hawaiians as tribes, Congress may not authorize a State to create a voting scheme of the sort created here. Congress may not authorize a State to establish a voting scheme that limits the electorate for its public officials to a class of tribal Indians to the exclusion of all non-Indian citizens. The elections for OHA trustee are elections of the State, not of a separate quasi-sovereign, and they are elections to which the Fifteenth Amendment applies. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, distinguished. The State's further contention that the limited voting franchise is sustainable under this Court's cases holding that the one-person, one-vote rule does not pertain to certain special purpose districts such as water or irrigation districts also fails, for compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule of the Fourteenth Amendment does not excuse compliance with the Fifteenth Amendment. Hawaii's final argument that the voting restriction does no more than ensure an alignment of interests between the fiduciaries and the beneficiaries of a trust founders on its own terms, for it is not clear that the voting classification is symmetric with the beneficiaries of the programs OHA administers. While the bulk of the funds appears to be earmarked for the benefit of "native Hawaiians," the State permits both "native Hawaiians" and "Hawaiians" to vote for trustees. The argument fails on more essential grounds; it rests on the demeaning premise that citizens of a particular race are somehow more qualified than others to vote on certain matters. There is no room under the Amendment for the concept that the right to vote in a particular election can be allocated based on race. Pp. 21 27.146 F.3d 1075, reversed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to Part II. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98 818

HAROLD F. RICE, PETITIONER
v. BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

February 23, 2000

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

A citizen of Hawaii comes before us claiming that an explicit, race-based voting qualification has barred him from voting in a statewide election. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, binding on the National Government, the States, and their political subdivisions, controls the case.

The Hawaiian Constitution limits the right to vote for nine trustees chosen in a statewide election. The trustees compose the governing authority of a state agency known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA. Haw. Const., Art. XII, §5. The agency administers programs designed for the benefit of two subclasses of the Hawaiian citizenry. The smaller class comprises those designated as "native Hawaiians," defined by statute, with certain supplementary language later set out in full, as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778. Haw. Rev. Stat. §10 2 (1993). The second, larger class of persons benefited by OHA programs is "Hawaiians," defined to be, with refinements contained in the statute we later quote, those persons who are descendants of people inhabiting the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 practice notes
  • Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, No. 08–322.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2009
    ...South. Despite the Civil War's bloody purchase of the Fifteenth Amendment, “the reality remained far from the promise.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 512–513, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000) ; see also 557 U.S. 221R. Wardlaw, Negro Suffrage in Georgia, 1867–1930, p. 34 (Phelps–Sto......
  • Means v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-17489.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2005
    ...158 (1995); see also Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 1147-48, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005). 53. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 518-22, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000); Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1279 (9th Cir.2004). 54. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203......
  • Schmitt v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Wash., No. 18-35846
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 14, 2020
    ...undertaken for the purpose of harming protected individuals." Id.The Supreme Court considered an overinclusive proxy in Rice v. Cayetano , 528 U.S. 495, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000), where a state law discriminated on the basis of ancestry, providing benefits to individuals whose......
  • Arakaki v. Lingle, No. CIV.02-00139 SOM/KSC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • January 14, 2004
    ...a "rational basis" test. The court recognizes that Plaintiffs are arguing that Pierce has been called into doubt by Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000). However, OHA's present motion is a motion to dismiss based on nonjusticiability; this motion does not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
133 cases
  • Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, No. 08–322.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2009
    ...South. Despite the Civil War's bloody purchase of the Fifteenth Amendment, “the reality remained far from the promise.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 512–513, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000) ; see also 557 U.S. 221R. Wardlaw, Negro Suffrage in Georgia, 1867–1930, p. 34 (Phelps–Sto......
  • Means v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-17489.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2005
    ...158 (1995); see also Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 1147-48, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005). 53. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 518-22, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000); Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1279 (9th Cir.2004). 54. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203......
  • Schmitt v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Wash., No. 18-35846
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 14, 2020
    ...undertaken for the purpose of harming protected individuals." Id.The Supreme Court considered an overinclusive proxy in Rice v. Cayetano , 528 U.S. 495, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000), where a state law discriminated on the basis of ancestry, providing benefits to individuals whose......
  • Arakaki v. Lingle, No. CIV.02-00139 SOM/KSC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • January 14, 2004
    ...a "rational basis" test. The court recognizes that Plaintiffs are arguing that Pierce has been called into doubt by Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000). However, OHA's present motion is a motion to dismiss based on nonjusticiability; this motion does not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-6, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...100). 252. Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist., 551 U.S. 701, 746 (2007) (plurality opinion) (quoting Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 517 (2000)). For additional examples of references to dignity in Supreme Court opinions, see the sources cited in Henry, supra note 189, at......
  • The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 8, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...down racial classifications in voting qualifications) ; Davis v. Guam, 932 F.3d 822, 840-43 (9th Cir. 2019) (same) ; Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 499 (2000) (striking down a law limiting non-Native Hawaiians' right to vote for trustees of a Hawaiian state agency) ; Morton v. Mancari, 417......
  • Indigenous Subjects.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 8, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...Nation, 432 F.3d 924, 932 (9th Cir. 2005); Wabol v. Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990). (13.) See, e.g., Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 498 (2000); Davis v. Guam, 932 F.3d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 2019); Davis v. Commonwealth Election Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. (14.) See......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT