It’s almost as if Guam has decided to take a page from George Wallace’s playbook.
Shades of Old South segregationists:
Guam’s government would rather cancel its plebiscite on the island’s political future than allow voters of all races to participate as a federal judge ordered it to do.
More on the Guam v. Davis decision that found Guam’s race-based “Native Inhabitants”-only voting scheme unconstitutional, via Hans von Spakovsky:
This decision has been a long time coming. The suit, filed by J. Christian Adams and the Center for Individual Rights in 2011, arose when Davis tried to register to vote on the plebiscite. His application was rejected and marked as “void” by the Guam Election Commission because he is white.
Guam, you see, banned residents from registering or voting unless they were Chamorro “natives,” which to the territorial government means people whose ancestors were original inhabitants of Guam. Chamorros constitute only about 36 percent of the island’s present population.
The race-based voting ban clearly violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, yet the Obama Justice Department refused to protect Davis or any of the other disenfranchised residents of the island. It neither filed suit against Guam nor intervened in support of the lawsuit filed by Adams and the Center for Individual Rights. Instead, it gave Guam $300,000 to help finance the plebiscite.
“The law is the law; (it) applies on Guam just like it applies everywhere.”
A victory for equal voting rights:
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional a law that limited voting based on ancestry, finding that Guam’s plebiscite statute amounted to race-based discrimination.
In the case of Davis v. Guam, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood decided in favor of plaintiff Arnold “Dave” Davis, a non-native resident who challenged the law that would have allowed only native inhabitants of Guam to vote in a plebiscite to determine the island’s future political status.
Finding that the plebiscite statute violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and barring Guam from enforcing the plebiscite law’s race-based restrictions.
“The U.S. Constitution does not permit for the government to exclude otherwise qualified voters in participating in an election, where public issues are decided simply because those otherwise qualified voters do not have the correct ancestry or bloodline.”
Davis’ attorney J. Christian Adams, who formerly served in the U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section and took on Davis’ case after the DOJ declined to act, was happy with the outcome.
“It is a fantastic decision that vindicated voting rights for everybody on Guam,” Adams said. “It says that who your parents were, or grandparents were, has nothing to do with your right to vote and everybody is allowed to participate in the plebiscite.”
“The law is the law; (it) applies on Guam just like it applies everywhere” in the United States,” he said.
“You simply cannot have voting rights based on ancestry.”
J. Christian Adams talks with Pacific News Center’s K57 Newstalk about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Davis v. Commonwealth Election Commission that an ancestry-based voting restriction in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is an unconstitutional race-based exclusion, and about the parallels between that case and Davis v. Guam, in which Adams represents the plaintiff.
Both voting rights cases involve plaintiffs named Davis fighting against the exclusion of otherwise-eligible voters from certain elections based on their ancestry, which the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized may be an unconstitutional “proxy for race.”
Adams emphasizes that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is clear: “You simply cannot have voting rights based on ancestry. It could not be more clear when you read the opinion. It could not be more clear that you can’t disguise ancestral voting rights as somehow temporal or political.”
The Guam case is sure to be impacted by the appellate court’s ruling, which affirmed the judgment of the district court in striking down CNMI’s ancestry-based voting restriction as a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment and rejected as a matter of law all the defenses CNMI raised.
More on the Guam plebiscite lawsuit and arguments being heard this week in a federal district court:
“The law protects everyone from discrimination in voting. Today it might protect Mr. Davis from discrimination, tomorrow it might protect a Chamorro minority – as long as everyone respects the law,” Adams said. “Voting rights cannot be tied to who your grandfather was under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, a provision that fully applies in Guam. The Supreme Court said the way to move forward is for everyone to have a say.”
He added, “I am confident the ban on voting rights based on your parents and grandparents was settled over a century ago.”
And Loretta Lynch and the NAACP are nowhere to be found.
The Territory of Guam is arguing this week in federal court “that it may exclude any residents of the island who are white, black, or non-Chamorro from registering to vote and from participating in a plebiscite over the future relationship of Guam to the United States.”
Such “use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve.” To base decisions on your ancestry when parceling out political power is anathema to the 15th Amendment. It is the sort of vile evil that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 rooted out. But it is alive and well on Guam and will continue unless a federal judge finally acts to stop this modern, progressive “identity politics” version of Jim Crow discrimination.
Yet in the face of such blatant, unapologetic racial discrimination, the Justice Department is nowhere to be found in the Guam litigation. The NAACP is likewise absent, as well as a host of other civil-rights organizations that have spent millions of dollars making the questionable claim that requiring an ID to vote or reducing the number of days of early voting is discriminatory.