And now:Sonja Keohane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<http://www.narf.org/index.html>
Rice v. Cayetano
Cayetano involves a challenge by a white Hawaiian resident to the voting
restriction allowing only Native Hawaiians to vote for trustees of the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The OHA administers income received from
certain trust lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Rice argues that
the restriction violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the voting
restriction. One of Rice's arguments is that since there are no tribes in
Hawaii, the voting restriction is purely race-based and subject to
scrutiny. The Supreme Court case of Mort V. Mancari held that legislation
as to Indian tribes is based on the political relationship between tribes
and the United Staets and need only be rationally related to Congress'
unique obligation toward Indian tribes. The question is whether the same
standard applies to legislation passed for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.
NARF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Native Hawaiians on behalf
of the National Congress of American Indians. The U.S. Supreme Court
recently heard arguments in the case on October 6, 1999 and a decision is
expected by summer.
-----links to more information at bottom of NARF page------
