Rice vs. Cayetano:
Friend of court
briefs to weigh
heavily in case
Myriad groups take sides in a
Big Isle rancher's bid to vote
in OHA electionsBy Pete Pichaske
Legal eagles aim to sway court
Phillips News ServiceWASHINGTON -- The legal briefs on file at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Rice vs. Cayetano case comprise a 4-inch-thick, multicolored package. And the words inside are just as varied and colorful.
The unusually large number of friend of the court briefs -- 11 in all have been filed, many with more than one party -- range from dry discourses on fine legal points to passionate descriptions of native Hawaiian culture.
They include dire legal warnings sounded by organizations that have made a crusade of battling racial preferences and quotas. And they include photographs of smiling native Hawaiian schoolchildren, flowery histories of the islands, and allusions to native Hawaiian culture.
Together, this eclectic mix is a testament both to the unusual legal interest in this case and the unique nature of Hawaii. Justices will take up the case Oct. 6.
"To us, it's a remarkable case," said Marc Levin, executive director of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America, an anti-racial preference group that filed a brief in support of Rice. "I think most people in the United States would be shocked to hear what is going on in Hawaii."
Of the 11 briefs, three support Rice, the Big Island rancher who claims the state's refusal to let him vote in Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections is racial discrimination. The others support the state.
The pro-Rice briefs, most from national, conservative organizations dedicated to fighting what they consider reverse discrimination, all argue that the state's policy violates Rice's constitutional rights by denying him a vote based on race.
The pro-state briefs, most filed by Hawaii organizations, or groups with an interest in the rights of native peoples, defend the state's policy as acceptable because it is based not on race but on the special status of native Hawaiians.
Within those general boundaries, however, the briefs vary widely in tone and content.
The eight pro-state briefs tend to be more colorful. The Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate brief, for example, is illustrated with 15 pages of photographs of Hawaiian students.
A brief filed by the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations and related organizations cites, in detail, the "unique culture" of native Hawaiians, which exists "despite the overthrow and annexation of the Hawaiian nation."
It goes on to relate nine pages worth of that culture, describing everything from aloha aina (love of the land) to halau hula (hula academies).
In its 12-page brief, the Hou Hawaiians, while supporting the state's position, lambaste OHA for not representing native Hawaiians and misusing the millions of dollars it has accumulated.
A brief filed by the four members of Hawaii's congressional delegation includes distinctly nonlegal statements by Sen. Daniel Akaka and Sen. Daniel Inouye.
"The amicus curiae brief is a legal document that should be devoid of non-legal matters," writes Inouye, an attorney himself. "However, I believe that to understand the special status that Native Hawaiians have in our State and in our nation, one must consider the history of our islands."
He then goes on to relate that history, starting with the earliest human habitation and including the decline and recent resurgence of native Hawaiian culture.
"There is little in Hawaii that does not bear the imprimatur of Native Hawaiiana," writes Inouye. "I pray that the Honored Justices would take this non-legal aspect of the relationship between the native people of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii into consideration."
The three pro-Rice briefs tend to be drier reading, focused on alleged violations of the 14th Amendment, which bars states from denying "equal protection of the laws" to any resident, and the 15th Amendment, which protects citizens' rights against discrimination based on race.
One-time Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, writing for the Center for Equal Opportunity, for example, argues that racial qualifications for voting are "presumptively invalid" and that the state's argument comparing native Hawaiians to American Indian tribes is "historically, legally and factually flawed."
Even the pro-Rice forces, however, gave at least a bow to the uniqueness of Hawaiian culture. Of course, they disagree with the native Hawaiian groups on its significance to the case.
"Hawaii also has explained -- correctly -- that Hawaiians share a common heritage and background that they ... cherish and celebrate," Bork's brief reads. "But the state has no right to engage in a racially restricted distribution of state funds, or racial classifications on the right to vote in a state election, simply to preserve a particular culture."
The following groups and individuals have filed friend of the court briefs: FRIENDS
In Support of Rice:
In Support of Cayetano:
Legal eagles aim to sway
By Pete Pichaske
Supreme Court
Phillips News ServiceWASHINGTON -- When they gather in their elegant, high-ceilinged hearing room Oct. 6 to consider the case of Rice vs. Cayetano, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will have no shortage of weighty legal advice at their disposal.
If anything, they will have an overabundance.
While cases from Hawaii have reached the Supreme Court before, few if any have attracted as much high-priced legal talent as this one, in which a Big Island rancher claims he was denied his constitutional voting rights.
In defending its case against Harold Rice, the state will rely on briefs filed by a half-dozen state attorneys general, and during the hearing, on the prowess of John Roberts Jr., a prominent Washington attorney with 30 Supreme Court cases under his belt, and U.S. Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman, widely regarded as one of the top few attorneys in the nation in arguing before the Supreme Court.
Not to be outdone, Rice can counter with supporting arguments already on file from Robert Bork, the one-time Supreme Court nominee and conservative icon, and Brett Kavanaugh, for years a key aide to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. In the courtroom, Rice's case will be argued by Theodore Olson, a genuine superstar in the Washington legal community with deep conservative connections.
Here's a closer look at some of the key legal players in the case:
Roberts has argued 30 cases before the Supreme Court, on issues ranging from antitrust and arbitration to environmental law and the First Amendment. Prior experience is considered invaluable in arguing before the Supreme Court, given the brief period allotted for arguments -- 30 minutes for each side -- and the challenging, abrupt questions asked by the justices.
After filing a friend of the court legal brief supporting the state's position, Waxman took the additional step last week of asking to join in the oral arguments in the Rice case. Observers say the request is almost certain to be granted and he probably will take 10 of the 30 minutes allowed the state's side.
Waxman has been with the Justice Department since May 1994. He was named the nation's 41st solicitor general in November 1997.
He has since remained very much in the public eye as the author of best-selling, conservative-leaning books and a frequent guest on television talk shows. He is the resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the nation's leading conservative think tanks.
Olson is a legal legend among conservatives, and a sometimes controversial figure.
He was an assistant attorney general under Reagan, where he was investigated, but never charged, by an early independent counsel. He is a former law partner and a close confidant of Starr. He is on the board of the magazine American Spectator.
Olson has carried the conservative banner on a large number of high-profile cases, often before the Supreme Court. For example, he won a landmark case for two white women who sued the University of Texas Law School for accepting less-qualified minority applicants.
His other clients have included: Stacey Koon, the Los Angeles police officer convicted in the Rodney King beating case; David Hale, the Whitewater figure linked to anti-Clinton forces and a key witness in Starr's investigation; and Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel.
January '97 OHA Ceded Lands Ruling
