Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, March 25, 2000
Racial restriction
for OHA candidatesTHE Supreme Court was narrowly specific in ruling last month that voters in elections of Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees not be limited to those of Hawaiian ancestry, because the question before the court was specific. A logical reading of the court's opinion, however, would lead to the conclusion that race also could not be a qualification of candidates for election as trustees.The issue: The Supreme Court in Rice vs. Cayetano declared that citizens have a right to full participation in elections regardless of race.
Governor Cayetano has prudently asked for a legal opinion on this issue to avoid an additional expensive court battle and probable defeat. Another consideration is the need to prepare for this year's OHA elections. A last-minute challenge, he points out, would create problems for the conduct of the elections.
The Fifteenth Amendment is itself specific, guaranteeing citizens the right to vote in elections regardless of their race. In his lawsuit against the state, Harold "Freddy" Rice challenged the restriction of voters in OHA elections to native Hawaiians, and the Supreme Court struck it down.
"The validity of the voting restriction is the only question before us," Justice Anthony Kennedy stated at one point in the court's majority opinion. However, other parts of the ruling suggest that restrict- ing trustee candidates to Hawaiians might also be unconstitutional.
Kennedy wrote that "the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve." He cited a declaration from a 1943 Supreme Court decision: "Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Most importantly, Kennedy wrote, "Race cannot qualify some and disqualify others from full participation in our democracy."
"Full participation" certainly ought to include running for state office. The high court concluded that OHA is a state agency and thus subject to those standards.
John W. Goemans, Rice's attorney, has promised broad attacks on OHA's practices beyond the voting restriction but some of his planned challenges, such as those regarding selection of beneficiaries, may be questionable.
Cayetano has chosen the right strategy in seeking clarification of an election rule that appears to be indefensible in light of the court's position on the voting restriction.
Security at UH
NOT content with their success in brow-beating the University of Hawaii regents into rejecting proposed tuition increases, student activists and their faculty sympathizers are now calling for the head of President Kenneth Mortimer, who sought the increases.
Their alleged reason for seeking Mortimer's resignation is that he allowed armed sheriff's deputies on campus during the protest demonstration against the tuition increases. Ninety professors signed a petition demanding that Mortimer apologize for allowing the deputies to set up a staging area on campus during the protest.
Mortimer shrugged off the call for his resignation, commenting, "That's been a constant call these last few months." He defended the decision to allow the deputies on campus, although it wasn't his idea, because there was a concern for safety -- "for my safety, for the safety of the regents and for the safety of the students who participate in these events," he said.
As it turned out, the protest was peaceful, and the deputy sheriffs weren't needed. But there is never any way of guaranteeing that these activities won't turn violent. Those in positions of authority have to prepare for such eventualities.
It would have been irresponsible of UH administrators, having been advised that a mass protest would be held, if they had not taken precautions to maintain security.
Taiwan’s scapegoat
TAIWAN President Lee Teng-hui was not a candidate for re-election in last Saturday's presidential election, but he is probably the biggest loser. Lee has been cast in the role of scapegoat for the defeat of the Kuomintang standard-bearer, Lien Chan. Responding to demands of protesters, Lee resigned yesterday as party chairman. He had previously offered to step down in September, but that wasn't soon enough to satisfy his critics.
An intraparty power struggle between Lee and James Soong led to Soong's candidacy as an independent, which split the Nationalist vote and led to the victory of opposition candidate Chen Shui-bian.
The Kuomintang, which has governed Taiwan in the half century since the Communist victory on the mainland, is in disarray following its electoral defeat. Soong has announced that he intends to form a new party, which could further weaken the KMT.
Lee is being excoriated for the Kuomintang's defeat by people who benefited from the party's long reign. His mistakes evidently contributed to the party's setback. But he will be remembered for his contributions to the development of democracy.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
