Notifications
Clear all
http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_home?id=2096359
This article describes the VI Attorney General's response to a recent lawsuit which challenged the territory's system of at-large representation, on the basis that such a system unfairly discriminates against racial minorities (in this case whites and Hispanics).
Read the article -- they make a convincing case that electing senators by district, rather than at-large, would lead to more equitable representation. The lawsuit cited the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which sought to overturn electoral processes like this that tend to minimize the political voice of minorities.
In rejecting their claim, the Attorney General said:
"Defendants deny that the system has historically denied whites the election of candidates of their choice. To the contrary, for centuries blacks in this territory were denied the right to vote, to participate in the election process and elect candidates to the Legislature."
The latter part of this statement is certainly true, and while we must keep past inequities in mind, they should not prevent us from taking this suit seriously, because it does appear that the current system has the effect of denying whites and Hispanics the candidates of their choice. I say this based on the two cases presented in the article.
The article adds: "The filing also points out that whites and Hispanics have in the past been elected to the Senate." Again, this is true, but A) how far in the past are we talking, and B) the election of whites and Hispanics in the past has little bearing on whether the current electoral system is as representative as it could be.
Another interesting point is raised at the end of the article, which speaks to the peculiar nature of this application of the V.R.A. -- the fact that in this case (one of) the minority groups is white, as are the plaintiffs. Quoting from the article:
"In addition, it argues that Hoffman and San Martin, who are white, are not members of a protected class under the Voting Rights Act and do not have legal standing to bring the suit."
This raises one question and one possible solution:
The question: should whites qualify as a protected class under these unusual circumstances?
The possible solution: have Hispanics bring the suit -- as a language minority they do qualify as a protected class under the 1982 amendment to the V.R.A.
Posted : July 21, 2003 6:58 am
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/island/VIprofile.pdf
According to the 2000 census, whites account for 13.1% of the total VI population, and Hispanics (who can be of any race) account for 14.0%.
Posted : July 21, 2003 7:11 am
NAACP= okay
NAAWP= RACISTS!!!!
go figure.
Posted : July 22, 2003 2:50 am
I think this is a question of how far the Constitution follows the flag. I don't think this system would fly in one of the states, but given the self-governing nature of the VI, I think the plaintiffs will have a harder time challenging it. Does anyone know if VI residents can bring a case before the Supreme Court?
Posted : July 22, 2003 4:14 am
Here is some relevant background material for those interested:
from: http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/w.htm
Start reading from the following paragraph, which is about 1/3 of the way down the page:
In a strictly normative sense, I would certainly agree that this is the way it should be. But, in a practical and empirical sense, is this really the way it is? I say no. In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal zone are heterogeneous with respect to each other. This difference results in a principle of territorial heterogeneity: the areas within (or inside) the federal zone are subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States. The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States. The 50 States are, therefore, in one general class, because all constitutional restraints upon Congress are in force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a different general class, because these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone (see The Federal Zone, chapters 12 and 13).
Posted : July 22, 2003 5:35 am
This spells it out even more clearly!
(this comes from a brief filed recently in the Territorial Court, http://www.vid.uscourts.gov/Territorial/02crf0426.pdf)
A. The U.S. Constitution Is Not Automatically Applicable To The U.S. Virgin Islands
U.S. citizens and other inhabitants of a U.S. territory do not have the same constitutional
guarantees as U.S. citizens and other inhabitants of the fifty states. This is because of the “Territorial Incorporation” doctrine devised by the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases.2 This doctrine acknowledges that under Article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given power to legislate concerning the U.S. territories. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3. 3 If a territory is not “incorporated” into the United States, then Congress is given plenary power to determine what rights are applicable to that territory limited only by the Constitution’s “general prohibitions” protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens. See Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 142 (1904).
The Virgin Islands has been designated as an “unincorporated” territory of the United States, and thus, it is subject to the “Territorial Incorporation” doctrine. See Revised Organic Act of 1954, § 2(a), 48 U.S.C. § 1541(a), reprinted in V.I. CODE ANN., Historical Documents, Organic Acts, and U.S. Constitution at 77 (1995) (preceding V.I. Code Ann. tit. 1). The doctrine classifies certain rights set out in the Constitution as “fundamental” because they are “inherent principles which are the basis of all free government, which cannot be with impunity transcended.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 290-91 (1901). Therefore, if a right is considered fundamental, Congress is prohibited from interfering with it in the unincorporated territories. Id.; Soto v. United States, 273 F. 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1921). The remaining rights are classified as “remedial” rights, because they are considered “peculiar to our own system or jurisprudence,” rather than essential constitutional principles. Soto, 273 F. at 633. 4 If the right is remedial, Congress is not required to secure it for U.S. citizens and other inhabitants of an unincorporated territory. Id. In fact, even if Congress grants a remedial right by statute, they have the power to repeal the legislation at any time. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3. 5
Posted : July 22, 2003 5:48 am
