Proposal law on MPLA registry waste of public funds

While devoting ink/column space to Senate Bill 14-101, it appears the CNMI media overlooks or ignores what should be obvious by effect of even a cursory glance at U.S. headlines—like, for example, the now-old-fact-of-U.S. law, that race-based voting rights are prohibited by effect of U.S. constitutional protections afforded all U.S. citizenry, including but not limited to those within the CNMI. This, of course, was explained by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly six years ago in striking down efforts by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to inject racial quota requirements into OHA voting schemes in the state of Hawaii.

Did anyone in the CNMI media read, or report to the CNMI public, what the U.S. Supreme Court so clearly explained, to OHA and all others—the CNMI politicos as well—in the Rice v. Cayetano opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (formerly of the 9th Circuit Court, and who is quite familiar with CNMI goings-on, having visited the CNMI himself in the late 1980s), at 528 U.S. 495 published Feb. 23, 2000 as Case No. 98-818? Succinctly put: Race-based voting rights and schemes are a NO-NO. Not allowed. Unlawful. Illegal. Impermissible.

And this, presumably, must be known to CNMI legislators, their legal counsel, and the folks in flowing robes down at the CNMI courthouse. And the ever-silent CNMI Bar Association covey-cum-lawyers.

Ditto the more recent 9th Circuit Court ruling, on Aug. 2, 2005 in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (No. 04-15044), in which affirmative-discrimination-race-preference has successfully been challenged in Hawaii schools founded by former monarch Bernice Pauahi Bishop, by the very same Fresno-based attorney—Eric Grant of Sweeney, Davidian, Greene, and Grant LLP—who succeeded in protecting equal rights in the Rice case.

Yet wholly contrary to, and in apparently intended frustration of, these guarantees of equal rights to all U.S. citizens, the CNMI public is treated to the specter of a newly contrived “MPLA Registry” being used, in utter waste of public funds, for race-based purposes already deemed illegal. This if, as reported by the media, S.B, 14-101 is intended by its author, Sen. Luis Crisostimo, to have the proposed NMI Descent Registry “to determine whether a person can own land in the CNMI…and whether a person can vote on any proposed amendment to Article XII of the Commonwealth Constitution” (Marianas Variety, Oct. 24, 2005).

The race-based effort to prevent persons not of NMI descent from voting on any proposed amendment to Article XII of the Commonwealth Constitution, given the Rice opinion, are unlawful. So why are CNMI public funds being used—by the legislator(s) and/or MPLA folks involved—to further this agenda?

More appropriate perhaps might be a thorough reexamination as to whether the Article XII prohibition against ownership of land by persons not of NMI descent is, itself, unlawful in light of Rice, Kam Schools, and other recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. After all, Article XII was created by the Covenant. The Covenant, unlike a U.S. treaty requiring ratification by two-thirds of all U.S. senators, is merely a U.S. law, enacted by the U.S. Congress. And even a cursory glimpse at 1950s laws—like the ones requiring black and white children to attend different schools in Topeka, Kansas, stuck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957—stand for the proposition that U.S. laws may not discriminate on the basis of race.

Nor, it would seem, may U.S. or CNMI funding be used by MPLA, the CNMI Legislature, or other CNMI publicly-funded entities, in a racially discriminatory manner or agenda…like using public funds owned by ALL members of the CNMI public (e.g. General Funds) and/or the U.S. public (e.g. CIP funds) to prioritize things like installing infrastructure in a racially selective manner, i.e., at homestead created village sites not available to non-NMI-descent folks, rather than the long-suffering two-hour-per-day water users in Oleai Village.

Yet racial discrimination—in this case by a majority of the CNMI population (those of NMI descent) discriminating against a minority of the population (those not of NMI descent)—is what Article XII/Descent Registry is all about. Indeed, it is at the core of the entitlement/we-are-extra-special fabric of modern CNMI trend. That is, of course, tantamount to a system espousing racial supremacy. And diametrically contrary to the situation elsewhere—like a few miles south on Guam (or the U.S. mainland), where persons of NMI descent are free to own land purchase, say from their Guamanian cousins on Guam, while those same Guamanians are prohibited (as they are not deemed to be of NMI descent) to own land purchased from their CNMI cousins the CNMI-situated land just 30 miles north of Guam.

And so with the CNMI’s ailing economy, why not simply focus on what are legal, legitimate aims of CNMI government officials entrusted with spending funds owned by all members of the CNMI’s public, like buying vehicles/aircons/new books for students at PSS instead of for overpaid legislators, judges, etc. Stranded CNMI garment workers, CHC, DPS, CUC, tourism, economic incentives, retirement, etc.?

While calls for an elected CNMI Attorney General have been noted, the CNMI citizenry might opt for a legal luminary bright and ethical enough both to explain and to enforce applicable laws absent affirmative-discrimination-for-the-majority? Or, perhaps the CNMI Bar Association was on the verge of explaining any of the above?

Not.

Bruce L. Jorgensen
U.S. Embassy
Kabul, Afghanistan