Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Our legislators put on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that will likely sink the Commonwealth’s chances of any favorable treatment by politicians in Washington. They want to limit the vote on possible changes to Article 12 to persons of Northern Marianas descent. Seven strong reasons support withdrawing this proposed amendment right away.

Reason No. 1. There is no more powerful political argument against the Marianas than trying to exclude U.S. citizens from the vote. Every politician in the U.S. Congress, Republican or Democrat, will find this offensive. We will give the Department of the Interior a very strong weapon against the Marianas. Our allies will melt away. Legislation to take away immigration and minimum wage powers might pass quickly.

Reason No. 2. The courts are very likely to reject any effort to keep U.S. citizens from voting. Voting rights are fundamental to the U.S. system, and there have been thousands of cases rejecting efforts to limit such rights in any way. U.S. citizens voted on amendments affecting Article 12 after the second Constitutional
Convention. The courts would find it incomprehensible why if it was all right then, it is suddenly not all right now.

Reason No. 3. The proposed amendment endangers Article 12 itself. In the process of a legal challenge on the proposed Marianas amendment, the courts may revisit all of the reasons for Article 12 and possibly strike that down as well, now that they see how the Marianas wants to operate under Article 12.

Reason No. 4. The United States Supreme Court currently has before it a case from Hawaii challenging native-only voting rights. If the court strikes down this voting provision in the Hawaii constitution, it may describe what kinds of limitations on voting rights could be acceptable. No matter what the Supreme Court does with the Hawaii case, the proposed Marianas amendment would be subject to legal challenge. It is just silly for the Marianas to enact a constitutional provision without waiting to see what the Supreme Court does.

Reason No. 5. The mandatory period during which Article 12 must remain in effect ends in 2011, more than 10 years from now. There is no need to enact now a constitutional amendment that can have no effect whatsoever until another 10 years passes. The Covenant (Section 805) makes clear that the earliest date on which the mandatory period could end is 25 years from the 1986 date on which the United States ended the Trusteeship. There is some possibility that it could be 25 years from the 1990 date when the United Nations finally acted.

Reason No. 6. At the end of the 25 year period, Article 12 remains in effect forever unless a constitutional amendment is passed at that time to change it. A constitutional amendment requires a legislative initiative or a popular initiative to put it on the ballot. Because a popular initiative is relatively difficult to do, the legislature holds the keys anyway. They do not need to act now.

Reason No. 7. Guam made this mistake back in the early 1980s and paid dearly for it. We should learn from history. When the Marianas Covenant was approved by the U.S. Congress, there was a deal under which Guam would get approximately the same concessions that had been made to the Marianas. When the enthusiasts for Chamorro-only voting on Guam got started on their campaign, Congressman Phil Burton was so offended that he dropped any support for an improved political status for Guam. Before any reconciliation could be effected, he died in 1983, and with him went any possibility that Guam would get the improvements it wanted.

Any constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature can be withdrawn any time before the election. Tell your legislator that there is plenty of time for us to solve this problem, if indeed it is a problem, in a way that will not shoot the Commonwealth in the head. Let’s not take this action now when we are faced with so much opposition in the U.S., and we are just beginning to make headway with our political allies to defend the Commonwealth’s position and protect its economy.