Rising above the demagoguery

The governor should resign.” “Saipan sucks.” “They’re stupid.”

These are not lines from Saturday Night Live, the John Stewart Show, or even someone’s Facebook wall. These are actual words ripped from local headlines, and they reveal the real problem here in the Commonwealth.

It’s not the economy. It’s not crime or drugs or violence. It’s not even the government. It’s something that jeopardizes our ability to work together to solve all our problems. You see these days, everyone—politicians, pundits, and voters themselves—have gotten so emotional and so irrational that we’re left with a civil discourse that is far from civil. The ancient Greeks had a word for this manipulation of the prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public. They called it demagoguery.

But the only way we can address the pressing issues of our day is to rise above the name-calling and discuss these issues using logic and reason. As U. S. Representative Paul Ryan put it recently, “Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy and anxiety is not hope, it’s not change, it’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery, we need solutions.”

I point this out because this year’s topic has stirred a lot of fear, envy, and anxiety on both sides of the debate. However, rather than resorting to demagoguery, I come before you today to appeal to your reason.

Should the Commonwealth’s Senate be apportioned based on the current premise of equal representation for the three senatorial districts, or should it be reapportioned based on population?

First, I will present arguments to maintain the status quo of equal representation. Second, I will present arguments to reapportion the Senate based on population.

Let us first consider the status quo.

The current system of equal representation in the Senate is the result of a compromise struck by the CNMI’s founding fathers that borrowed heavily from the U.S. Connecticut Compromise.

Before the establishment of the Commonwealth, the Marianas District Legislature was a unicameral body with 11 representatives for Saipan, three for Rota, one for Tinian, and one for the Northern Islands. This apportionment afforded little power to the smaller islands and bred substantial discontent among their people and their leaders.

So, when our islands began covenant negotiations to establish a Commonwealth, representatives from Rota and Tinian saw this an opportunity to changes things.

As recorded in the Report of the Marianas Political Status Commission, Rota and Tinian lobbied to restructure representation in the new legislature from one based on population to one based on geography. Some of these representatives went so far as to threaten to walk out of covenant negotiations if their proposal was not entertained.

While Saipan representatives disagreed with the Rota and Tinian leaders, everyone at the table understood that this apportionment issue could be a deal-breaker, and that unless the issue was resolved, Covenant negotiations could break down.

Fortunately, the CNMI’s founding fathers prevented that from happening by striking a compromise that would later be embedded into our Constitution. Instead of a unicameral legislature, they introduced a bicameral legislature, one that provided for a House of Representatives whose apportionment is based on population, and a Senate whose apportionment is based on equal representation for all three islands.

In this regard, then, the CNMI’s version of the Connecticut Compromise did more than just respond to the concerns of Rota and Tinian. It effectively saved the Covenant. Had our founding fathers not struck that compromise, this Commonwealth may never have been established. Beyond that, though, the current apportionment in the Senate has also helped protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

In Federalist #10, James Madison cautioned against democracies that ruled “not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” British leader, Lord John Dalberg-Acton, even went so far as to say, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.”

The current apportionment in the Senate does, in fact, protect the minority interests of Rota and Tinian. It ensures that those islands receive adequate funding for public services, infrastructure, and socio-economic development. It also ensures that they have a voice in Congress. Indeed, if it weren’t for equal representation in the Senate, Rota and Tinian might be left behind.

But this raises an important question and brings me to the second half of this speech.

Just as we must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, should we not also protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority?

Let’s just look at the numbers.

First, the total population between Rota and Tinian accounts for about 10 percent of the total CNMI population, yet those islands hold 66 percent of the power in the Senate.

Second, Saipan has a ratio of one elected official for every 2,200 voters—a ratio nearly triple that of Tinian’s ratio of about one to 800 and nearly quadruple Rota’s ratio of one to 600.

Third, from the perspective of individual voters, a voter on Tinian has 300 percent more voting influence than a Saipan voter, and a voter from Rota has 350 percent more voting influence than a Saipan voter.

In other words, voters on Tinian and Rota have three times the voting power as voters on Saipan. No matter how you dice up the numbers, it is clear that the CNMI Senate is ruled by a minority of CNMI voters.

Furthermore, this situation clearly contradicts established Supreme Court rulings that have upheld the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law with the standard of “one person, one vote.”

In the 1963 ruling in Gary vs. Sanders, Justice William O. Douglass wrote in the majority opinion, “The concept of political equality…can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.” The 1964 ruling in Reynolds vs. Sims reinforced the one person, one vote standard, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing in the majority opinion that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”

The numbers in the CNMI don’t add up to this one person, one vote standard because Rota and Tinian voters outpower Saipan voters with the equivalent of three votes for every one voter.

But it’s not just about the numbers. It’s also about the ability of our government to function. The current apportionment system in the Senate has resulted in a virtual gridlock with the governor vetoing bills from the Senate, the Senate rejecting the governor’s appointments, and our government degenerating into political demagoguery. So it is clear that we must consider reapportionment based on population in order to protect the majority from a tyranny of the minority.

However, reapportioning the Senate based on population poses two big problems.

First, if we reapportion the current nine senators based on population, considering that Rota and Tinian make up about 10 percent of the CNMI’s population, they would be left with one senator for both islands, or half a senate seat for each island. This would seriously undermine their representation in the Senate.

Second, in a re-apportionment plan that provides Rota and Tinian with at least one senator each, we would have to expand the Senate to have 20 senators. This would only increase an already bloated government. So what are we to do? There are clearly problems with the current apportionment system, and a re-apportionment plan based on population presents equally compelling problems.

I believe that the only way we can resolve this dilemma is to focus on the crux of the issue, which is the fundamental challenge in any democracy. How can we balance the rights of the majority with the rights of the minority?

I propose a new compromise, one that can strike the right balance. I propose that we re-apportion the Senate to give Saipan five Senate seats, and Rota and Tinian two Senate seats each. Doing so would give Saipan senators a simple majority of the Senate, or more than 50 percent, but would protect the Rota and Tinian senators by preventing Saipan from having a supermajority, or two-thirds of the Senate.

This new compromise would also encourage more cooperation in the Senate by breaking up the Rota-Tinian voting bloc, while at the same time providing that bloc with an incentive to build support among Saipan senators. After all, with four out of nine votes, the Rota-Tinian bloc would only need one Saipan senator to form a simple majority.

But, most importantly, this new compromise would create checks and balances that protect the rights of the majority, without infringing on the rights of the minority. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about numbers, it’s not about who controls what, it’s not about demagoguery. It’s about people. It’s about “we the people.” And in any democracy, we must always strive to work together for the good of all, ensuring that no one—neither the majority nor the minority—is left behind.

As the Preamble to our own Constitution states, “We the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, ordain and establish this Constitution as the embodiment of our traditions and hopes for our Commonwealth.”

All of us—the majority, the minority, Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and the Northern Islands—are included in “we the people.” And I firmly believe that, regardless of which island we call home, we all share the same hopes for a better future for our islands, for our people, and for our Commonwealth. Thank you.