Law professor says Manglona ‘got it right’ on voting right issue

Law professor Rose Cuison-Villazor believes that U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona “got it right” in her ruling that qualified voters who are not of Northern Marianas descent must have the opportunity to vote on the Article 12 initiative and any other initiative to amend it.

Cuison-Villazor said that Manglona followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rice v. Cayetano, in which the high court ruled that a racial classification for purposes of voting—such as the one in federal court (John Davis case)—would be unlawful, invalid, and unconstitutional to exclude other voters who are otherwise eligible.

“This is settled law under the 15th and 14th Amendments,” said Cuison-Villazor in an interview with Saipan Tribune last week.

Davis, a registered voter in the CNMI and a non-Northern Marianas descent, sued the Commonwealth Election Commission and its officials in his desire to vote on any initiative to amend Article 12.

Article 12 restricts the acquisition of permanent and long-term interests in real property to NMDs.

Last month, Manglona issued a summary judgment that favored Davis in his lawsuit.

CEC and its official, through the Office of the Attorney General, have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse Manglona’s ruling.

Cuison-Villazor pointed out that Manglona’s ruling does not call into question the validity of Article 12 itself. “The court does not address that. The court decision was about a voting issue. It was not about Article 12,” she said.

She believes, however, that that the language of Manglona’s opinion has some implications for Article 12.

In Davis’ case, Cuison-Villazor said that Davis challenged Article 18 and Public Law 17-40, which limit the ability to vote on any constitutional changes to Article 12 to NMDs. She said Article 12 defines NMDs as people who are at least one-fourth Northern Marianas Chamorro or Northern Marianas Carolinian.

She said that Manglona held in Davis’ case that Article 18, which limits the right to vote on amendments to Article 12 to persons of NMDs, violates the 15th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

“The reason why is because for the purpose of voting, Article 12 has created a racial classification and that is invalid under the 15th Amendment,” she said.

Cuison-Villazor said it is also invalid under the 14th Amendment because among many things, it’s a racial classification and it can only be upheld if there is a narrowly tailored means to achieve a compelling government interest. She said Manglona found no narrowly tailored means to achieve that compelling government interest.

With Article 18 and Public Law 17-40 now deemed invalid under the 15th and 14th Amendments, Cuison-Villazor said any initiative that will limit the right to vote to NMDs would be struck out.

“In other words, all voters, all U.S. citizens who are eligible voters in the CNMI, have the right to vote on any proposed changes to Article 12 this coming November,” she said.

In this Nov. 4 elections, the CNMI ballot will include an initiative that will allow voters to decide whether to amend Article 12.

Asked about the chances of CEC’s appeal, Cuison-Villazor believes that Manglona’s decision will be affirmed, as the 9th Circuit will most likely follow the Rice v Cayetano ruling.

“This is a right to vote question. It’s a fundamental right issue. It is a well established law. There is no going around it,” she added.

Cuison-Villazor is an alumna of the American University Washington College of Law and teaches property, immigration, and critical race theory at the University of California at Davis School of Law. She was a faculty member of Hofstra University School of Law and Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. She taught in the 2014 Summer Pre-law Program. She is a product of Mount Carmel School.