A court case in Hawaii related to voting rights and race is similar to a case on Guam, but there are also important differences, an attorney involved with the Guam case said. The U.S. Supreme Court has halted the counting of ballots from a Hawaii election, which was held to select native Hawaiian delegates to draft a document for self-governance. The court has not issued an opinion on the issue, but halted the vote count pending further review. Attorney Christian Adams — one of the attorneys representing Guam resident Arnold Davis, who challenged Guam’s pending political status vote, saying it violates his voting rights — spoke in response to the case in Hawaii.
The Guam vote for decolonization is being challenged in federal court for allegedly discriminating against the island’s non-Chamorro voters. The case, filed by Davis, who isn’t Chamorro and who was not allowed to register for the election, is scheduled to go to trial next July.
Adams on Tuesday said the Hawaii case and Guam case are similar, but with some differences.
“Guam is in a very different position because Congress has enacted a Bill of Rights in the Organic Act, which doesn’t exist in Hawaii. Guam has even less ability to restrict the franchise than does Hawaii,” Adams said.
Full Article: Guam plebiscite case similar, different from Hawaii.