## Facts

- Hawaii created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), a state agency administering programs intended to benefit “native Hawaiians” and “Hawaiians,” as defined by ancestry.
- Under Hawaii law, “native Hawaiians” were descendants of at least one-half of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands before 1778, and “Hawaiians” were descendants of peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778.
- The Hawaii Constitution limited voting for nine OHA trustees, elected statewide, to persons classified as “Hawaiians” under these ancestry-based definitions.
- Harold F. Rice, a citizen of Hawaii who did not meet the ancestry requirement, was denied registration to vote in OHA trustee elections.
- Rice sued the Governor of Hawaii in federal court, alleging the voting restriction violated the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court entered summary judgment for the state, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether Hawaii’s limitation of voting in statewide OHA trustee elections to persons of “Hawaiian” ancestry constitutes a race-based voting qualification barred by the Fifteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the restriction can be upheld as a political classification analogous to preferences for members of federally recognized Indian tribes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held that Hawaii’s ancestry-based restriction on voting in OHA trustee elections violates the Fifteenth Amendment.
- The Court treated the ancestry requirement as a proxy for race and therefore an impermissible race-based condition on the franchise.
- The Court rejected the argument that the restriction fit within a tribal or political-classification framework analogous to federal Indian law.
- The Court invalidated the voting restriction without resolving all Fourteenth Amendment arguments.
- Justice Breyer (joined by Justice Souter) concurred in the judgment on Fifteenth Amendment grounds, reasoning that the voter definition was overinclusive and insufficiently connected to asserted trust beneficiaries.
- Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented, viewing the scheme as tied to special obligations toward an indigenous people rather than a racial exclusion from voting.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits a state from denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.
- A voting qualification defined by ancestry may function as a proxy for race and is subject to the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition.
- A state election for state officials cannot limit the electorate to a descent-defined class as a means of allocating political power.
- The rationale permitting certain preferences for members of federally recognized tribes does not automatically justify an ancestry-based restriction in a state-administered election absent a tribal membership or sovereign political status basis.

## Conclusion

Hawaii’s restriction of voting in statewide OHA trustee elections to persons with “Hawaiian” ancestry was a race-based limitation on the franchise and therefore unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment.


Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000)