Jim Crow is alive and well in the State of Hawaii, which – last time I checked – was a part of the 58 United States.
I know that because President Obama says he was born there when it suits him and you know what’s going on there now? They’re holding an election that won’t allow White People to vote! – by Rodney Lee Conover
Illegal, right? Wrong again, pineapple-breath – a Federal Judge has upheld their right to do do so:
Federal District court Judge J. Michael Seabright has ruled on an injunction to stop a vote on setting up a separate government in Hawaii that excludes anyone who doesn’t meet the state’s definition of “Native Hawaiian.”
And buddy, that don’t mean you, whitey.
In fact, voting has already started to select delegates to a convention, which will draw up “governance documents” for a Native Hawaiian government.
Did I mention white people can’t vote in this election?
I know it doesn’t seem possible, but this is Obama’s America now – not yours – so shut you’re piehole, bend over, grin-and-bear-it and whatever other cliche you can think of. This is the way it is and the way it will continue to be if the Maoist wannabes running this joint continue to do so, **cough, cough** President Hillary, *cough…
According to The Daily Signal, registration to vote was restricted to “Native Hawaiians,” who are defined as only those whose ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778—and even then only to those willing to confirm a statement affirming “the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people.” Voting by mail started on November 1 and runs through the end of the month.
A lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of six residents of Hawaii, several of whom actually meet the ancestry requirement. However, they could not register to vote because they refused to agree to the prerequisite for registering – agreeing with the statement about the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people.” Two of the plaintiffs are also native Hawaiians who were registered without their knowledge or consent.
Pretty sure that’s racial discrimination – but maybe not, because we have a judge willing to allow it to move forward. As in FORWARD! And guess what? This ain’t the first time that Hawaii has tried this, even though the Supreme Court called Party Foul on them the first time around:
(this gets a little involved – you might wanna skip down)
In Rice v. Cayetano, Hawaii restricted the residents of the state who were allowed to register to vote for trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a department of the state government, as well as to vote in a special election that asked whether Hawaiians should elect delegates to propose a native Hawaiian government. This latter issue is the identical issue present in the current case, as is the definition of native Hawaiians. This definition that the state of Hawaii uses “implicates the odious ‘one drop rule’ contained in the racial-segregation codes of the 19th and early 20th centuries” according to Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Or as former Justice John Paul Stevens ironically pointed out in his dissent in another case, Fullilove v. Klutznick, if a government “is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reich’s Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935,” which similarly defined Jews based on their ancestry.
The Supreme Court threw out Hawaii’s discriminatory registration and voting scheme in 2000 as a fundamental violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. It criticized the state’s defense, saying it was using ancestry as a proxy for race and was based on “the demeaning premise that citizens of a particular race are somehow more qualified than others to vote on certain matters.” The state’s “reasoning attacks the central meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment”: There is no room under the Amendment for the concept that the right to vote in a particular election can be allocated based on race.
Race cannot qualify some and disqualify others from full participation in our democracy. Judge Seabright refused to enjoin this latest Jim Crow-type election because he claims it is an entirely private election, not a state election and will “not result in any state officials, law, or change in state government.” Seabright essentially dismisses the involvement of the state government. Thus, he says, the Rice case does not apply.
Or, if you’re white – you might want to stop vacationing in Hawaii – guess there’s no white priviledge there… anymore
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!