Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court.

Only "Hawaiians" may vote in the statewide election for the trustees. Harold Rice, born in Hawaii and a Hawaiian citizen, does not have the requisite ancestry to be a "Hawaiian" under state law. However, Rice applied to vote in OHA trustee elections.

vote. Petitioner Rice, a Hawaiian citizen without the requisite ancestry to be a “Hawaiian” under state law, applied to vote in OHA trustee elections. When his application was denied, he sued respondent Gover-nor (hereinafter State), claiming, inter alia, that the voting exclusion was invalid under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The

On February 23, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Rice v. Cayetano,2 striking down a state constitutional voting scheme for the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”). Elections for OHA Trustees were held as part of the state's election process, but only indigenous Hawaiians were allowed to vote and run for office.

In Rice, the Supreme Court held that OHA’s voting restriction imper-missibly used ancestry as a proxy for race in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. This Comment sets out the history of OHA, which the Supreme Court crucially omitted in Rice.

2018年2月1日 · On the surface, Rice v. Cayetano upholds the U.S. Constitution, protecting the rights of all citizens to participate in public elections of government officials. But, for Freddy Rice, there was a deeper and more personal reason he went to court and endured much personal attack and cost in doing so. To understand that, let me share some background.

Plaintiff Rice, a caucasian rancher whose family has long lived in Hawai'i, sued the State of Hawai'i (Governor Cayetano) for its practice of limiting, by race, the right to vote for Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) trustees.(1)

Mr. Rice (plaintiff) was a citizen of Hawaii who was not of Hawaiian ancestry. Rice sued the state because the Hawaiian Constitution barred him from voting in the election for the OHA trustees. Rice argued that this restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment of …

2019年6月23日 · Rice v. Cayetano involved a challenge to the voting qualifications for Hawai‘i’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). Created during the 1978 Hawaiian Constitutional Convention, OHA manages lands held in trust for Native Hawaiians.

OHA is a semi-autonomous government body administered by a nine-member board of trustees, elected by the people of the State of Hawaiʻi through popular suffrage.