I’VE now had an opportunity to review the CNMI Constitution, CNMI statutes, and some cases, including Gutierrez v. Ada (U.S. Supreme Court) and Underwood v. Guam Election Commision (Guam Supreme Court).
Basically I disagree with the interpretation recently given in the newspapers about the votes needed to pass the legislative initiatives and popular initiative.
1. The legislative initiatives become effective if “approved by the majority of votes cast.”
2. The popular initiative becomes effective if “approved by two-thirds of the votes cast by persons qualified to vote in the Commonwealth.”
Both of these standards are found in the CNMI Constitution. Both use the term “votes cast.” (So does the runoff law, P.L. 16-43.)
The Commonwealth Election Commission has decided that the word “votes” means ballots. There are some old cases from other jurisdictions that would support that reading, but many cases, and certainly recent cases with a lot of persuasive power, hold differently — that the word “votes” in this context means a clear and decisive choice on a candidate or issue, and that the ballot is just a means or method of expressing a vote.
If the ballot doesn’t express a vote, then there is no vote.
The phrase “votes cast” also is distinguished from votes not cast. So that just because someone has registered to vote, or been issued a ballot, doesn’t mean they are included in the count for “votes cast.”
The CEC’s reading makes every ballot where the voter did not express an opinion on the legislative initiatives or the popular initiative a “no” vote. It seems wrong for the CEC to vote for people.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in the Gutierrez v. Ada case that a vote is different than a ballot; that the vote cast in any election means the actual votes expressed on the issue at hand. The Guam Supreme Court also separately decided that when people don’t vote, over-vote, or mis-vote, there is no clear expression of their intent and those are not “votes cast.”
The U.S. Supreme Court case is persuasive but not binding authority. The Guam Supreme Court case is also helpful. Our CNMI Supreme Court could read our CNMI Constitution differently. But it is bound by the same rules of construction and the same guiding principals as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Guam Court.
The issue of what is a vote cast is a legal question, not a political question. It needs to be decided by the courts.
JANE MACK
San Vicente, Saipan
Comments
It would be a bad idea to submit a blank ballot for the run-off election. The P.L. 16-43 which sets the run-off election has different language than the initiatives. It applies to \"votes cast and counted in that election.\" Different phrases can logically be read differently by the CEC.
Vote in the run-off. Choose between the two candidates.
Then watch how swift CEC will change their way of reading the law.