Opinion ID: 773211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Constitutionally Protected Right to Vote

Text: 21 We agree with the CNMI Supreme Court that the right at issue here is the constitutionally protected right to vote, and that the Superior Court went astray by focusing on the procedures as set forth in the regulations, as opposed to Appellee's fundamental rights. Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that the right to vote was afundamental political right. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.E.d. 220(1886). Because our democracy was founded on the principle that the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964), our courts vehemently protect every citizen's right to vote, carefully and meticulously scrutinizing any alleged infringement. 22 In addition to being guaranteed the right to vote, every United States citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction. Dunn, 405 U.S. at 336. 23 Despite the strength of the Constitution's protection of this right, the United States Supreme Court has held that restrictions may be placed on the right to vote so long asno dis crimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965) (citation omitted). Thus, if a State imposes regulations that disenfranchise voters, the regulations must beappropriately defined and uniformly applied. Dunn , 405 U.S. at 343. In addition, the State must be pursuing an important interest, [and] cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Id. 24 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees each and every person that they will not be denied their fundamental rights --including the right to vote -- in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. In addition to protecting the exercise of federal constitutional rights, the Equal Protection Clause also prevents violations of rights guaranteed to the people by state governments -- including the government of CNMI. The CNMI Constitution provides CNMI residents not only the right to vote but the right to vote by secret ballot. VII N. Mar. I. Code §§ 1 (1997); I N. Mar. I Code §§ 6411. Thus, any restrictions placed on those rights must be scrutinized under the Equal Protection Clause. As the Supreme Court of the United States has held, if a challenged statute grants the right to vote to some citizens and denies the franchise to others,`the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.'  Dunn , 405 U.S. at 337 (quoting Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15 , 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969)). Therefore, the constitutional question presented here is whether the Equal Protection Clause . . . per mits a State to discriminate . . . among its citizens based on who challenged their voter eligibility. Id. at 335, 92 S.Ct. 995. Phrased differently, we must determine whether the voter challenge pro cedures adopted by the Board are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate. Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530 (2000).