U.S. Territorial Residents’ Right to Vote for the Federal Representatives

Eun Joo Chun
{"title":"U.S. Territorial Residents’ Right to Vote for the Federal Representatives","authors":"Eun Joo Chun","doi":"10.24324/kiacl.2022.28.3.99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States is a federal state, which means the Federal Constitution distributes legislative and executive power between the federal government and the state governments. In this regard, the Federal Constitution states that the right of election for the members of the House of Senate and the House of Representative, as well as the President and the Vice President is vested in each states. The electoral college system is a result of the constitutional determination, and its premise is the citizens of the United States are primarily the members of each states. However, this very design has created an alignation of the U.S. territory residents. Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Samoa, etc, are not states according to the Federal Constitution, therefore their residents are not subject to the right to vote for the federal representatives. Futhermore residents who were originally residents of a state but have moved to a U.S. territory are also deprived of such right, for they are no longer members of any state. \nThe denial of the right to vote on federal level for the U.S. territory residents is largely supported by the decisions of the U.S. federal and district courts. The “Insular Cases” set up “Incorporation Doctrine”, which situated the right to vote as artificial or remedial right. Throughout the 20th century, the right to vote has clearly been considered as the fundamental right, yet the territorial residents’ right to vote for the federal representatives has taken as a privilege that can be neglected. Particularly, the issue of violation of equal protection on the matter of territorial residents who originally resided in a state, has consistently been ignored, as the courts overlooked the inherent legislative flaw of UOCAVA. \nThe denial of the territorial residents’ right to vote for the federal representatives is problematic on two levels. For one, it contradicts the interpretation of the U.S Supreme Court on the right to vote, thus threatening its legitimacy. On another note, the territorial residents become repudiated as second class citizens, which leads to the negligence of the federal government’s duty to create an environment where all members are equally respected, posing questions on the relevance of the institution.","PeriodicalId":322578,"journal":{"name":"Korean Association of International Association of Constitutional Law","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Association of International Association of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24324/kiacl.2022.28.3.99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United States is a federal state, which means the Federal Constitution distributes legislative and executive power between the federal government and the state governments. In this regard, the Federal Constitution states that the right of election for the members of the House of Senate and the House of Representative, as well as the President and the Vice President is vested in each states. The electoral college system is a result of the constitutional determination, and its premise is the citizens of the United States are primarily the members of each states. However, this very design has created an alignation of the U.S. territory residents. Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Samoa, etc, are not states according to the Federal Constitution, therefore their residents are not subject to the right to vote for the federal representatives. Futhermore residents who were originally residents of a state but have moved to a U.S. territory are also deprived of such right, for they are no longer members of any state. The denial of the right to vote on federal level for the U.S. territory residents is largely supported by the decisions of the U.S. federal and district courts. The “Insular Cases” set up “Incorporation Doctrine”, which situated the right to vote as artificial or remedial right. Throughout the 20th century, the right to vote has clearly been considered as the fundamental right, yet the territorial residents’ right to vote for the federal representatives has taken as a privilege that can be neglected. Particularly, the issue of violation of equal protection on the matter of territorial residents who originally resided in a state, has consistently been ignored, as the courts overlooked the inherent legislative flaw of UOCAVA. The denial of the territorial residents’ right to vote for the federal representatives is problematic on two levels. For one, it contradicts the interpretation of the U.S Supreme Court on the right to vote, thus threatening its legitimacy. On another note, the territorial residents become repudiated as second class citizens, which leads to the negligence of the federal government’s duty to create an environment where all members are equally respected, posing questions on the relevance of the institution.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国领土居民选举联邦代表的权利
美国是一个联邦制国家,这意味着联邦宪法在联邦政府和州政府之间分配立法权和行政权。在这方面,《联邦宪法》规定,参议院和众议院议员以及总统和副总统的选举权属于各州。选举团制度是宪法决定的结果,其前提是美国公民主要是各州的成员。然而,这种设计创造了美国领土居民的排列。关岛、波多黎各、维尔京群岛、北马里亚纳群岛、萨摩亚等根据《联邦宪法》不是州,因此其居民没有投票选举联邦代表的权利。此外,原本是某个州的居民,但已移居美国领土的居民也被剥夺了这种权利,因为他们不再是任何州的成员。剥夺美国领土居民在联邦层面的投票权,在很大程度上得到了美国联邦和地区法院判决的支持。“孤岛案”确立了“公司主义”,将投票权定位为人为的或补救的权利。在整个20世纪,选举权显然被视为一项基本权利,但领土居民选举联邦代表的权利却被视为一项可以忽视的特权。特别是,违反原来居住在一个国家的领土居民的平等保护问题一直被忽视,因为法院忽视了《公约》固有的立法缺陷。剥夺领土居民投票选举联邦代表的权利在两个层面上存在问题。首先,它与美国大法院关于投票权的解释相矛盾,因此威胁到它的合法性。另一方面,领土居民被视为二等公民,这导致联邦政府忽视了创造一个所有成员都受到平等尊重的环境的责任,对该制度的相关性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Crisis of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and its Constitutional Implication Political Party Clause of the Korean Constitution: De Constitutione Ferenda A study on State Surveillance of Telecommunications in Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights Constitutional review of invalidation of election due to election crimes by others Critical Review of Substantive Due Process of Law: Discussion on the Necessity of Substantive Due Process of Law in the Korean Constitution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1