What should be done with the draft V.I. constitution now before the U.S. Congress? That question was discussed, sometimes heatedly, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Insular Affairs Wednesday in Washington, D.C.
In a sense, the document presents a Rubik’s cube of possibilities. Congress has three options: 1) send it back approved to the islands, as is; or 2) send it back amended; or 3) reject it. By not doing anything, Congress, in effect, approves it.
If either of the first two options occur, people in the territory can reject it (and start the process all over again); or accept it, in either the original, or amended, form.
If it is adopted in the original (i.e., current) form, then a variety of problems sensed by the document’s critics would surely lead to court action, with unpredictable results.
A key problem, in the eyes of the document’s critics, are the special rights provided for two classes of people:
1) "Ancestral Native Virgin Islander(s)… a person born… in the Virgin Islands… prior to June 28, 1932 … and his/her descendants"; and
2) "Native Virgin Islander(s)… a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932 and their descendants."
Members of the first class, and their heirs, will never have to pay a property tax. Only members of the first and second class can be elected governor, lieutenant governor and some other designated offices.
The U.S. Justice Department has weighed in on the debate, with the support of the White House, and said that these provisions are unconstitutional; and if they are adopted the department will, the implications is, sue. Justice sees some other major problems with the document as well.
So what should be done with the document? Four members of the House were present to ponder this question. Throughout the hearing the presiding officer was Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D–Guam), and sitting by her side was Delegate Donna Christensen (D–V.I.). Popping in and out of the long hearing were Alaska Congressman Don Young (R), representing what used to be a territory; and Pedro Pierluisi (D–P.R.), that island’s resident commissioner.
Gov. John deJongh Jr. was firm in his stand: the draft constitution is seriously flawed, but it should not be altered by Congress. It should be returned to the territory, where he expects that the people will reject it.
The president of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, Gerald Luz James II, and three of his fellow delegates to the convention, were equally firm. They said that Congress should leave the document alone, despite the Justice Department statements, and that the voters of the islands should adopt the constitution. The three delegates to the constitutional convention who testified agreeing, generally, with James were Adelbert Bryan, Gerald Marlow Emanuel, and Lois Hassell-Habtes. All three were part of the two-thirds majority of the constitutional convention that had voted for the draft document.
Two other convention delegates, Douglas Brady and Eugene Peterson, who were among those not voting for the document, had a different point of view. They stated that Congress should amend the draft by eliminating many of the elements the Justice Department found objectionable, and then Congress should send the amended constitution back to the islands, where it should be approved by the voters.
Congressman Young, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, asked those testifying what was the point in sending back to them a document that contained so many problems. He did not specify what he thought should be done.
Bordallo, who said that she had worked with similar problems on a Guam Constitutional Convention years ago, provided yet another bit of advice: "put your foot in the door" and fix it later, if need be.
Both Christensen and Pierluisi said that they were conflicted: that they wanted the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands to create their own constitution, but they wanted it to be in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
"It is my hope," Christensen said, "that this fifth attempt at drafting a constitution for the U.S. Virgin Islands – amended or not by us or amended or not by a reconvened convention – will pass muster with the people of the Virgin Islands and that we will have our own constitution at long last."
In response to questions from the chair, U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan G. Cedarbaum said that spelling out the characteristics of the Ancestral and Native Born Virgin Islanders in the document did not create any problems as long as no special rights were given to them. He also predicted that if the constitution were to pass in its current form it would automatically lead to a judicial controversy.
As one of the delegates pointed out, no matter what the House of Representatives did with the document, the Senate would also have to make a decision about it.
Also testifying was Senator Usie R. Richards, Minority Leader of the V.I. Legislature. His position was that the Congress should leave the document alone and let the people of the territory vote on it.
