I can make words appear on this page!

Assuming the recitation of facts in Rice v. Cayetano is accurate, this John Fund op-ed is very misleading. The op-ed briefly mentions the case, which is about a restriction on the eligible electorate for trustees to state operated trust dedicated to the benefit of native Hawaiians (broadly defined). To overly-simplify, prior to the case there was a law limiting the class of people who could vote for trustees to the same class of people who trust was meant to benefit. This law was struck down as a race-based voting restriction.

The op-ed discusses developments in Hawaii and now in the Senate, relating to the after-effects of that ruling and an attempt to mitigate them.

If I have reason to believe that there is some person who has both read this post and is interested in why I think the Op-Ed misleading, I'll happily explain.

(found out about the Op-Ed via—I can't believe I'm admitting this in the first post back from a long, unannounced break—Glenn Reynolds)