Three federal judges in the Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments on Monday in the Borja v. Nago case, a federal lawsuit challenging discriminatory federal and state overseas voting laws in order to expand voting rights in U.S. territories. The laws in question permit former residents of Hawaii or other states who live in a foreign country or the Northern Mariana Islands to vote for President by absentee ballot in their former state of residence. However, former residents who live in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or other territories are denied this right. The plaintiffs argue that this discrepancy violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The hearing was an appeal of a 2022 district court decision that denied their claims.
Benny Borja, a Navy veteran and the lead plaintiff in the case, was unable to join the arguments in person due to his recovery from open heart surgery. However, he expressed his hope that the court would recognize voting as a fundamental right for all U.S. citizens, stating, I served my country, I deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., Judge Richard A. Paez, and Judge Lucy H. Koh, will issue their decision in the coming months.
The plaintiffs in the Borja case are represented by attorneys from different U.S. territories. Neil Weare, co-counsel in the case and co-director of Right to Democracy, emphasized the need for equal legal standards for voting in U.S. territories, stating, Discrimination of the right to vote should not be permitted just because it happens to affect people in U.S. territories. Vanessa Williams, a Guam attorney present at the hearing, argued that such voting discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.
This lawsuit is part of a broader effort by Right to Democracy to promote democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories.
The Borja v. Nago case challenges voting laws that deprive former residents in certain U.S. territories of the right to vote for President by absentee ballot, while allowing it for former residents in other locations. This discrepancy raises concerns of unequal treatment and a potential violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The outcome of the Ninth Circuit’s decision will have significant implications for voting rights in U.S. territories and may help establish consistent legal standards for voting across the country.
