Don’t Write Plymouth’s History by Ancestry

Anastasia Boden & Laura D’Agostino:

The government wants to ensure that Native voices are heard in decisions about the town’s historic resources. But the Constitution subjects race or ancestry quotas to an extraordinarily high level of judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said bloodline mandates are permissible only in a narrow set of circumstances, like remedying specific instances of government discrimination, and that general appeals to diversity or inclusion aren’t enough.

Some might object that tribal membership is a political, not racial, classification. There are circumstances in federal Indian law where that is true. Congress has constitutional authority in its government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes.

But Plymouth isn’t Congress, and a municipal historical commission isn’t administering federal Indian affairs. When localities decide who may serve on a public board, they’re offering residents the opportunity to participate in local government. Under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, they must do so without regard to bloodline.