Source: http://big09.angelfire.com/AkakaHistStartJan1of2012.html
Timestamp: 2014-04-24 13:31:46
Document Index: 4821772

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1']

History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) from January 1, 2012 to August 2, 2012. Linda Lingle, likely Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and Ed Case, former Congressman running for the Democrat nomination for Senate, both publicize their strong support for ethnic Hawaiian racial entitlements in general and for the Akaka bill in particular. Rep Tom Cole (R,OK), an enrolled member of an Indian tribe and cosponsor of Akaka bill, speaks at Lingle fundraisers in Hawaii. July 20: A ceremony at Liliuokalani's home kicked off a year-long process to recruit ethnic Hawaiians to sign up on a racial registry organized under Act 195 of the 2011 legislature. Close Ad
History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) from January 1, 2012 to August 2, 2012. Linda Lingle, likely Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and Ed Case, former Congressman running for the Democrat nomination for Senate, both publicize their strong support for ethnic Hawaiian racial entitlements in general and for the Akaka bill in particular. Rep Tom Cole (R,OK), an enrolled member of an Indian tribe and cosponsor of Akaka bill, speaks at Lingle fundraisers in Hawaii. July 20: A ceremony at Liliuokalani's home kicked off a year-long process to recruit ethnic Hawaiians to sign up on a racial registry organized under Act 195 of the 2011 legislature. INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES; FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM IS BELOW THE INDEX IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
January 1, 2012: State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs monthly newspaper report on speeches made at the "State of OHA" annual meeting emphasizes OHA's continuing efforts to pass the Akaka bill and to implement state Act 195 [a state clone of the federal Akaka bill].
Jan 3: Senator Inouye tells constituents "I am very disappointed to report that I was compelled to give up our recognition provision at the end of the Conference [on omnibus spending bill in December 2011]." Inouye said that the Republicans who opposed the Akaka Bill would have demanded "anti-environmental" provisions that would have "set back our nation's air and water protections for many years" in exchange for federal recognition. Inouye also said he will "continue to fight" for the Akaka Bill's passage. Jan 9: Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper article says that in view of longtime Congressional inaction on the Akaka bill, OHA is hoping the Bureau of Indian Affairs will grant administrative recognition to the Hawaiian tribe; comment by Ken Conklin shows that cannot happen if BIA follows the law, because "Native Hawaiians fail to meet the requirements laid out in 25 CFR 83.7.
Jan 11: Former Governor Lingle, Republican, running for the U.S. Senate, trumpets her bipartisanship and her ability to get her fellow Republicans in the U.S. Senate to support the Akaka bill (she takes credit for getting a few Republican Senators to co-sponsor the bill in previous years).
Jan 13: John Fund, Wall Street Journal columnist, says Akaka bill is dead and notes that community activists persuaded Senate Republicans to block it despite near-unanimous support for Akaka bill by Hawaii politicians.
Jan 20: Malia Hill, of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, published Part 1 of a 2-part brochure describing the Akaka bill and its dangers for Hawaii's economic and social environment. Part 2 was published February 24. The two parts are consolidated for this website at February 24.
Jan 22: Major article in Honolulu Star-Advertiser describes how the Act 195 roll commission is working to reach out to enroll ethnic Hawaiians throughout America, how this effort facilitates the Akaka bill, and how OHA will eventually turn over its assets to the Act 195 tribe (including the $200 Million Kakaako land settlement being proposed in the legislature). Jan 26: Once again, in 2010 Hawaii state and county government agencies spent far more money lobbying in Washington D.C. than private companies did, according to 2011 U.S. Senate lobbyist disclosure reports. The two biggest spenders were OHA pushing the Akaka bill, and the Honolulu rail project seeking federal funding.
February 24: Malia Hill, of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, published Part 2 of a 2-part brochure describing the Akaka bill and its dangers for Hawaii's economic and social environment. Part 1 was published January 20. The two parts are consolidated for this website at February 24. April 1: OHA trustee Peter Apo uses OHA monthly newspaper to publish a summary of an article by a professor of law at the University of Guam: "International law and federal recognition of the Hawaiian nation" The article rejects the Akaka bill but favors using the United Nations process for decolonization.
April 6: Honolulu Star-Advertiser publishes a lengthy interview with former Governor John Waihee, who now heads the legislature-created commission to build a roll of members for the Native Hawaiian tribe created under Act 195. Waihee makes it very clear that this is about restoring the never-relinquished sovereignty of the nation of Hawaii, and he describes a future political entity where only people with Hawaiian blood have voting rights but everybody else who wants to help can also sign up.
April 18: International Business Times lengthy article describes Akaka bill, supporters and opponents. "It is unlikely that the bill will be passed before Akaka's retirement, and it is uncertain if it will be reintroduced in his absence next year. In the event that the Akaka Bill leaves with its author, Native Hawaiian concerns will fall even further by the wayside in Washington politics."
April 28: The Maui News publishes a puff piece touting Esther Kia'aina, candidate in the Democrat primary for Hawaii 2nd Congressional district. The main plank in her platform is to push the Akaka bill, which she would be the best candidate to do, on account of her experience during 17 years as legislative assistant to Senator Akaka, and chief of staff to Congressman Ed Case and to Guam Territorial Delegate Robert Underwood. She has also worked as land asset manager for Kamehameha Schools, and chief advocate for OHA.
May 2012 monthly publications: (1) May issue of the University of Hawaii Law School student publication Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal has a major article by two recent graduates defending the Akaka bill and the right of Congress to grant federal recognition to a group based on genealogical descent alone, in rebuttal to an article published two years previously in the same journal. Links to download both articles are provided.; (2) Jere Krischel article lamenting how the racial separatism of the Akaka bill violates America's founding motto "E Pluribus Unum"; (3) Elaine Willman "Trends in Federal Indian Policy and Common Law" says America is now at a crisis point where major trends are converging to force a sudden major change in federal Indian policy; (4) Elaine Willman "When in the Course of Human Events it Becomes Necessary" says the racial separatism of the Akaka bill fits right in with the racial separatism of the Hispanic "Aztlan" movement and the Islamist communities using condominium law to try to operate under Islamic law.
May 8 and 15: Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, former Governor Linda Lingle, will hold fundraisers in Honolulu and Kona, focused on her support for the Akaka bill, featuring guest speaker Rep. Tom Cole (R,OK), the only enrolled member of an Indian tribe serving in Congress, who has been a co-sponsor of the Akaka bill throughout his 10 years in Congress.
May 16: Richard Rowland, President of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, says the Akaka bill would cause poverty for Native Hawaiians, like what is found on Indian reservations.
May 19: (1) Retired General Robert Lee, Linda Lingle's campaign manager, deplores Democrat attacks on Rep. Tom Cole (R,OK) who is joining Lingle's campaign fundraisers in Hawaii as a speaker in support of Akaka bill; (2) Ed Case, former member of Congress running for the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate, publishes a major statement describing 10 principles all focused on his strong support for Hawaiian racial entitlements in general and the Akaka bill in particular
May 20: (1) Derrick DePledge, Honolulu Star-Advertiser reporter, publishes article devoted entirely to summarizing the positions on the Akaka bill by all the Hawaii candidates for U.S. Senate; (2) Keith Rollman, campaign manager for Senate candidate John Carroll, publishes online comment to DePledge article providing entirety of what Carroll sent to DePledge including Carroll's position supporting Hawaiian racial entitlements (especially the Hawaiian Homelands), presumably to make it clear that Carroll's opposition to Akaka bill does not make him "anti-Hawaiian"; (3) DePledge posts an online entry in his newspaper blog saying that Akaka/Inouye will likely try to attach Akaka bill to a spending bill requiring only 51 votes to pass in order to avoid a cloture fight on a free-standing bill, which would require 60 votes; and DePledge provides text of Akaka's spokesman asserting that ethnic Hawaiians "remain the only federally recognized indigenous people without a government-to-government relationship with the U.S."; (4) Ken Conklin's online comment points out the doublespeak self-contradiction in what the Akaka spokesman said. May 21: TV news report about Senate candidate Linda Lingle speaking about the Akaka bill at campaign fundraiser in Kona (Hawaii Island), accompanied by Congressman Tom Cole (R,OK) who is a cosponsor of it.
May 24: (1) Congressman Tom Cole (R,OK), at a campaign fundraiser for Linda Lingle in Honolulu on May 23, severely criticized his fellow Republicans in the House and Senate for blocking the Akaka bill.; (2) John Carroll, candidate for U.S. Senate in the Republican primary, criticizes Tom Cole and Linda Lingle, pointing out the racial divisiveness of the Akaka bill and the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii proclamation that all people are of one blood.
May 25: Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, criticizes Cole/Lingle for making personal attacks on Akaka bill opponents rather than discussing the fundamental issues.
May 27: Letter to editor (Memorial Day weekend) says "The Hawaiian people want their sovereignty just as much as the American colonialists wanted their independence from Great Britain, but they want to achieve it in a peaceful manner."
June 1, 2012: A play sympathetic to the push for race-based Hawaiian sovereignty was produced 15 years ago and is now being performed again throughout the month of June.
June 30: Former Governor Lingle, running for U.S. Senate, issues a press release expressing joy that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the Corboy lawsuit regarding race-based property tax waivers on Hawaiian homelands leases. Lingle promises to work to pass the Akaka bill as a way to put an end to such lawsuits.
July 1, 2012: OHA trustee Peter Apo says he is sympathetic to the Hawaiian independence activists who think the Akaka bill will yield a condition of being under house arrest but free to rearrange the furniture; however, he believes the United Nations is totally impotent to restore true sovereignty. July 13: Televised debate among 4 leading candidates for Congress for Hawaii's second district has all 4 supporting Akaka bill. One candidate is Esther Kia'aina, who works as public spokesperson for OHA and previously served as staffer for Senator Akaka, Representative Ed Case, and Guam Representative Robert Underwood. She helped push through the Apology Resolution in 1993.
July 20-25: Numerous newspaper and TV stations published news reports about Kana'iolowalu -- the process begun on July 20 whereby the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, created under SB1520=Act195 of the 2011 legislature, will take one year to recruit ethnic Hawaiians to sign up for the racial registry.
August 1, 2012: Peter Apo, OHA trustee, has part 2 of his essay in the OHA monthly newspaper regarding what happens next with federal recognition for ethnic Hawaiians.
http://www.oha.org/kwo/2012/01/KWO1201web.pdf
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], January 2012, pp. 14-17
Mana'o Ho'oulu Lahui Aloha -- Envisioning the growth of our beloved nation
** Excerpts related to the Akaka bill and/or Hawaii Act 195
Native Hawaiians are urged to stand firm � and stand together � moving into what could be a pivotal year in the community's history. Roughly 400 people attended the State of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ceremony at St. Andrew's Cathedral on Dec. 14, where speakers offered heartfelt and inspiring reflections and set the stage for the coming year.
Thunderous applause filled the cathedral as OHA Trustee Colette Machado made an impassioned call for unity. "Today's our day to 'onipa'a, to move together in all that we can do so that we can restore a government that our
children and the generations to follow don't need to lament over (past wrongs)," she said. "And I stand here in front of all of you, asking all of you
to lay your weapons down, lay your spears down, and embrace with aloha."
OHA will continue to work to achieve federal recognition in Congress, where passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, or the Akaka bill, would allow Native Hawaiians to establish a sovereign governing
entity, Machado said in prepared remarks handed out to attendees.
Referring to Queen Lili'uokalani, the Hawaiian Kingdom's last monarch, Machado said that from the trove of music and written words the Queen left behind are two sentences that "hits hard in my na'au." Those words are: "I could not turn back the time for political change, but there is still time to save our heritage. You must remember never to cease to act because you fear you may fail," she said, quoting the Queen.
Former Gov. John Waihe'e III followed Machado with a powerful keynote address. Waihe'e, Hawai'i's first Native Hawaiian governor, is Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, which is tasked with preparing and certifying a roll of Native Hawaiians qualified to participate in nation building.
The five-member commission was created over the summer with the signing of Act 195, a state law recognizing Native Hawaiians as the sole indigenous people of Hawai'i. ... He pointed to the growing number of schools for Native Hawaiian children as a sign of progress. "We have reawakened a nation and it will never be put back to sleep again," he said. Hawaiians must stand united to make sure they preserve the rights they have as they move toward
self-determination and reunification. "Today, perhaps because of how far we've come, we are being besieged on all sides," he said. Hawaiian rights are being threatened, and cherished institutions challenged, he warned.
Waihe'e said Hawaiian recognition by the state simply reaffirmed what Native Hawaiians already knew. "What we as a commission are committed to, and why we are committed to the work ahead, is we believe that we will lay the foundation for the restoration of Native Hawaiians' self-[determination].
Here is the full text of Chairperson Machado's prepared remarks for the 2011 State of OHA: [excerpts relevant to the Akaka bill and/or Hawaii Act 195]
... I would like us to reflect upon this theme shared with us by master kumu hula and cultural and spiritual leader Dr. Pualani Kanaka'ole Kanahele. Here is Hawai'i, he moku, he kanaka. As K�naka '�iwi, we are Hawai'i and Hawai'i is us. Our islands, our way of life and our K�naka '�iwi are truly unique. ... If we keep connected with our ancestral foundation, we will build a strong sovereign governing entity which will be embraced by all of our people.
Since the Rice v. Cayetano decision, the system of law out of which OHA was created has been invoked in numerous lawsuits aimed at preventing OHA, the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and our Ali'i Trusts from providing services to K�naka '�iwi. OHA's primary strategy to protect all of these Native Hawaiian organizations and the services that we provide has been the passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, or the Akaka bill.
OHA spent 10 years pursuing the passage of the Akaka bill and dealt with multiple obstacles along every step of that path. We will not give up. We are committed to gaining federal protection of K�naka '�iwi rights. Within the last year, OHA has started to open up alternate legislative and executive routes in coordination with Sen. Daniel Akaka, Sen. Daniel Inouye and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. President Barack Obama is a strong partner in this effort. OHA will aggressively pursue these legislative and executive paths throughout the next year.
Here at home, the Hawai'i State Legislature took the initiative, with the support of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, to pass Act 195, which states, "The Native Hawaiian people are hereby recognized as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people of Hawai'i." This provides a solid foundation for the State of Hawai'i to stand with OHA against any future challenges to Native Hawaiian
entitlements. It also bolsters OHA's federal strategy by sending a clear message to the federal government to endorse the recognition of K�naka '�iwi as the indigenous people of Hawai'i. The appointment of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission by Governor Abercrombie under Act 195 opened a pathway toward the re-establishment of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. OHA is an active partner in this process, providing financial and administrative support. We are fortunate that former Gov. John Waihe'e III is leading this effort and we are honored that he will present today's keynote address.
I call upon the leaders and members of our communities and organizations to unite around this process. For myself, I support this as the best last chance
for my generation to deliver the sovereign governing entity for our "L�hui Aloha." ...
http://dc808.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/15261644103/inouye-very-disappointed-about-akaka-bill
Honolulu Civil Beat, January 3, 2012
Blog entry by Adrienne LaFrance
Inouye 'Very Disappointed' About Akaka Bill
Sen. Daniel Inouye sent an email wishing his constituents hauoli makahiki hou on Tuesday, and reflecting upon much of his work as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in recent weeks. While Inouye described his committee's successes, he also wrote of the "fiscal and political limitations" he faced in 2011.
"One such limitation I found particularly disappointing was that I was unable to attain federal recognition for Native Hawaiians�the Akaka Bill�" Inouye wrote. "I am very disappointed to report that I was compelled to give up our recognition provision at the end of the Conference."
Inouye said that the Republicans who opposed the Akaka Bill would have demanded "anti-environmental" provisions that would have "set back our nation's air and water protections for many years" in exchange for federal recognition. Inouye also said he will "continue to fight" for the Akaka Bill's passage. --------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/01/09/14361-federal-recognition-for-native-hawaiians-could-come-via-interior-dept/
Honolulu Civil Beat, January 9, 2012
Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians Could Come Via Interior Dept
Frustrated with a 10-year congressional fight to obtain federal recognition and form a nation-within-a-nation government, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has decided to follow a path that has led several American Indian tribes to success.
OHA is not giving up on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, known as the Akaka bill.
But faced with the reality that U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, for whom the bill is named, is retiring after this year and that the political environment in Washington, D.C., is as polarized as it has ever been, OHA and Hawaii's delegation having been exploring other routes.
One of those would bypass Congress altogether and seek recognition from the U.S. Department of the Interior, a process used by Native American tribes.
"It is possible that Hawaiians could achieve recognition through an alternate route � alternate from the legislative route," said Clyde Namuo, OHA's longtime CEO until he retired Dec. 30. "It would not require congressional approval, but you would need to convince the Secretary of the Interior that they have the authority to do it. And we believe that there is adequate precedence to establish that you can do it."
Native American tribes can be recognized through a federal acknowledgment process. The problem, according to Namuo, is that the process applies only to Alaska and the Lower 48 states.
"The rules never changed to include Hawaii," he said. "So we are not permitted to apply under that law."
But OHA has learned through its research consultants that there have been four separate incidents where the Interior Department did recognize tribes outside the acknowledgment process.
The key, said Namuo, is having an Interior secretary and U.S. president who are sympathetic toward Hawaiian recognition � something OHA believes is the case with Secretary Ken Salazar and President Barack Obama.
"You need the stars to align," said Namuo, who explained that Interior recognition may have to wait until after the elections this year. "Even if they acknowledge that they have the authority, they are still going to want to go through a process. And that's why the state roll commission is critical."
Namuo is referring to the state legislation, signed into law by Gov. Neil Abercrombie in July, that recognizes Hawaiians as the state's indigenous population and establishes a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to begin a process of counting qualified Hawaiians who will form a new government.
"The Native Hawaiian governing entity is the entity that would apply to the Secretary of the Interior for recognition," said Namuo. "Without the entity, you wouldn't have that happen."
"The governing entity process can be done without any federal law," he said. "Sen. Inouye has said numerous times that you don't need a federal law to organize a Native Hawaiian community."
Unlike Native Americans, whose tribal structure and leadership have been intact for centuries, Hawaiians don't have a comparable leadership group in place that speaks for the Native Hawaiian community.
Namuo is careful to stress that OHA is a state agency that would be separate from a governing entity.
Though the roll commission, headed by former Gov. John Waihee, is administratively attached to OHA � OHA will fund its operations � it cannot effect policy.
Which isn't to say there aren't ties between OHA and the commission.
For example, Namuo said the names of 110,000 Hawaiians collected by OHA beginning in 2004 through a program called Kau Inoa � it means, roughly, to sign up or place names � could become the basis for a roll. Those registered for Kau Inoa would have to agree to let their names be used and to meet qualifying criteria set by the roll commission.
There are other connections between OHA and the roll commission: John Waihee IV, the former governor's son, is a current OHA trustee.
And, Namuo was named executive director of the commission, it was announced Thursday, on a volunteer basis. State law prohibits "retirees" from working for the state for one year after leaving their position.
"Gov. Waihee asked me, and I could not tell him no," said Namuo. "After all, Chair (Colette) Machado and I both urged Gov. Abercrombie to pick him as chair of the commission."
Half a Million Strong?
Machado said she is not giving up on the Akaka bill. But she describes the last decade as "10 years of yo-yos, up and down."
"I am hopeful, but if you look at the roll commission, it could potentially help shape a Hawaiian constitution," she said. "Excuse me if I'm pushy, but, you know the song 'Sonny's Been Waiting'?"
Machado is referring to a Henry Kapono song called "Broken Promise" about Sonny Alohalani Kaniho, who fought to get Hawaiians on Hawaiian home lands. It includes this refrain:
Sonny's been waiting / Sonny's been waiting his turn in line / Sonny's been waiting / Why should he wait until he dies?
Machado said the timeline for the Interior recognition is 18 months to two years. She gave Civil Beat sample copies of several Native American constitutions and bylaws, including Arizona's Hopi Tribe, which was recognized by Henry Ickes, the Interior Secretary in 1936.
Machado pointed to another Indian tribe as a model.
"The Navajo is the largest on the continent," she said. "We have over 500,000 Hawaiians here and on the continent. We don't want to say this too loud, but we are larger than the Navajo."
** Online comment by Ken Conklin
OHA and its apologists, including Chad Blair, are getting desperate and flailing around to try to figure out some way -- any way -- to push forward on racial separatism for ethnic Hawaiians. Federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs is now getting hyped.
About 12 years ago I wrote a webpage "Indian Tribe Status for Kanaka Maoli?" at
A subpage is entitled "What Criteria Must Be Met for Federal Recognition of Tribal Status? Why Do Some Alleged Tribes Fail to Get Recognition?" at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/tribefederalrecognition.html
There are 7 mandatory criteria for tribal recognition, which can be found in 25 CFR 83.7 (the federal equivalent of the Hawaii Revised Statutes). My webpage describes those seven criteria. It's very clear that the "Hawaiian Tribe" fails to meet most of them. Failing to meet even just one of them means that a so-called tribe cannot be recognized.
The most obvious items where the "Hawaiian tribe" fails to be a real tribe have nothing to do with Chad Blair's explanation that only mainland and Alaskan tribes are eligible. These reasons are not mere "technicalities" like that. These are very obvious, commonsense concepts of what a "tribe" should look like. A tribe is a group of people who have always lived separate and apart from surrounding non-native communities, with its own laws and religion separate and distinct from those non-native communities; a tribe has always had its own government which has maintained significant authority over its members from before European contact continuously through the present
25 CFR 83.7 requires "A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present." But ethnic Hawaiians are thoroughly assimilated in the larger community of all Hawaii residents, intermarried and dispersed throughout all neighborhoods and occupations.
25 CFR 83.7 requires "The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present." The "Hawaiian tribe" obviously fails on this one. Ethnic Hawaiians became citizens of the U.S. at annexation in 1898, 26 years before Indians were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924. Most importantly: there has NEVER been a government controlling all the Hawaiian islands where native Hawaiians were the only leaders and/or citizens of the government. The Kingdom of Hawaii was fully multiracial, with most of the cabinet officers and department heads being Caucasians, as well as many members of the legislature. Two wannabe tribes whose petition for federal recognition are identified in the webpage, and the reasons for their denial are described. Here are two more resources which I did not create, which Chad Blair and anyone else interested in this topic should explore:
U.S. Federally Non-Recognized Tribes: 226 federally non-recognized tribes are listed here. Updated 06/18/08. "Federally Non-Recognized Tribe" is defined as a formally organized entity that has: A. Applied for federal recognition and is not yet approved; or B. Previously recognized and recognition was rescinded; or C. Applied for federal recognition and was rejected.
http://www.manataka.org/page237.html Also: "State recognized tribes" are Native American Indian Tribes and Heritage Groups that are recognized by individual states for their various internal government purposes. "State recognition" confers limited benefits under federal law and is not the same as federal recognition, which is the federal government's acknowledgment of a tribe as a sovereign nation. However, in some states, state recognition has offered some protection of autonomy for tribes not recognized by the federal government. For example, in Connecticut, state law protects reservations and limited self-government rights for state-recognized tribes. See a heavily footnoted list of state recognized tribes which includes details of each group's quest for recognition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_recognized_tribes
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/557062/Lingle-says--if-elected--state-will-be-heard-in-Washington.html?nav=10
The Maui News, January 11, 2011
By ILIMA LOOMIS - Staff Writer
** Excerpts related to the Akaka bill
WAILUKU - Former Gov. Linda Lingle said Tuesday that she would work with members of both parties if elected to the U.S. Senate, but also said Hawaii would benefit from having a Republican in its congressional delegation.
Lingle said her relationships with Republican leaders would help the state continue to be heard in Washington, no matter which party is in power.
"The majority in the U.S. Senate goes back and forth. Sometimes the Republicans are in the majority, and sometimes the Democrats," she said. "We need to have a foot in both camps. It's not in Hawaii's interest to have a delegation that's all of one party."
The former governor stressed what she called a "definable track record" of bipartisanship, and said she would work across the aisle if elected to the Senate.
"I'm comfortable doing that because I've had to, being a Republican in a state that's so heavily Democrat," she said.
In addition to her local record, Lingle pointed to her efforts as governor reaching out to Republicans in Congress to gain their support for the Akaka Bill, which would have provided federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.
"Not everyone in the Republican Party felt the same way, but I was able to get Republicans to actually be co-sponsors," she said. "If I was elected, I would be able to get support, certainly for the Akaka Bill, which without Republican support I don't think has a chance to pass."
She also said she did not expect to have difficulty working with President Barack Obama, even though she campaigned against him in 2008, when she was supporting the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
"I think the president is like me, and that is, if it's good for the people, he's for it, and if it's good for the people, I'm for it," she said.
Looking at some of her administration's more controversial actions, which have re-emerged as statewide issues in the past weeks, Lingle said she didn't have second thoughts about her decision to veto a civil unions bill in the final months of her governorship.
A subsequent bill allowing civil unions, which was passed by the Legislature in 2011 and signed by Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie, took effect Jan. 1.
Lingle said she had told legislators during her administration that she would support civil unions as "something less than marriage," but that when the bill granted couples the same rights as marriage, she judged that it should be sent to voters for a referendum.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=44743
Hawaii Reporter, January 13, 2012
Akaka Bill is Dead, Honolulu Rail Could Be Too ...
John Fund, Fox News contributor and award winning writer for the Wall Street Journal, has been in Hawaii this week. In his interview on Hawaii Reporter Television, he offers an interesting analysis about Hawaii politics including the chances of survival for both the Akaka Bill and the Honolulu rail project.
Fund, who has written extensively on the Akaka Bill for the Wall Street Journal, said the federal legislation to recognize native Hawaiians as an Indian Tribe is "dead" because the current U.S. Senate has no plans to pass the legislation as it stands.
Killing the Akaka Bill is a good example of what a handful of citizens can do if they never give up and work together, Fund said, noting every politician in Hawaii except one (Sen. Sam Slom) supported the Akaka Bill, but citizens who were concerned about the intent of the legislation educated the U.S. Senate about the divisiveness it would cause among Hawaii's melting pot of ethnicities.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20120122_Hawaiians_native_cause_is_on_a_roll.html?id=137811068
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 22, 2012
Hawaiians' native cause is on a roll
A new state law propels efforts to enlist Hawaiians, here and on the mainland, toward a convention to create a governing entity
After a decade of futility in seeking congressional recognition of a Native Hawaiian government, a forceful effort is under way to obtain sovereignty in the eyes of the state.
The first step, approved by last year's Legislature, is to identify and count indigenous Hawaiians not only in the islands but across the mainland, and it will be no small task, said Clyde W. Namuo, who retired last month after 10 years as chief executive officer of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and now holds the same position at the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
Originally planned to start counting heads next year, the timeline has been accelerated at the urging of some OHA trustees and state legislators, Namuo said.
"I hope we can complete the job in two to four years -- the shorter the better," said former Gov. John Waihee, chairman of the five-member commission, with funding that Namuo estimated will range from $3 million to $5 million.
The commission expects to gather information about at least 500,000 Native Hawaiians, 280,000 who live in Hawaii and 220,000 on the continent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, the federal agency cannot provide the specific names or households.
The push for recognition surfaced in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the limitation of Native Hawaiians to vote for OHA board trustees because indigenous Hawaiians lacked the sovereignty Congress had given to American Indians and Alaska natives. U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka proposed Hawaiian sovereignty, but it ran into opposition in Congress time and again, especially among Republicans.
Optimism crested several years ago, though, when Hawaii's Republican Gov. Linda Lingle publicly supported the Akaka Bill; newly elected President Barack Obama, Hawaii's native son, entered the White House; and Democrats took control of both the Senate and House in 2009.
However, when changes to the bill were made, the Lingle administration balked. By the time further changes were made to regain the support of Lingle and her attorney general, Mark Bennett, time ran out, and Republicans gained a majority in the House two years ago.
"I know in the past when OHA has lobbied Congress to pass the Akaka Bill, it's been difficult for several reasons," Namuo said. "One is that you really don't have a Native Hawaiian government entity that represented Native Hawaiians, that spoke for Native Hawaiians. So when you went to lobby Congress, you had OHA but OHA is not an entity that was formed by that Native Hawaiian community; it's a government agency."
When an Indian tribe goes to Congress for recognition, it has tribal leaders that represent the tribe.
"That is absent in the Hawaiian community," he said. "That's something that the enrollment will begin -- that process of creating the government entity."
Creating that roll will require an extensive sweep of the country to put together a record of people who are at least 18 years old and can provide evidence that their ancestors resided in Hawaii in 1778, when Capt. James Cook discovered the islands. That could include birth certificates, baptismal records or marriage or death certificates.
Included in the survey will be contact with "kamaaina witnesses," those who will attest that someone is Hawaiian because they know the family and can attest to the person's validity.
Namuo said the Roll Commission, with offices connected to OHA, will ask the state agency for $3 million to $5 million to conduct the search. In some areas, that will require purchasing newspaper, radio and television advertisements urging Native Hawaiians on the mainland to provide information about themselves.
"There are census tracts that tell you roughly in a particular location how many Hawaiians live there," Namuo said.
For example, he said, a large pocket of Native Hawaiians is known to exist in Hayward, Calif., a San Francisco suburb. "That might be an area that might be worth looking at and running a newspaper ad."
However, he said, Texas, for example, may have 8,000 Native Hawaiians out of a population of several million. Taking out ads there would be wasteful, and other methods would be more efficient.
"There is a civic club (of Hawaiians) in Dallas, Texas," he said, "so you're probably better off working with Hawaiian clubs and organizations in those communities to determine where people gather.
"For example, if you go to Torrance, Calif., there'll be an L&L Drive-Inn, and L&L Drive-Inns are a gathering place for not only Native Hawaiians but also people who have lived in Hawaii," Namuo said.
L&L, originally confined to Hawaii, expanded to the mainland in 1999. Now, he said, "They're all over the place."
Some of the information, such as birth certificates, are confidential, but the birth certificate numbers will be noted on the roll form, which will be made public.
"If people believe that someone is not Native Hawaiian and ends up on the roll," Namuo said, "there's a potential challenge."
Last year's legislation is limited to creating the roll, but envisions that it will be followed by delegates being elected for a constitutional convention, the creation of "organic documents" and election of the entity's initial officers, Namuo said.
"Once you have the officers in place," he said, "then you are ready to seek recognition of the state of Hawaii for the Native Hawaiian government entity. That may take several years to do that," joining "various tribes" that have received state recognition.
At that point, all the assets of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could be transferred to the new entity, including 25 acres of state land at Kakaako that is proposed to be given to OHA. (That $200 million proposal to settle ceded-lands back claims is expected to be debated during this legislative session.) Even then, that would be the subject of negotiations between the state and the new entity, since OHA is a state agency.
If the Kakaako deal is sealed, it could be turned into a "land base," as critics have pointed out that the Native Hawaiian people are without a reservation; for most Native American tribes, reservations are where they reside.
"It could be," Namuo said about the land base concept. "Probably not, though. When people talk about land base, they're more interested in where people live. Kakaako would probably become much more a basis of wealth for the nation."
Some of the native tribes on the continent have gone on to negotiate recognition through a "federal acknowledgement process," not by Congress but by the U.S. interior secretary. However, that rule is restricted to the lower 48 states and Alaska. Congressional action would be needed to include Hawaii, but Republican opposition could surface for the same reason that the Akaka Bill was controversial. Also, that process has taken 10 to 20 years for other entities, Namuo said, because every member would be subject to a genealogical survey, tracing ancestry back to the original roll.
Outside that process, the interior secretary has recognized indigenous groups in "a few instances," he said, but that has been rare.
"The Akaka Bill would be the preferred act," Namuo said.
That bill is still lingering before Congress, but its chances for passage are considered longer than ever in a hyper-partisan Congress, split between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate.
In the meantime, Namuo said the priority is to spread the word that Native Hawaiians register in the roll.
"Everybody should know that it's going on," he said. "If they choose not to participate, that's their choice, but everyone should at least have the opportunity of knowing that it's going on. And then they can choose."
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=45170
Hawaii Reporter, January 26, 2012
Biggest [Hawaii] Spenders in Washington: Office Of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu Rapid Transit
BY JIM DOOLEY � Once again, Hawaii state and county government agencies spent far more money lobbying in Washington D.C. than private companies did, according to 2011 U.S. Senate lobbyist disclosure reports.
As has been the case in recent years, Honolulu's rapid transit agency, HART, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs laid out the biggest bucks to woo political support and budget appropriations from Congress and the executive branch.
But OHA's lobbying effort, which ballooned to $680,000 in 2005 and has totaled $3.6 million since 1999, dwindled to $160,000 last year as prospects for Congressional approval of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act have dimmed.
In the last three months of 2011, OHA's lobbying bill from Patton Boggs, its influential representative in Washington, shriveled to just $10,000, according to records filed with the U.S. Senate. The disclosure data can be accessed here:
The two Patton Boggs lobbyists listed as working on the OHA account were Thomas Boggs, a founder of the firm, and Darryl Nirenberg, a former high-level Republican staffer in the Senate.
As many as nine lobbyists were listed as working on the OHA account in earlier years.
The biggest Hawaii-based Washington spender last year was Infraconsult, a private company hired by the City to pursue federal backing of the $5.2 billion Honolulu rapid transit project.
Infraconsult paid $320,000 to Washington lobbyist Williams & Jensen for its work promoting the HART project. The same amount was spent on 2010 lobbying, which is principally handled by Washington insider Denis Dwyer.
Dwyer has been lobbying for Hawaii-based clients for decades and at one point in his career was a lobbyist for OHA.
He also was a partner with former Hawaii Gov. John Waihee in a lawfirm that lobbied Congress for Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate.
Since 2008, the City has matched OHA in Washington lobbying fees - $1.210,000 to $1,110,000, according the Senate data.
OHA spokesman Garrett Kamemoto said today the level of lobbying OHA will commission this year has not been set yet and is tied to the status of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which is commonly known as the Akaka bill.
The lobbying expenses reported on the U.S. Senate data base don't include extra spending by OHA to maintain an office in Washington.
Kamemoto said those expenses are running around $250,000 annually.
February 24, 2012: Malia Hill, of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, published Part 2 of a 2-part brochure describing the Akaka bill and its dangers for Hawaii's economic and social environment. Part 1 was published January 20. The two parts are consolidated for this website here, at February 24. http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/InPursuit_3.pdf
In Pursuit, No. 3, January 20, 2012
The Akaka Bill (Part 1)
Few issues have defined the last few decades in Hawaiian politics as completely as the Akaka Bill, or more formally, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. At most a fringe issue only a few decades ago, it has now grown to cast a lasting shadow over the state's social and political make-up, and will likely do so for decades to come.
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has long been a critic of the Akaka Bill in its various incarnations, not least because of the lack of consideration of the probable long-term results of its enactment. While none of us have a crystal ball that can reveal to us all of the consequences of any legislation, such a sweeping and transformative action as that envisioned by the Akaka Bill will undoubtedly leave a permanent mark on the state. In its capacity as a champion of small government and individual liberty, the Grassroot Institute has raised serious ques-tions about the wisdom of the many versions of Native Hawaiian Reorganization that have been proposed, and will continue to do so. However, it is incumbent upon us to lay out the basis of these objections and explain why we are so concerned about the Akaka Bill and its probable effect upon Hawaii, its people, and its economy.
What is the Akaka Bill?
The name "Akaka Bill" is something of a catch-all term for the various proposals for creation of a separate Native Hawaiian government, most generally along the lines of Native American tribal governments. Often known as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (or similar), the many different versions of the Akaka Bill have var-ied in their particulars (most especially when proposed with compromises meant to address the various objections to the Bill), but generally include at least: * The establishment of some form of sovereign government for the purpose of organizing/governing those defined as "Native Hawaiian." * Some attempt to address land transfer to a Native Hawaiian governing entity and the sub-sequent legal relationship between any Akaka-based government entity and the US government.
As can be expected with such a potentially complicated and sweeping item of legislation, many of the previous versions of the Akaka Bill addressed a number of related issues, from the question of whether a new Native Hawaiian government will be allowed to establish casinos to questions about immunity to local statutes.
What many people may not realize is that the creation of a Native Hawaiian government is not simply an "aid" program of sorts for Native Hawaiians. And, while they may have faint notions of the reservation system associated with Ameri-can Indian tribes, few have considered what the impact of a similar government in Hawaii might be.
There is, in addition to the federal legislative efefforts at creating a Native Hawaiian government, a Hawaii state version of the Akaka Bill, passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Abercrombie in 2011. At the time of its passage, the measure met with little fanfare, as it lacked the ability to confer federal recognition on any Native Hawaiian government, but did authorize a state agency (the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) to begin the creation of a "roll" of Native Hawaiians that would presumably be needed at some point in order to create a defined tribal/government membership.
In general (and due, no doubt to the unique historical considerations present at the time that the Republic of Hawaii became a U.S. territory), most versions of the Akaka Bill have stopped short of fully embracing the Native American tribal model. However, it should be noted that a recent iteration of the Akaka Bill, proposed as an add-on to an appropriations measure in October 2011 by Senator Inouye, lacked any of the previous versions' compromise measures and simply authorized the Secretary of the Interior to recognize Native Hawaiians as a federally-recognized Indian tribe, basing the tribe's membership on the aforementioned state legislation. It is worth noting that this is the most radical of the recent Akaka proposals, as it contained no provisions for future Congressional or state action to limit or define the reach of the newly created Native Hawaiian tribe. (For a further discussion of the implications of federal tribal status, please see Part 2 of this In Pursuit series, to be published on February 17th, 2012.)
Why is the creation of a Native Hawaiian tribe more complicated than other indigenous American groups? In part the question touches on the unique history and culture of Hawaii.
Historical Considerations and the Definition of "Native Hawaiian"
The history of Hawaii, from monarchy and republic to territory and statehood, has become infused with political bias and controversy -- a regrettable situation that has only intensified with the advance of the Akaka Bill. Because, while the Akaka Bill purports to create a Native Hawaiian Government in the mold of the American Indian tribes, one must acknowledge that there are significant historical differences between the two that undermine and confuse the rationale for Akaka's passage and necessity.
The most important difference to note is the fact that the sovereign Hawaiian government that became part of the United States was not (even during the time of the Monarchy) composed exclusively of those of ethnic Hawaiian descent. Hawaii then, as now, was a multi-ethnic melting pot, with
Chinese, Filipinos, Caucasians, and the like all able to claim that they were Hawaiians. Because much of the rationale for creating a Native Hawaiian Government revolves around the existence of a historical sovereign Hawaiian government, the fact that said government was not defined by bloodline or race is telling. It both undermines the claim that the Akaka Bill is anything other than a backdoor attempt at a racial entitlement program aimed at ethnic Native Hawaiians, and creates serious questions about attempts to define who should be eligible to participate in a new Native Hawaiian government.
Historical revisionists and Akaka die-hards might respond that the question is not so much the ethnic makeup of the citizenry of Hawaii at the time of annexation, but rather the manner of annexation and the fact that (prior to the overthrow of the monarchy), leadership of the Hawaiian government was firmly in the hands of Native Hawaiians. Yet this still ignores pertinent historical considerations. For one, annexation of Hawaii was not the simple "takeover" that many envision, but a carefully negotiated arrangement between the two governments that left Hawaii (and its citizens) with a series of rights and privileges that other territorial citizens might envy. The overthrow of the monarchy is another hotly debated issue (and for a full and fascinating account, I recommend Thurston Twigg-Smith's Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?, but one fact that cannot be ignored is that Native Hawaiians served on both sides of the overthrow, as did Caucasians and other non-Hawaiians (many of whom held prominent posi-tions within the Kingdom of Hawaii). Thus, any attempts to justify the Akaka Bill based on history is fundamentally flawed.
Moreover, history further demonstrates a serious difficulty in defining who should qualify as a "Native Hawaiian" for the purpose of participating in a new Native Hawaiian government. Even if we were to ignore historical precedent and define it purely by quantum of Native Hawaiian blood (a process that comes with its own constitutionality issues, see below), there still remains the question of "how much is enough" and who determines it. In the end, most proposals depend upon the creation of a board or committee that would be the arbiter of who is qualified to participate, which raises its own issues of ethics and influence. For example, several Native Hawaiian groups, disappointed with the way that other exclusive groups have managed the lucrative Native Hawaiian trusts, oppose leaving such power to the same insiders.
Currently, the likelihood is that any Native Hawai-ian Government created through the federal government will turn to the state legislation passed in 2011 to determine qualification to participate. That legislation empowered the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to begin to compile a roll of eligible Native Hawaiians through the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. The state legislation defines eligible Native Hawaiians as one who:
Is * An individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands, the area that now con-stitutes the state of Hawaii; or
* An individual who is one of the indigenous native people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, or a direct lineal descendent of that individual; * Has maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community and wishes to participate in the organization of the Native Hawaiian government entity; and * Is eighteen years of age or older.
As you can see, an effort has been made, though vaguely, to create a loophole by which this is not merely a race-based program. Still, this same loophole may cause more problems than it solves. By making the qualifications primarily about race, the definition process undermines the historical considerations that are supposed to justify Akaka. But a more historically accurate definition of who constitutes a "Hawaiian" would surely lose the political capital and influence of the bill's primary supporters and undermine the rationale for the Bill. Why is the issue of race so important? That is a question of civil rights, the U.S. Constitution, and the tangled history of the American Indian tribes in the U.S.
Civil Rights and Tribal Questions
Would you be surprised to hear that the United States Commission on Civil Rights opposes the Akaka Bill? It's true. A neutral, bipartisan organization charged with making recommendations on our nations' civil rights issues considered the Akaka Bill and determined that it was discriminatorily race-based. In fact, in recommending against passage of the 2005 version of the Akaka Bill, the Commission characterized it as, "legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."
As mentioned above, attempts to define who qualifies as Native Hawaiians are at the root of the race problem and Akaka. So long as it is primarily race-based it will run afoul of the strict scrutiny applied to any race-based legislation. And attempts to put Native Hawaiians on par with American Indian tribes ignore not only the historical differences between the tribes and the sovereign Hawaiian government, but also skip over the question of whether tribal status is even desirable for Hawaii and Native Hawaiians. The body of law regarding the treatment of everything from child custody to economic rights differs greatly when tribal status is invoked and poses a large and unheralded social danger for the state of Hawaii. Then there is the question of casino gaming and its proceeds, which cannot be overlooked in the context of tribal government. (Those who thought that gaming would be specifically prohibited under the Akaka Bill should note that the most recent version of the Bill contains no such bar.) So great (and overlooked) is this issue, that we will continue discussion of it at greater length in Part 2 of this paper (to be published in January 2012). For now, suffice it to say that few have truly considered the questions of jurisdiction, immunity, and law that would arise in the case of a Native Hawaiian government, including the creators of the legislation itself.
For a number of reasons, from its size to its isolation to its ethnic makeup, Hawaii has its own unique culture. We see the external hints to it in every conversation about "ohana" and "aloha spirit", but anyone who would deny that it is both real and valuable hasn't been to Newark lately. Hawaii's reputation as "paradise" is about more than just good weather and nice scenery. It's a statement on the people, the welcoming and inclusive culture, and the "feel" of the Islands. Thus, it is ironic that the effort to create a political entity to preserve Native Hawaiian culture has done so much destroy it in a practical sense.
Because that is what Akaka does. It creates division in a community that has traditionally been defined by its unity, and emphasizes race in a place that was previously proud of its heterogeneity. It wasn't long ago that one could happily tell a mainlander who asked about your home that you were "Hawaiian." Now, there is an inherent need to qualify and define that term -- a quandary not felt by New Yorkers, another proud island group full of many races. Passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act will only exacerbate the problem. It will literally divide families. Add in concerns about different treatment under the law, economic issues, and other questions of race-based preference, and you have all the ingredients for an increasingly fractured and fractious society. There may be no surer route to destroying the character of the Islands than through passage of the Akaka Bill.
The funny thing about evaluating the economic impact of passage of the Akaka Bill is that so few attempts have been made to do so. Considering how much money is at stake -- not only through Native Hawaiian trusts and real property, but also in terms of how the inevitable changes will affect existing businesses -- it's a startling oversight.
In 2009, in conjunction with the Beacon Hill Institute, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii released a study of the economic impact of the Akaka Bill with a focus on the probable effect of the transfer of lands from the State of Hawaii to the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE). The findings of the report were universally negative. This diversion of lands (and their associated lease payments and revenues) from the state to the NGHE was found to have the following effects:
* It would cause a transfer of lease payments currently made to the state by lessees operating or living on state lands ceded to NHGE. At the same time lessees operating or living on this land could expect to see a hefty rise in their lease payments. * It would exempt Native Hawaiians living or shopping on land ceded to the new "tribal" government from paying state income and excise taxes. * It would force the state government to replace the lost lease payments and tax revenues with higher income and excise taxes for all other Hawaiian taxpayers. * It would bring about a significant reduction in the state economy and in the well-being of all Hawaiians, Native and non-Native alike, as measured by key economic indicators.
The authors of the study go on to explain that the state will naturally seek to replace this lost revenue through higher excise and income taxes, which would have a further negative impact on Hawaii's economy. Further analysis found the following possible impacts of the land transfer implicit in Akaka's passage: In our High Case scenario the state would lose 20,793 private-sector jobs, $417.2 million in investment and $1,461 in real per-capita disposable income annually. In the Medium land transfer scenario the state would experience a 3.08% loss in jobs (15,796), a 2.16% decrease in investment ($321.2 million) and a 3.20% decrease in disposable income per capita ($1,119). In the Low Case scenario, the state can expect to lose 9,838 private-sector jobs, $203.4 million in investment and $705 in real per-capita disposable income.
--Sarah Glassman, et. al. The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii. BHI Policy Study (January 2009). Available at
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/attachments/14/BHI_Akaka_0109.pdf
As dire as those predictions seem, they are still limited to the more tangible and quantifiable consequences. They cannot take into account possible damage to Hawaii's tourism industry due to the loss of the aforementioned "aloha spirit" or the negative press that might follow the social and cultural conflict that could result from the Akaka Bill. Nor can they predict how the loss of land and revenue will impact a state government facing a credit crisis from unfunded liabilities and large projects. More research is needed to give a full picture of the full economic impact of the Akaka Bill -- especially for those who may not have realized how deeply it can affect the wallet of your average citizen of Hawaii.
Unknown impact. That goes to the heart of the problem in discussion of the Akaka Bill in Hawaii. The generous impulse that leads many to believe that the Akaka Bill is little more than a special benefit to help out Native Hawaiians has been exploited by those who don't want the public to look too deeply into the probable effects of a Native Hawaiian Government. This is, in fact, the most radical and transformative piece of legislation for the
state of Hawaii since ... well ... statehood. It has the power to cause significant disruption to Hawaii's economy and permanently change the cultural, social, and political make-up of the State. And, as we will see in Part Two, embracing the tribal model will pose additional legal and economic problems that could prove even more damaging and divisive.
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/InPursuit_4new.pdf
In Pursuit, No. 4, February 24, 2012
The Akaka Bill (Part 2)
Introduction: Tribe vs. Race
Welcome to post-racial America. Unless you're a professional comedian, you probably don't notice much of a difference, except for the fact that it is now possible to begin sentences with, "If we can have a black president ..." In other words, race remains a volatile issue, and one which most politicians would prefer not to deal with if at all possi-ble. Accusations of racism, no matter how unfair or ill-founded are often treated as the end of an argument, and certainly function as a de facto end to reasoned discussion.
Needless to say, this state of affairs has not done much to advance the way our culture deals with race. It may be said more accurately that, weary from the intricacies of a seemingly-unsolvable problem, Americans are attempting to take a "holiday" from racial issues. This does not mean, however, that racial issues are taking a holiday from America.
On the contrary, savvy activists know that there is no better strategic ground in American politics than in the thorny and tangled realm of racial issues, and will use that advantage to shut down argument and stifle dissent -- even when the issue is far from simple. And there are few better examples of this strategy in action than in the fight over the Akaka Bill. By slowly turning up racial rhetoric -- in fact by casting the "rightness" of support for Akaka in terms of race and (often dubious) historical claims that attempt to evoke the plight of American Indians -- Akaka's supporters have attempted to shut down discussion of the probable impact of the legislation on the State of Hawaii, and indeed on Native Hawaiians in general. What no one has examined until now is whether this effort to sweep Native Hawaiians into the rubric of tribal governance is appropriate or even desirable.
As explained in Part 1 of this series, the Akaka Bill is a catch-all term for federal action (generally Con-gressional legislation) intended to create a sover-eign Native Hawaiian government, generally along the lines of American Indian tribal governance. As mentioned earlier, the details of the Bill (usually bearing the official title of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act) can vary, but usually address: * The establishment of some form of sovereign government for the purpose of organizing/governing those defined as "Native Hawaiian." * Some attempt to address land transfer to a Native Hawaiian governing entity and the sub-sequent legal relationship between any Akaka-based government entity and the US government.
It should be noted that, faced with a lack of Congressional support for the Akaka Bill, supporters of a Native Hawaiian government, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), have indicated their intent to proceed by non-legislative means, i.e. making the case that the Secretary of the Interior has the power to "recognize" Native Hawaiians as a tribe, thus adding it to the roll of federally recognized tribes (and therefore lobbying him to do so despite the fact that this is less a "recognition" of tribal status than a unilateral declaration of it).
The difference between "tribe" and "race" may seem at times like hair-splitting, but it remains significant. In a case like that of Native Hawaiians, it is indeed key, as (in contrast to so existing American Indian tribes) we are already dealing with a distinction between the historical Hawaiian government and the qualifications for participating in a new Native Hawaiian Government.
In short, the independent Kingdom and Republic of Hawaii were demonstrably and unequivocally multi-ethnic in nature, while the current standards of qualification for participation in a Native Hawaiian Government (with the exception of one Constitutionally-problematic loophole) are based squarely on racial background. This is a large part of the reason why the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes the Akaka Bill. (For more on this and other historical considerations, see Part 1 of this series.)
In the end, it comes down to the fact that, historically speaking, the Kingdom (and Republic) of Hawaii were no more a tribal entity than the Kingdom (or Republic) of France. (The similarities are greater than you might at first perceive -- both were sovereign monarchies, recognized as such by other sovereign nations, both experienced revolution and overthrow of the monarchy by those who perceived it as too autocratic, both have made a strong effort to preserve their language and unique elements of their culture, and both eat great food in a way looked askan