Here's the relevant text of the law in question (from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2022/bills/HB2024_CD1_...):

> (8) An individual who is a lineal descendent of a practitioner of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices associated with Mauna Kea; (9) An individual who is a recognized practitioner of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices;

I don't see a definition of "traditional and customary" in it, so let's fall back to the one in Hawaii's Constitution:

> TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

> Section 7. The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua’a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights.

Note "for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes". So a law requiring someone to practice this seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment's ban on laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Also, from the ruling of the case you linked to:

> The history of the State's definition also demonstrates that the State has used ancestry as a racial definition and for a racial purpose. The drafters of the definitions of "Hawaiian" and "native Hawaiian" emphasized the explicit tie to race. The State's additional argument that the restriction is race neutral because it differentiates even among Polynesian people based on the date of an ancestor's residence in Hawaii is undermined by the classification's express racial purpose and its actual effects. The ancestral inquiry in this case implicates the same grave concerns as a classification specifying a particular race by name, for it demeans a person's dignity and worth to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities. The State's ancestral inquiry is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment for the further reason that using racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve.

This seems really relevant to this new law as well. While it doesn't explicitly mention race, its actual effect and obvious intent is explicitly to limit those seats to only one race. For comparison, consider that literacy tests and the grandfather clause are illegal now, even though they didn't explicitly mention race either, as said ruling also brought up:

> Important precedents did emerge, however, which give instruction in the case now before us. The Fifteenth Amendment was quite sufficient to invalidate a scheme which did not mention race but instead used ancestry in an attempt to confine and restrict the voting franchise. In 1910, the State of Oklahoma enacted a literacy requirement for voting eligibility, but exempted from that requirement the "'lineal descendant[sJ''' of persons who were" 'on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation.'" Guinn, supra, at 357. Those persons whose ancestors were entitled to vote under the State's previous, discriminatory voting laws were thus exempted from the eligibility test. Recognizing that the test served only to perpetuate those old laws and to effect a transparent racial exclusion, the Court invalidated it. 238 U. S., at 364-365.

And no, my opinion wouldn't change if they were an Indian tribe.