Opinion ID: 871559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act; Article XII, Section 1 of the Hawai`i Constitution; and the 1978 Constitutional Convention

Text: Concerned about the condition of the native Hawaiian people, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) in 1921 to set aside about 203,500 acres of ceded lands for native Hawaiian homesteads. Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, 67 Pub L. 34, 42 Stat. 108 (1921); see also Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 507, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000). Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, Hawai`i's congressional delegate at the time, was instrumental in shepherding the Act through Congress, arguing that native Hawaiians were entitled to a share of the lands that had been `ceded' from the Republic of Hawaii to the United States in 1898 because they had not obtained their fair share of the lands distributed during the Mahele. Jon Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai`i? 239-40 (2008). Prince Kuhio spoke of the native Hawaiians' right to the land as follows: Perhaps we have a legal right, certainly we have a moral right, to ask that these lands be set aside. We are not asking that what you are to do be in the nature of a largesse or as a grant, but as a matter of justicebelated justice. Id. at 241. Under the Act, native Hawaiians (those of fifty percent blood quantum or more) could obtain 99-year leases for a dollar a year for residential, pastoral, and agricultural lots. See Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook 43 (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie ed., 1991). One purpose of the HHCA was to save the native Hawaiian race by tak[ing] [native Hawaiians] back to the lands and giv[ing] them the mode of living that their ancestors were accustomed to and in that way rehabilitate them. Ahuna v. Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 64 Haw. 327, 336 n. 10, 640 P.2d 1161, 1167 n. 10 (1982) (quoting Senator John H. Wise, H.R.Rep. No. 839, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1920)). The Act also appeased Hawai`i's large-scale agricultural interests at the time. Hundreds of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land leased to these sugar and ranching interests were set to expire between 1917 and 1921, and the passage of the Act prevented the return of those lands to the pool of land available for homesteading. See Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook 45. In fact, the Act specifically designated cultivated cane lands as unavailable for Hawaiian homesteads. See id. at 17 (citing HHCA § 203). The lands remaining for Hawaiian homesteads were arid and of marginal value, and many were actually lava rock. Id. Most of the land was in remote locations, on the dry, leeward side of each island, generally with poor soils and rough terrain, more difficult and costly to develop, and without waterparcels famously described as lands that a goat couldn't live on. Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai`i? 248. Diversified agriculture did not succeed on these lands; consequently, the homestead program focused its attention on providing houselots and some pasture lands. See Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook 17-18. In 1959, Hawai`i entered the union. As a condition of admission to statehood, the federal government conveyed the 200,000+ acres of home lands to the State, and the State was required to adopt the HHCA under its constitution. See Haw. Const. Art. XII, § 2. Through Section 2, the State of Hawai`i accepted specific trust obligations relating to the management of the Hawaiian home lands imposed by the federal government. Ahuna, 64 Haw. at 337, 640 P.2d at 1168. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1978, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Article XI, Section 1 of the Hawai`i Constitution, which related to how the State should fund DHHL to fulfill its trust obligations, read as follows: The proceeds and income from Hawaiian home lands shall be used only in accordance with the terms of said Act, and the legislature may, from time to time, make additional sums available for the purposes of said Act by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Legislature, prior to 1978, had discretion to fund (or not fund) DHHL. Unfortunately, the State was not much more successful than the federal government in fulfilling its constitutional duties. See Kalima v. State, 111 Hawai`i 84, 88, 137 P.3d 990, 994 (2006). In 1979, the Hawai`i electorate voted to amend Article XI, Section 1, renumbered as Article XII, Section 1, to replace the last sentence of the first paragraph, quoted above, with the following language: The legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the following purposes: (1) development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; (2) home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved; (4) the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3), and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law. (emphasis added). Thus, through this amendment, the discretionary funding language was changed to mandatory funding language. Nearly three decades after the 1978 Hawai`i Constitutional Convention, Article XII, Section 1 and its constitutional convention history serve as the basis for Plaintiffs' claims for relief.