Category Archives: Akaka Bill

Akaka Bill

New Court Decisions in Native American Law

Leave a comment

As we’ve mentioned here more times than I can count, it’s important that we stay apprised of developments and impact of Native American law, as the Akaka Bill seeks to bring those precedents to Hawaii.  With that said, here are some of the more significant decisions of late. (Note that two of the cases have to do with child custody and parental rights–further underlining the need for a full study of the possible impact of the Indian Child Welfare Act on post-Akaka Hawaii.)

Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Sebelius

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 09-2281

Opinion Date: September 19, 2011

Judge: Seymour

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law

This was the second appeal in litigation arising from the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) decision not to enter into a self-determination contract with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe). In an initial order, the district court ruled that HHS’s decision was unlawful, granted summary judgment to the Tribe, and directed the parties to prepare a proposed order for injunctive relief. After the parties were unable to agree on the proposed order, the district court issued an interlocutory order in which it endorsed HHS’s approach to the contract’s start date and contract support costs. The Tribe appealed, and the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On remand, the district court issued a final order, directing the parties to enter a self-determination contract including HHS’s proposed language regarding the contract start date and contract support costs and denying the Tribe’s request for damages. Both parties appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that HHS was required to contract with the Tribe and regarding the contract start date, but reversed the court’s decision regarding contract support costs.

 

Samish Indian Nation v. United States

Court: U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-5067

Opinion Date: September 20, 2011

Judge: Gajarsa

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the most recent claims brought by the Samish Indian Nation in its continuing quest for federal recognition and benefits. The claims court reasoned that some of the allegations were not premised upon any statute that was money-mandating, and that allegations reliant on money-mandating statutes were limited by other statutes, so that they fell outside the scope of the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491(a)) and the Indian Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1505). The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to some of the allegations because the Tribal Priority Allocation system (25 CFR 46.2) is not money-mandating. The court reversed dismissal of claims under the Revenue Sharing Act, reasoning that the court’s ability to provide a monetary remedy under that law is not limited by operation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341.

Yancey v. Thomas

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-6239

Opinion Date: September 20, 2011

Judge: Hartz

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law, Native American Law

Petitioner Christopher Yancey filed an action in district court contending that Oklahoma state-court rulings terminating his parental rights over his Indian child were invalid under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The district court dismissed his action, determining that either federal abstention was mandated, or the action was barred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Tiffany Leatherman and Petitioner are the natural parents of Baby Boy L. Petitioner was a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Indian Nation of Oklahoma, but Leatherman was not a member of any Native American tribe. Petitioner and Leatherman were teenagers when the child was conceived, and they never married. Before the child was born, Leatherman decided to place him for adoption, and she located Timothy and Tammy Thomas who were interested in adopting him. In December 2002, Leatherman brought an action in Oklahoma state court to terminate Petitioner’s parental rights and to determine the child’s eligibility for adoption without Petitioner’s consent. Leatherman appeared in court, relinquished her parental rights, and consented to the adoption. Petitioner appeared in the proceedings and objected to the adoption. On May 18, 2010, the Oklahoma trial court entered an order terminating Petitioner’s parental rights. The court found that the ICWA had been complied with and that the Thomases had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner’s custody of Baby Boy L. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. There was no indication in the record that Petitioner appealed that order. On the day after the Oklahoma trial court entered its order, Petitioner filed this action against the Thomases. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not err in dismissing Yancey’s federal-court action because it was barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision terminating Appellant’s parental rights.

In re Adoption of G.D.J.

 

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

 

Docket: 108889

Opinion Date: September 20, 2011

 

Judge: Combs

 

Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law

 

Petitioners-Appellees, Teryl Pearson and Robert Pearson (Pearsons) petitioned to adopt Teryl Pearson’s (Pearson) grandson, G.D.J. The natural mother, Respondent-Appellant Tessia Bre Stubbs (Stubbs) contested the adoption. The trial court entered two orders on August 11, 2010, in favor of the Pearsons on their Application to Adjudicate Minor Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of the Natural Mother and in its Order Adjudicating Minor Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of the Natural Mother. Stubbs raised multiple issues in her attempt to block the adoption. Among them, she argued that the trial court erred in finding that she failed to contribute to the support of G.D.J., and failed to maintain a meaningful relationship with G.D.J. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to allow the adoption to proceed.

 

 

 

Akaka Bill, OHA, Taxes

Lobbying On The Taxpayer’s Dime

Leave a comment

When you picture special interest groups and government lobbyists, you probably imagine corporate fat cats hiring sleazy lawyers to get them favors and interests from legislators.  (This also indicates that you’ve heard too many John Edwards speeches.)  Putting aside whether the unfairness of this image (unfairness to the business owners, that is–I wouldn’t dream of trying to defend the lawyers), it turns out that it doesn’t even correctly identify Hawaii’s biggest lobbying spenders.  Want to know who spent the most money trying to influence Congress so far this year?

You.

Or more specifically, Hawaii’s taxpayers.  It turns out that in the first quarter of the year, government agencies in Hawaii spent more money lobbying in Washington, DC than private business did.  According to Hawaii Reporter, Hawaii state and local government spent about $185,000 on DC lobbying, compared to about $122,500 from Hawaii’s private businesses over the same period.  Unsurprisingly, the biggest state spenders were the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (which continues to push for the Akaka Bill) and InfraConsult, Inc. (which lobbies on behalf of Honolulu’s rapid transit project).

Yes, the state spends taxpayer dollars to lobby in Washington for more taxpayer dollars.  (And on behalf of issues that have significant public opposition back here in the Islands.)  And then they raise our taxes.  If that isn’t an argument for more fiscal accountability in our spendthrift government, I don’t know what is.

Akaka Bill

Victory for Akaka Bill at the State Level?

Leave a comment

There is a tendency among state legislatures with short annual sessions, to pass a glut of questionable bills right before they adjourn for the year.  This is similar to the human instinct to try to camouflage embarrassing or problematic revelations by mixing them with many other questionable items in the hopes that they will somehow escape notice.   In other words, this is why, when people go the store to buy laxatives, they throw in a bottle of liquor and a box of hygiene products at the same time.  It doesn’t stand out so much that way.

Yes, I did just compare the Legislature to a man making an embarrassing pharmacy purchase.  And I’ll stand by that.  Because it works.  Think about it–what have you been hearing in the last few days about the Hawaii Legislature?  Lots of debate about various controversial tax and finance issues, some criticism over the failure to adequately deal with some pressing state issues, and a general clamor over the frantic last days.  It’s easy to lose track of individual items in that noisy mix.  Even when they’re as significant as the next step towards the creation of a Native Hawaiian government.

In case you missed it, the state House and Senate both approved the measure that would begin the creation of a roll of “qualified Native Hawaiians” interested in participating in the formation of a Native Hawaiian government.  This is (and has always been) a transparent effort to push for Congressional action on the Akaka Bill.  After all, if you can perpetuate the idea that the Bill has the full support of the State, which has already initiated the beginning steps towards tribal organization, then you’ve made the passage through Congress a little easier.  (In case you’re wondering, a five-person commission will have the responsibility of creating the roll of “qualified Native Hawaiians.”)

What is this truly the beginning of?  That’s a little harder to determine without the help of a crystal ball.  It’s interesting to note that despite all of the money that has been spent in trying to push for the Akaka Bill (in contrast to the woefully underfunded opposition), the majority of Hawaii’s citizens still harbor serious reservations about the Bill.  And one can’t help but wonder whether this newly created commission and the effort to produce a roll of “qualified Native Hawaiians” will not be the panacea that Akaka Bill supporters hope for.  It’s possible that the Native Hawaiian community might have serious questions about how one is determined to be “qualified” to participate.  It’s possible (probable even) that we’ll see a lawsuit or two about it.  And who knows how the process will affect the thinking of the rest of Hawaii’s citizens on the questions of reorganization itself?  The only thing that we can know for sure is that the push to pass the Akaka Bill will continue to gain steam, and those who hope for a public debate on the issue need to continue to remain active and involved.

Akaka Bill

The Myth of Government “Help”

1 Comment

It should be of interest to those affected by the Akaka Bill (in other words, pretty much everyone in Hawaii) to know that Native Hawaiians are not the only ones encountering controversy over the question of federal recognition of tribal status.  Columnist and investigative reporter John Stossel writes of the Lumbees of North Carolina, who (despite their lack of federal recognition as a tribe) have been doing very well:

Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.

The Lumbees’ wealth is not from casino money.

“We don’t have any casinos. We have 12 banks,” says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.

“There’s mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation.”

In other words, the Lumbees are a living contradiction to the notion that federal recognition (and its accompanying financial “help”) are necessary to–or even capable of creating–the success of a Native American tribe.  It is an interesting lesson to those who see federal aid and recognition as the way to greater success for Native Hawaiians.  Especially when one considers the millions of dollars in federal grants that already go to help Native Hawaiians (and which you can view in our research wiki here) . . . not to mention the millions in federal contracting preferences that Native Hawaiian businesses enjoy.  In fact, as Stossel illustrates, the “help” of the federal government is a double-edged sword, that is as likely to eat away at tribal culture and foster dependency as anything else:

The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special “native American” programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.

It goes without saying that Native Americans have endured injustice at the hands of the federal government, and that this very injustice is behind the demand for aid and recognition that have led to the current state of affairs.  A similar motivation lies behind many of the demands for Native Hawaiian recognition.  But this may also be a case of being careful about what you wish for.  As Stossel points out, there are many among the Lumbees who are opposed to federal money for the Lumbees, arguing that it will end the independence that has helped them prosper:

Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government’s money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucrats.

. . . .

Because a government trust controls most Indian property, individuals rarely build nice homes or businesses. “No individual on the reservation owns the land. So they can’t develop it,” Chavis added. “Look at my tribe. We have title and deeds to our land. That’s the secret. I raise cattle. I can do what I want to because it’s my private property.”

Supporters of the Akaka Bill would be well-advised to consider all the ramifications of inviting the government bureaucrats to become administrators of the culture and future of Native Hawaiians.  After all, as Ronald Reagan once quipped, the scariest phrase in the English language is, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Akaka Bill

Redefining “Support”

Leave a comment

There are plenty of reasons to feel vaguely annoyed and Senator Inouye’s recent interview in Honolulu Civil Beat.  I, for one, particularly loathed the implication that people in the middle class are a tad selfish for feeling that they pay enough in taxes.  But for sheer muddling of a situation, it’s hard to beat his responses to the questions about the level of support for the Akaka Bill.  Here’s what Inouye has to say:

Mentioning Sen. Akaka calls to mind the issue of the Akaka Bill really not proceeding. What do you tell the people of Hawaii? This is an underlying issue that has to be addressed for the people of this state in some shape or form.

The vast majority of those who are well-aware, or have some understanding of the measure, are supportive. But this bill has been delayed and frustrated by the very ones who support it… (One person) would tell me, ‘you’re not doing enough’ and (another) will say, ‘I think you went too far.’

This time, there’s a difference. Akaka, OHA, the administration, they’re all singing one tune. It’s a big difference. The last time, OHA and Akaka didn’t see eye-to-eye on everything. The governor’s office … was not always for it. So under those circumstances, those in the Congress can say, ‘Well, your governor is opposed to it. So why should I be for it?’ Then somebody might come up and say, ‘Well that Hawaiian group is against it. They must know something that I don’t. I’ll follow them.’

This time, as of this moment, we’re in the same choir.

Is it possible to get the votes in the House to pass something like this?

With work, it can be done. Unless you start off with the assumption that ‘they’re a bunch of bums, they’re racist, and they’re no good, so therefore, why do anything?’

They’re good Americans. You just have to describe and tell them why.

Will Lingle’s Support be important? The current bill is not one she had agreed to.

But it is a reflection of some of the concerns she’s voiced, and I think she’s supportive. The general concept, she’s for it. And Im not suggesting that the bill that passed the Senate is necessarily the one that has to become law.

Is there a role the president can play in making this happen?

There’s a major role. He can say, on a personal basis, ‘I was born in Hawaii. Among my many friends are Native Hawaiians. I know something about their background and history.’ The presidential word carries weight.

And this is why it’s important to remind people that the battle over the Akaka Bill isn’t over . . . and won’t be for some time to come, regardless of how the public feels about it.  Polls consistently show that this is a controversial and divisive issue in Hawaii, and (if anything) that when fully informed of all the issues involved, the majority of Hawaiian citizens oppose the Akaka Bill.  But that’s not the picture being painted here.  Senator Inouye (along with the entire pro-Akaka Bill industry) continues to propagate the idea that we’re all on the same page out here.  Notice that he even obfuscates Gov. Lingle’s position.  It’s true that her administration supported a version of the Akaka Bill last year (much to our disappointment), but the version currently in the Senate–the one that Inouye is speaking of–is not the same.  In fact, it contains many of the problems that had led the Lingle Administration to raise questions about and oppose the bill in that form.  And while it’s true enough that President Obama has indicated support for the Bill, it’s probably worth noting that the President hasn’t deemed it worth expending any of his political capital on, regardless of how warmly he may feel about Native Hawaiians.

Obviously, Senator Inouye is parroting the pro-Akaka talking points on support for the Bill, but we need to remind Washington that they’re not getting the whole story.

Akaka Bill

Census and Sensibility

Leave a comment

It’s baaaack!

Call it the Frankenstein of bad legislation.  The Akaka Bill is back in the Senate.  And while some pundits don’t give it much of a future in the House of Representatives, the Senate gave it a hearing this past Thursday.  In truth, there is far too much riding on this bill for opponents to ever feel secure about defeating it.  At least, not unless there is a change in the culture that has created this issue.  Part of this is the misapprehension that Native Hawaiians are, as a group, severely disadvantaged . . . a myth that some have done nothing to refute, even though you might imagine that it might be nice to see a little good news now and again.  And so–in order to better inform the discussion–consider the latest US census information about Native Hawaiians:

Census Bureau Reports Revenue for Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-Owned Businesses Increased 52 Percent from 2002 to 2007

The number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses increased 31.1 percent between 2002 and 2007, to 37,957 businesses, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. These businesses generated $6.5 billion in receipts in 2007, a 51.6 percent increase from 2002. In contrast, the total number of U.S. businesses increased 17.9 percent between 2002 and 2007; total business receipts rose 32.9 percent.

These new data come from the Survey of Business Owners: Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-Owned Businesses: 2007.

http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/

The survey provides detailed information every five years for Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses, including the number of firms, sales and receipts, number of paid employees and annual payroll.

Data are presented by geographic area (nation, state, county, city and metro area), industry and size of business. Preliminary national and state data were released in July 2010.

“This important look at the economic activity of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses is the only comprehensive and regularly collected data on this group,” said Tom Mesenbourg, deputy director of the Census Bureau. “These data confirm that businesses owned by Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders continue to grow both in number and in sales at rates that are faster than national rates for all businesses.”

People of Native Hawaiian origin owned 55.6 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses in 2007. Guamanian- or Chamorro-owned businesses accounted for 9.6 percent, Samoan-owned businesses for 8.0 percent, and businesses owned by people of Other Pacific Islander descent, for 24.6 percent.

States with the highest number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses were Hawaii, with 11,383 (30.0 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and Pacific Islander-owned businesses nationwide), and California, with 9,255 (24.4 percent).

Among counties, Honolulu had the largest number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses, with 6,721; followed by Los Angeles, with 2,804; Maui, with 2,111; and Hawaii, with 1,722.

Among metropolitan areas, Honolulu had the largest number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses, with 6,721 (17.7 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses nationwide), followed by Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, with 3,675 (9.7 percent).

Other highlights:

* Of the 37,957 Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses in 2007, 4,172 had paid employees. These businesses employed 38,750 people, an increase of 32.2 percent, and their payrolls totaled $1.3 billion, an increase of 54.1 percent from 2002. Employer business receipts totaled $5.4 billion, an increase of 54.4 percent. Average receipts of these firms were $1.3 million.

* The number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses with no paid employees totaled 33,785, an increase of 33.8 percent. These nonemployers’ business receipts totaled $1.1 billion. Average receipts of these firms were $31,991.

* The number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses with receipts of $1.0 million or more was 884 in 2007.

* The number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses with 100 or more employees increased from 28 to 37 (32.1 percent).

* Construction and retail trade accounted for 44.1 percent of all Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned business receipts.

The Survey of Business Owners defines Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses as firms in which Native Hawaiians, Guamanians, Chamorros, Samoans, and Other Pacific Islanders own 51 percent or more of the equity, interest or stock of the business. Additional data from the survey highlighting other minority- and veteran-owned businesses will be issued over the next few months. Subsequently, separate data sets will be issued highlighting additional characteristics of all businesses and their owners.

-X-

The Survey of Business Owners is conducted every five years as part of the economic census. The 2007 survey collected data from a sample of more than 2.3 million businesses. Data collected in a sample survey are subject to sampling variability, as well as nonsampling errors. Sources of nonsampling errors include errors of response, nonreporting and coverage. More details concerning the SBO survey design, methodology and data limitations can be found at <http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/methodology.html>.

Akaka Bill, Guest Commentary, Hawaii, Hawaii Legislature, Sovereignty

A Lack of Resolution

Leave a comment

Over on Hawaii Reporter (which I swear doesn’t do anything to get all these mentions here except produce a broader and more fearless variety of opinions than the vast majority of other Hawaii news sources), Ken Conklin has an interesting take on the most recent effort of the Hawaii Legislature to rewrite history.  The article is worth reading in its entirety (not least of all for the impassioned discussion of the ultimate effect of these endless muddled legislative exercises in pandering), but here are the highlights:

House Concurrent Resolution 107 (HCR107) in the Hawaii legislature would establish “a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.”

The investigating committee would be empowered to “Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of the witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, records, papers, or other evidence in any matter pending before the joint investigating committee; … Administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses at hearings of the joint investigating committee; Report or certify instances of contempt as provided in section 21—14, Hawaii Revised Statutes …”

….

The purpose of such an investigation is not merely to do academic research on an obscure historical question from 118 years ago. The purposes are to claim that the U.S. had an obligation to restore Liliuokalani to the throne; and to claim that the obligation of the President of the United States continues to this day to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation.

Throughout my nineteen years in Hawaii I have seen the legislature repeatedly pass bills and resolutions encouraging some sort of race-based Hawaiian political entity, or sovereign independence. Year after year: Let’s pay for an election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian convention, and years of their travel expenses for meetings, so they can choose the tribal concept or write a constitution for an independent nation; let’s pass a resolution in 2002 asking the United Nations to investigate the legitimacy of Hawaii’s admission to statehood in 1959; let’s support the Akaka bill in Congress; let’s proclaim April 30 of every year a permanent holiday called “Hawaiian Restoration Day”; let’s create a state-recognized tribe with a state-only version of the Akaka bill; let’s transfer $200 Million in land or money to OHA; etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Why? All these legislative actions have accomplished is to stir up racial animosity, feelings of entitlement, etc. Hopes are raised for some people who want land and money from the rest of us, and then those hopes come crashing down. Over and over again. Remember the Aloha Airlines plane that had a huge hole ripped out of its side in mid-flight, due to metal fatigue caused by too many takeoffs and landings? That’s what resolutions like this are doing to all Hawaii’s people, and to ethnic Hawaiians in particular.

NB: Be sure to read the whole article to see the main points of Mr. Conklin’s testimony against the Resolution.

Akaka Bill, Economy, Grants, OHA, Sovereignty

Stately Spending

3 Comments

If you know your way around this site, you know that there are two ways of perusing the many, many grants we’ve recorded.  Many.  Many, many, many.  It’s overwhelming actually.  And overwhelming is kind of the point.  No matter where you stand on the issue of Native Hawaiian sovereignty or the Akaka Bill, if you’ve checked out the grants here, you cannot fairly say that Native Hawaiians receive no support or help.  There may be any number of cultural or socio-economic issues at play in the question of how Native Hawaiians fare in society.  But if you’re looking for a reason to support the Akaka Bill, the claim that Native Hawaiians get no government resources is laughable in light of the evidence here.

Anyway, for those who just want an overview, there’s the quick list that can be viewed here.  And for those who want to dig a little deeper, there’s the wiki/database of grants that can be viewed here.  (And as a reminder: if you have any information or feedback to share on any grant, be sure to email us at 4hawaiiansonly@gmail.com so that we can add that information to the wiki.  Frequent or especially helpful researchers are given their own log-ins to update at will.)

Recently, we added some information to our quick grant list that was previously only available in the wiki–you can now see at a glance which grants come from federal agencies and which from state departments.  It’s no surprise to see that the federal portion of the grants on the list so far is slightly higher–a total of approximately $265,666,125 spent since fiscal year 2007.  As for approximate state spending, it comes to a more modest (but still considerable) $56,201,112 for the same period of time.  That’s more than the annual budget for a few different state departments.  For a state that struggles with budget and deficit problems, that’s almost real money.

Akaka Bill

Aloha to Senator Akaka

1 Comment

Senator Akaka has announced that he will not be running for reelection at the end of his current term.  For his years of service to the Islands, we thank him and bid him a fond farewell.

However (and you knew this was coming, didn’t you?), the fact that Senator Akaka is a nice old guy who’s retiring doesn’t really change anything about the legislation that bears his name.  Senator Akaka’s retirement should have no bearing on the future of the Akaka Bill.  Since his announcement, it has not become a better idea, less divisive, or more constitutional.  It is still bad for Hawaii.  And yet, believe it or not, you will hear (and already have if you read the Maui News) the argument that we should push for passage of the Bill as a final salute/gesture of respect to the retiring Senator.  When you think about it, it’s hard to come up with a more absurd reason to support legislation.  One wonders if that argument could possibly change anyone’s mind.  (“Sure, I thought it was a flawed and bad law, but since he’s retiring, heck, let’s do him a solid and pass it anyway.”)

In fact, here at 4HawaiiansOnly, we’ll make the counter-argument.  Senator Akaka has provided many years of service to Hawaii, which we respect even if we didn’t agree with his political positions on some issues.  But let’s not sully his legacy with a knee-jerk passage of a law that will become a hornet’s nest of litigation, constitutionality questions, and economic and racial strife for Hawaiians.  He deserves better than that.

And on a slightly different note . . . am I the only one wondering what we’re going to call the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act once Senator Akaka has retired?  (Because there’s way too much money and political power at stake for the bill to retire along with the Senator.)  Maybe we could have a naming contest for it.  I suggest either “The Slow Deterioration of Hawaii Act” or maybe just “Bob.”

Akaka Bill, Hawaii Legislature

The State’s Akaka End Run

4 Comments

For those who thought that the change in Congress meant a respite from the imminent threat of the Akaka Bill, think again.  In what might be something of a desperation move, the legislature has introduced a bill that purports to recognize a Native Hawaiian tribe through the state.  (Essentially, a state version of the Akaka Bill–you can read the full text here (House version) and here (Senate version).)

I can pick on all sorts of things in this–the historical revisionism, the doubtful claims, the questionable legislative findings–but we’ve been down this path many times before.  And you may be thinking that there’s little chance it would pass, or that it would likely fail a test of constitutionality.  But that’s not the point.  This is pure politics at work.  If the legislature can pass the bill, then it operates as a powerful argument in Washington that Hawaii is united behind the Bill–and frankly, the Inside-the-Beltway types tend not to pay much attention to what we are doing out here, so they would likely take that at face value.  (And OHA is going to be spending far more money telling them that’s the case than any opponents to Akaka would be able to raise.)  There is, however, a bright side.  If the state bill were to fail, that would make Congress less inclined to take up the Akaka Bill again.  So, if this is an issue you care about, this is a good time to contact your state legislator and share your views.