Tag Archives: Akaka

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

Akaka’s Civil Rights Problem

Leave a comment

So much of the argument for the Akaka Bill is couched in Civil Rights terms–we are given to understand that to oppose it is to somehow oppose the rights and privileges of Native Hawaiians.  In fact, one of the most pernicious historical fallacies surrounding the former Kingdom of Hawaii as it relates to the argument for the Akaka Bill ca be found in the way that Akaka supporters blithely ignore the multi-ethnic make-up of the Hawaiian government at the same time as they push for the wholesale creation of a race-based “reorganization.”  In light of this sensitive question, it might be interesting to examine where some of the nation’s experts on matters of civil rights stand on the Bill.

Would you be surprised to hear that they oppose it?  It’s true.  On Dec. 7, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights delivered a letter to key Congressional leaders reiterating their opposition to the Akaka Bill. If you’re interested, you can read the letter in full here.  (And the earlier, more detailed letter it references can be seen here.)  Without equivocation, the USCCR expresses its opposition that any attempt made to attach the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act to a spending bill this session.  In addition, the letter states that the changes that have been made or proposed to the Act are insufficient to overcome the constitutional concerns that have been raised, and reiterates the Commission’s opposition to the Bill.

What is the source of the Commission’s opposition?   The reasons given should be familiar to most of those who have made a careful study of the legislation and its possible consequences: that Congress lacks that constitutional authority to thus “reorganize” ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations without a strong history of self governance; that doing so will set a dangerous precedent; that it should not be used as an attempt to shore up race-based benefits threatened by recent court decisions; and that it is contradictory to the history of the Hawaiian government.

Above all, the opinion of the Commission makes it clear that the questions of race that surround the Akaka Bill are far more complex than Akaka’s supporters would like to admit.  It’s as though, in their efforts to help one ethnic group, the pro-Akaka lobby has deliberately ignored the fundamental principles of civil rights.

Akaka Bill

Transparency?— Not with the Akaka bill

Leave a comment

Yesterday there was much talk in Washington, DC that Senator Inouye was planning to attach the Akaka bill (presumably the latest version after major changes) to the Senate Omnibus Spending bill later in December. That would mean that would mean that it would pass without hearings or any other vetting. Indicating that the possibility was real, four seasoned U. S. Senators released statements deploring the idea. See press release here. At about the same time, Hawaii Reporter reported the story and quoted Peter Boylan, Senator Inouye’s spokesman, as saying Inouye was not planning such a move and reaffirming Inouye’s 2009 statement that attachment to an appropriations bill would be “nonsensical”. See text here.

Next was Robert Costa at NRO who reported Senator Inouye told NRO that he would like to bring the bill forward, but “it depends on if we can work out something with amendments”. He then quoted the Senator “We’ve been working on this for over a decade now….. No one can say we’ve been hiding this”. That remark prompted a response from Steven Duffield here.

If you are not confused, you should be. But here is the bottom line: there is no transparency here. GRIH stands for transparency in government. Hawaii’s people do not know anything substantive about this bill and people in government are keeping them in the dark.k

Before statehood in 1959, Hawaii had a Plebiscite. Approval was 94+%. Now a secret “nonsensical” attachment will skirt that? Walk your talk, Senator Inouye.

Akaka Bill, Guest Commentary

E Pluribus–What?

Leave a comment

By Jere Krischel

E pluribus unum.  Present on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782, its meaning is both simple and profound – “Out of many, one.”  Originally it may have been but a literal acknowledgement of the Union of the thirteen colonies, but as the years have gone by it has become a philosophical premise which we apply as a standard of morality.  It is today a clarion call for the respect of diversity, an acknowledgement that while we may have our differences, we are one people, under one law.  Each citizen of the United States takes for granted that regardless of their racial background, cultural background, or family history, they are endowed by their Creator, the same unalienable rights as all their other fellow citizens.

The startling truth, however, is that we have a lot further to go before our laws and our country are aligned with this noble motto.  Just as the institution of slavery stood as a stain against the noble ideals upon which our constitution was based, today we live under a government which has yet to make good on the motto, ‘E Pluribus Unum.’  While our constitution expressly prohibits denying people equal treatment under the law with the fourteenth amendment, our government has often both willfully and woefully ignored this basic guarantee.

The race-based quota system of affirmative action is perhaps the most visible example of this violation of constitutional rights (with a low point in Grutter v. Bollinger, and some progress recently with Ricci v. DeStefano).  The idea of treating people differently because of their racial background is anathema to the concept of civil rights, and the “fighting fire with fire” philosophy of fixing racial discrimination by using more racial discrimination is hypocrisy at its worst.  However, an even more egregious violation of the principle of equal treatment exists in current Indian law, and an even greater danger is presented to us with the Akaka Bill that has been proposed in various forms for the past ten years.

As it stands today, we have three distinct classes of citizenry in the United States – tribal leaders, tribal members, and non-tribal citizens.  Tribal leaders stand generally above the law, with no constitutional checks on their power.  The Supreme Court in its Nevada v. Hicks (2001) case stated, “it has been understood for more than a century that the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment do not of their own force apply to Indian tribes.”  This exemption from the basic protections afforded to other citizens places tribal members in the most disparaged class of the three, leaving them at the whim of their tribal governments.  While under tribal jurisdiction, non-tribal citizens fare just as poorly, but they at least have the wherewithal to escape from the reservation, while tribal members face the threat of tribal expulsion, confiscation of the lands their family may have lived on for generations, and even loss of custody of their own children.

Today, there are 565 federally recognized tribes which may freely violate the constitutional rights of their members.  The Shinnecock Nation, backed by Gateway Casino Resorts, with only 1,292 members, became number 565 on October 1, 2010, after all appeals to their recognition (including objections from other already established casino tribes) were exhausted.  The Shinnecock, and the other 564 federally recognized tribes, are granted exemptions from state and local jurisdictions, creating a special class of citizenry not subject to the rights and laws of their peers.  These federally recognized tribes also have access to lucrative federal assistance programs (regardless of any tribal casino income), funded by non-tribal taxpayers and controlled exclusively by tribal leaders.

So instead of ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ the truth is that today we live in a country governed by ‘E Pluribus Pluribus,’ with a constant, yet often overlooked, division of people into different strata of citizenship.  The Akaka Bill serves as yet another continuation of that deplorable trend, promising to “reorganize” everyone with the smallest drop of native Hawaiian blood into an Indian tribe, with all the equal protection problems that come with it.  Specifically constructed to protect current race-based programs targeted at native Hawaiians, the Akaka Bill is a headlong dive into the constitutional loophole provided by Indian Law, and promises to divide the State of Hawaii in the most wrongheaded manner imaginable.

From a purely self-interested point of view, it’s no wonder that future Akaka Tribe leaders want to get in on the Indian Tribe game – between the casino money, and the federal dollars appropriated (regardless of whether or not a tribe is economically self-sufficient), even the most reasonable and rational person might be sorely tempted.  An investigation into recent native Hawaiian grants handed out by the government, at http://4hawaiiansonly.com, has already identified over 766 grants totaling over $273 million dollars.  While only a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 4 billion spent on Indian tribes every year (the BIA is unable to give any exact number), there is no question that we’re talking a lot of money, and a lot of temptation.

It will be a long road for our country, to repair the self-inflicted wounds of ‘E Pluribus Pluribus.’  Ending the second and third class citizenship status of existing Tribal Law, and preventing the enactment of further injustices like the Akaka Bill will not be easy – the forces arrayed against a nation of one people, under one law, have resources common citizens simply cannot match.  But in the end, no matter how long or difficult the struggle, the United States will one day live up to its noble ideals of its founding – E Pluribus Unum.

Akaka Bill

Bar None

1 Comment

The American Bar Association is currently lobbying in favor of the Akaka Bill, having sent a letter this week to every US Senator in favor of its passage.  This is much less impressive than it sounds.   Much like The Simpsons or David Lee Roth, the ABA is a shadow of its former self, living off the credibility of a name that too few have realized no longer carries any guarantee of quality or professionalism.

So when did the ABA jump the shark?  It’s hard to say . . . it’s really one of those incremental things.  Until one day you wake up and they’re applying purely political considerations to their evaluation of judicial nominees.  Among those people who follow such things, it’s common knowledge that the ABA no longer has any credibility as a neutral arbiter of constitutional interpretation or judicial ability.  Now, it functions more like a mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic party.  Take the aforementioned letter to the US Senate on the Akaka Bill.  One might imagine that the American Bar Association would present a neutral evaluation of the constitutionality and possible objections to the bill.  Don’t make me laugh.  In essence, it’s little more than a distillation of the same arguments presented by the pro-Akaka Lobby.  In fact, it bears such a similarity to an OHA column that one hopes the ABA didn’t spend too much money to produce such a propagandist rehash.

Of course, that’s how the game is played nowadays . . . bias disguised as neutral analysis is par for the course in modern politics.  It’s just a shame that such politics-as-usual methods are preventing a true debate on the merits of the bill and its possible impact on Hawaii.

Akaka Bill, OHA

Stacked Deck

Leave a comment

As I’ve mentioned before, there are Native Hawaiians who are opposed to the Akaka Bill.  This is not such an incredible notion.  After all, there’s no requirement that one must close one’s eyes to the problems in the Bill just because of one’s ethnic heritage.

And it is equally obvious that OHA supports the Akaka Bill.  Though the word “support” drastically understates their approach.  There are professional cheerleaders that would feel that OHA goes a bit overboard in its efforts to hype up the Bill.  It’s hard to say how much of their money and staff time they are currently devoting to lobbying for passage of the Akaka Bill, but it’s obviously a central priority.  And why wouldn’t it be?  There’s plenty of debate over the far-reaching impact of the Akaka Bill in Hawaii, but one thing that is certain is that OHA will benefit greatly.  Already entrenched as the elite governing “voice” of Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, OHA is situated to be hugely influential in implementing a new Native Hawaiian government.  Take that for what it is.  I’m not saying that OHA is anything less than perfectly aboveboard and transparent.  I’m just saying that they have a lot of money and a lot of political power and are lobbying to get more.

Of course, this has made some Native Hawaiians a bit uneasy.  So uneasy, in fact, that they filed suit against OHA, challenging its expenditures in support of the Akaka Bill.  Though it would seem reasonable that Native Hawaiians would like to see a little more balance in OHA’s political machinations (especially when using money from the Trust), it seems that the Average Kimo has very little say in how OHA can spend his money.  In Day v. Apoliona, the Courts interpreted the OHA mission in a way that gives the OHA Trustees enormous leeway in how they choose to fulfill OHA’s mission . . . up to and including the Akaka lobbying efforts.  It makes you wonder what wouldn’t be allowed as part of the OHA mission.  It seems like pretty much anything that uses the word “Hawaiian” is fair game.  What’s worse is that this closes another avenue for Native Hawaiians to question OHA’s expenditures and priorities.  So much for accountability.  Perhaps it’s time that Native Hawaiians start asking some hard questions about who they trust to administer their Trust.

Akaka Bill, Economy, Gaming

Guest Series on Tribal Gaming (Part 3)

Leave a comment

Today, we continue with the third part of our guest series on the development of Indian casino gaming in California, by Jim Marino.  (This series originally ran in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal.)

Sometimes it seems as though the issue of gaming is an unspoken controversy that advocates of the Akaka Bill are desperately trying to avoid.  As though the fact that it is not allowed under the current version of the bill is a sufficient guarantee forevermore.  But, as today’s installment demonstrates, a state can move from no casino gaming of any kind to a flood of Indian casinos in a surprisingly short time–and with little to no real input from the public.  Those who are concerned about Akaka being the path to Hawaiian casino culture would do well to take note of California’s experience. . .

RESULTS OF I.G.R.A AND THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 1A AND THE FLOOD OF INDIAN GAMBLING CASINOS IN CALIFORNIA
Santa Ynez Valley Journal
By Jim Marino, Guest Columnist
April 29, 2010

(Part 3)

The first week I discussed what led up to the enactment of the IGRA. Last week I wrote about all of the antiquated, ambiguous and contradictory aspects of federal Indian law and policy in existence, when the ill-advised Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act [IGRA] was enacted by Congress, in a feeble attempt to provide an economy for Indian tribes.

As you may recall from last week, the controversial Indian gambling law was enacted by Congress without even considering the impact the existing body of federal Indian law and policy would have. This resulted in the authorization of tax free, lawless and unregulated casino gambling by Indian tribes and related businesses in which patrons, workers and the nearby communities are, in effect, deprived of all their legal and Constitutional rights and cannot sue for injuries or damages occurring in those casinos and businesses. I also wrote of how that Act has also enabled these tiny often questionable tribes to make hundreds of millions in profits, while still collecting federal welfare and grant monies that are monies needed by real Indians still living on remote reservations and living in conditions of abject poverty.

This week’s article deals with how Indian gambling was legalized in California and some of the impacts of the IGRA and the Indian casinos it spawned in California, has had on nearby non-Indian communities.

To give Congress the benefit of the doubt, Congress created the only method that States had available to them in order to control and regulate Indian casino gambling under the IGRA. That mechanism was the requirement that prior to engaging in Class III gambling casinos the tribe and state government would have to enter into a compact (or contract). They did this by including section 2710 d.(3) in Title 25. Under that provision, Indian tribes seeking to engage in class III casino gambling were required to negotiate and have the affected state approve, a compact. If the state lawfully approved a compact, then it was lawfully in effect according to State law.

Following the enactment of the IGRA in 1988 many bands of Indians in California, some with only one or two members, began operating class II Bingo games with unlimited money pay-offs. The Santa Ynez Chumash built a cinderblock building as a “Bingo casino” funded at least in part by the Las Vegas singer Wayne Newton and other Las Vegas gambling investors and apparently did so under questionable circumstances. It soon closed down amongst rumors and controversy, but with a view toward reopening in the future.

Class II “Bingo” gaming under the IGRA does not require a tribal-state compact, only a license from the National Indian Gaming Commission [NIGC] and is in effect unsupervised gaming beyond licensing and annual audits. Before the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the IGRA, giving the tribes the right to sue the state when they claimed the State was not negotiating in good faith, California tribes threatened the State with several suits if the State did not negotiate compacts for full-scale Class III casino gambling. The California Constitution Art. 4, Section 19, prohibited full-scale casino gambling including slot machines, blackjack, craps, roulette and so forth.

Because slot machines generally make up 85 percent of the revenue any casino brings in, the tribes were threatening lawsuit if the State would not negotiate for slot machines and banked card games like blackjack. (Remember the Cabazon case discussion earlier. The State had the absolute right to refuse to allow all forms of gambling by any Indian tribe, as long as those types of games were also prohibited for everyone else in the state to operate.) Slot machines had been illegal in California for years and use, possession or transport was a violation of the California Penal Code.

One lawsuit brought by Indian tribes in the 1990s claimed the lotto terminals the State had licensed to bars and cocktail lounges all over the state were, in effect, state run “slot machines.” Therefore, the tribes claimed they had a right to install slot machines in their casinos. The court denied that assertion but was highly critical of the definition of “slot machines” set out in the California Penal Code. As a result, the state pulled all these machines from bars all over the state and stored them in a warehouse, where I believe they still sit today.

Many tribes like the Santa Ynez Chumash simply ignored the law prohibiting slot machines and the requirement of a tribal-state compact in 25 USC 2710 d (3) requiring such a compact before Class III gambling could be allowed. Then one night in 1995, the Chumash moved more than 600 slot machines into the cinderblock former Bingo casino and began illegally offering slot machines to the public and position player backed blackjack games. The installation of these slot machines also constituted a violation of the Johnson Act, a federal law prohibiting the unlawful transportation, use, procurement and possession of slot machines. After all, the delaying litigation was exhausted in 1997. The State Attorney General and federal authorities including the F.B.I. informed the illegal casino tribes like the Santa Ynez Chumash that they intended to raid them, seize the slot machines, all monies and other illegal fruits of the illegal gambling operations and even arrest the operators. The tribes then launched a public initiative-drive entitled Proposition 5 in 1998.

Proposition 5 was an initiative to amend the California Government Code to allow Indian tribes to operate slot machines on Indian lands in California. Besides sponsoring that initiative the tribes, many of whom were operating illegal casinos with slot machines at the time, like the Santa Ynez Chumash, pumped millions of dollars into an advertising campaign to depict pictures of poverty-stricken Indian tribes self-sufficient.

In addition to this advertising campaign, these casino Indians pumped millions into the campaign coffers of Grey Davis, a career politician who was running for Governor in 1998. In November 1998, Proposition 5 was approved by the voters and Grey Davis was elected Governor. Commencing in 1999, Gov. Davis began negotiating gambling compacts with California Indian tribes, all of which was done behind closed doors. None of the traditional power groups in California such as local governments, taxpayers groups, law enforcement organizations, environmental groups, trial lawyers, workers compensation and consumer lawyer groups, women’s rights groups, union and others were allowed the opportunity to participate in the discussions and influence the terms of these tribal-state class III gambling compacts.

As a result, the compacts Gov. Davis agreed to were weak, giveaway compacts with many provisions so poorly written that they were virtually unenforceable. These compacts provided no revenue at all to the state and made no provisions to mitigate the significant negative impacts the flood of Indian casinos that resulted would have, and subsequently did have, on local communities.

In the meantime, Proposition 5 was challenged in a lawsuit and in August 1999 the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 5 was unconstitutional because it only amended the Government Code not the State Constitution, which contained the prohibition on casino gambling like slot machines and house banked card games in Art. 4, sec. 19.

Undaunted by the Supreme Court’s striking down Proposition 5, Gov. Davis executed some 59 of these giveaway tribal state compacts and then had the State Legislature approve them in September and October 1998. He made no effort to determine if the tribes he was negotiating with, and granted gambling compacts to, were lawfully created Indian tribes or if the land on which their casinos or proposed casinos were to be sited were legally “Indian Lands” eligible class for III gambling under federal law. In fact, many of these questionable Indian tribes were on land or acquired land that was clearly not eligible to build and operate any class II or class III gambling casinos under the IGRA.

To remedy the fact that these compacts were executed and approved when there was no longer any legal authority to do so, the Legislature put a “Legislative initiative” on the ballot for March 2000 the following year at Gov. Davis’ behest, some 6 months after they were executed and approved. That initiative, called Proposition 1A, by its language proposed to amend the California State Constitution Art. 4, sec. 19, to authorize the Governor to negotiate future compacts with California Indian tribes. The voters were never informed that a vote in favor of Proposition 1A would, in effect, retroactively ratify the 59-weak giveaway, virtually unenforceable compacts that Gov. Davis has already signed without legal authority and which were approved at his instance by the State’s Legislature. It is not coincidence that so many State legislators also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these casino tribes, often funneled throu gh campaign committees and PAC’s with unassuming names. My favorite was the one calling itself “The California Native Peace Officers Association.” That PAC was funded by $5,000,000 million entirely from the Pechanga Indian Casino and the State Correctional Officers Union and was distributed to key politicians in Sacramento. The use of PACs is one of the ways politicians use to disguise receipt of gambling monies by disguising them through innocent-sounding groups. Once legalized in 2000 by Proposition 1A, the onslaught of Indian casinos in California began.

NEXT TIME: PART 4, THE EXPANSION OF “INDIAN CASINO GAMBLING IN CALIFORNIA AFTER PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 1A AND THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES.”

Akaka Bill

Organizing Against Reorganization

Leave a comment

I am not a Native Hawaiian, nor do I play one on TV.  But, let’s say for the sake of argument that there was a proposal to create a new tribal government for us Hapa Filipinos.  There’s one or two of us in the islands, right?  And now, let’s say that there was a substantial trust and land value tied up in the issue.  (I know, I know.  This part may be hard to imagine, given that many of us have grandfathers who consider the family trust to exist in a coffee can in the sock drawer, but this is a hypothetical exercise.  I have a point, after all–I’m just kinda slow getting there.)  Anyway, being that I’ve never been in a room of more than two Filipino women who didn’t have an opinion on anything from the quality of the homily at church on Sunday to the proper way to make lumpia, I have trouble imagining that there wouldn’t be a strong push for public comment on the proposed Filipino reorganization.

So I find it hard to understand why we haven’t had opportunity for comment on the Akaka Bill yet.  This is the most transformative piece of legislation to hit Hawaii since we became a state.  (Heck, some people might say since the revolution.)  And yet, there’s no push for public hearings on it?  Well–let’s be fair here.  There certainly is a push for public hearings on the part of the public.  Strangely, the politicians involved seem to be more interested in keeping all the wheeling, dealing, and negotiations at a more exclusive level.  And if that’s not enough of an argument for hearings, I don’t know what is.

Therefore, even though I’m not the world’s biggest fan of online petitions (No, I am not going to stop watching TV today in order to send a message to Big Oil.  Burn Notice is on tonight, for goodness sakes!), I think that this one is a worthy one.  It’s a call to stop the Akaka Bill until the people of Hawaii (as well as Native Hawaiians in other parts of the country) get their opportunity to weigh in on the matter.  So click on this link and make your voice heard in the fight to  . . . um . . . make your voice heard.

Akaka Bill

Promises, (Com)promises

Leave a comment

It is, I confess, too easy to mock and criticize politicians.  Maybe it’s the endless weighing of polls and legacies and that finger held constantly to the wind.  Or maybe it’s the obfuscations, the justifications, and the ill-considered legislation.  But politicians do have to think about a lot of things that most of us never bother about.  I mean, do you have any idea how much time they spend fretting over what tie will make them look like a leader of people without conveying a privileged, upper-crust background?  It’s why they all go grey so quickly.

All of this to explain why Gov. Linda Lingle was in a pickle.  Supporting the Akaka Bill gets her grudging accolades from various normally critical groups and looks great on the ol’ legacy meter.  Opposing it . . . doesn’t really do much, politically speaking, except get her the temporary approval of those who secretly think that she’s an unreliable ally.

Oops.  Guess who was right?

As you may have heard, Lingle reversed her previous opposition to the Akaka Bill in a dramatic and widely-trumpted press release and letter to the Senate, explaining at length why she’s totally hunky-dory with the most radical piece of legislation ever to transform an entire state’s culture.  To be fair, I thought that Lingle’s reservations–primarily concerning whether members/leaders of the new Native Hawaiian government would be immune from certain Hawaiian laws–were valid.  And yes, it’s a good thing that they’ve been resolved.  Sort of.

But let’s not pretend that everything is better now.  Notably, one of Lingle’s reservations was not, “will this have enormous unforseen consequences for the economic and social health of my state.”  (See above rant about the concerns of politicians.)

Here’s the part that really gets me about the letter though–the hubris that seems to suggest that now that our illustrious Governor is on board, there’s nothing left to say on that matter.  Au contraire.  I have a lot to say.  Like, “It’s totally disingenuous of the Governor to say in her letter to the Senate that the Akaka Bill just brings Hawaii into line with the other US states that recognize Indian tribes.  This is a completely new and different situation–not the recognition of a tribe, but the creation of one out of a racially mixed former country.”  And, “Just saying that the Bill is constitutional doesn’t make it true.  There are a lot of people hoping to sue the U.S. if this is passed and use the unconstitutionality of Akaka to test other civil rights issues.”

Regardless of what Gov. Lingle’s press office claims, her approval hasn’t solved anything for those of us who truly understand the problems with Akaka.

Akaka Bill

Certified Hawaiian

Leave a comment

When you’re Hapa, you get used to people playing, “guess the ethnicity” with you.  Especially on the mainland.  (In Hawaii, the game is generally much shorter.  In part because one of your cousins will inevitably walk by and put an end to things.)  I actually don’t mind it though.  I’ve always liked the way that our racial/ethnic mix gives us a broad feeling of connection on the Islands.   Like we’re all in this together.  After all, even if you may not be Portuguese/Japanese/Filipino/Samoan/Hawaiian/Chinese/Haole/Etc., it’s a pretty fair guarantee that you’re at least related to someone who is.

And this leads us to one of the things that so puzzles me about how the Akaka Bill is supposed to work–namely, how do you even go about defining who counts as “Hawaiian Enough” to be part of a Native Hawaiian government.  After all, we’re talking about a culture that includes the concept of hanai adoption.  That’s about as far from a “one-drop rule” as it’s possible to get, culturally speaking.

But, of course, since we’re talking about laws and stuff here, there has to be a way to legally define who gets to play in a Akaka government.  But would you believe that, as the Bill currently lies, a significant number of those who would consider themselves Hawaiian wouldn’t count as such for the purposes of the Akaka Bill?  In fact, one analysis found that more than 73% of those who defined themselves as Hawaiian for the purposes of the census would now be counted as such for the purposes of the Akaka Bill.  Here’s why:

Under the conditions set forth in S1011, Section 3(12), for an Hawaiian to become a “Qualified Native Hawaiian Constituent” all five of the following conditions must be met:

  • (A) Must be direct lineal descendant of indigenous people living in Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893 or of a person eligible in 1921 for Hawaiian Homelands.
  • (B) Wishes to participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
  • (C) is 18 years of age or older;
  • (D) is a citizen of the United States; and
  • (E) maintains a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community, as evidenced by satisfying 2 or more of 10 criteria

Of the five, Parts (B) and (E) are the most likely to exclude Hawaiians from becoming “Qualified” to participate in the Tribe.  Part (B) most likely means excluding all persons who do not sign up for Kau Inoa.  The December, 2009 Kau Inoa Newsblog proudly announces: “Those who register in Kau Inoa will help shape the Hawaiian nation to come….We are happy to share that at the end of November 2009, 108,118 people were registered in the Kau Inoa Native Hawaiian Registry….”

The 2000 US Census counted over 401,000 Hawaiians in the US.  A 2004 estimate by the US Census Bureau counted 279,651 Hawaiians in Hawaii, down from 283,430 in 2000.  The out-migration of Hawaiians is a direct result of the lack of economic opportunity created by OHA-funded shake-down artists and their environmentalist allies.  The Kau Inoa number is less than 27% of all Native Hawaiians, but it gets worse.

Rule (E) excludes many of the roughly 122,000 Hawaiians living outside of Hawaii.  Exceptions are made for for college students, military personnel, federal employees (such as Congressional staffers) and their dependents,  Hawaiian Homelands beneficiaries, their children and grandchildren.

By making “Native Hawaiian Membership Organization” into the following two separate rules, an activist or other OHA operative who has been a member of two Native Hawaiian Membership Organizations thereby meets the “two of ten” qualification in Part (E):

  • (viii) Has been a member since September 30, 2009, of at least 1 Native Hawaiian Membership Organization.
  • (ix) Has been a member since September 30, 2009, of at least 2 Native Hawaiian Membership Organizations.

The bill does not contain a list of such organizations, leaving the door open to all sorts of games as some organizations are accepted and others are not.

I don’t know about you, but I find the notion of having to “prove” your Hawaiian-ness by virtue of what clubs or activities you belong to be . . . mind boggling.  Especially when you consider that the Akaka Bill includes a loophole for those who might not have Hawaiian blood, but are “regarded as Hawaiian” by the Native Hawaiian community (whatever that may mean).  By that logic, a haole with the right connections can be part of the Native Hawaiian government while a 100% local, ethnically Hawaiian guy who likes to keep to himself might not.  Seriously.  Only politicians and huge sums of money can combine to create something so ludicrous.  Don’t tell me that’s what most people are thinking of when they say that Native Hawaiians deserve some kind of recognition.