Let's play it straight on Akaka bill
By David Shapiro
I've supported the Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian political recognition as the best shot at protecting Hawaiian assets such as Hawaiian Homes, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kamehameha Schools from persistent legal challenges.
Hawaiian Homes and Kamehameha Schools predated Hawai'i's statehood in 1959 by many years, and OHA was created to manage Hawaiians' share of ceded lands guaranteed them by the Statehood Act.
These were part of the deal when Hawai'i voters ratified statehood, and it's chicken for opponents of native rights to come back now and try to have the agreed-to Hawaiian assets ruled unconstitutional under U.S. law.
The Akaka bill, which gives Hawaiians status similar to Indian tribes, is also the best vehicle put forth so far for settling Hawaiian political and land claims stemming from the 1893 overthrow of their monarchy.
But I'm nervous about the last-minute major amendments being offered by the Hawai'i congressional delegation just as the Akaka bill seems poised to pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
Gov. Linda Lingle, a supporter of the bill for her first seven years, still backs the original language but opposes new amendments she says forever change the relationship between the state and Native Hawaiians in ways never intended.
Lingle and Attorney General Mark Bennett didn't even see the amendments until a few days before yesterday's markup by the House Natural Resources Committee — and then only after getting copies from the panel's minority staff. There's been zero public scrutiny of the changes.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie wisely pulled the amendments and went back to the original language before the bill passed the committee 26-13 yesterday, but the changes could resurface when the measure comes up for a floor vote.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, for whom the bill is named, has indicated he'll offer the amendments when the bill goes before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee today.
This legislation has been around for nine years, and the current Congress has had a year to get its language straight. There's no excuse for major changes at the last minute without opportunity for public scrutiny.
Even before the amendments, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian critics were calling for new public hearings in Hawai'i before the bill is passed.
Hearings aren't necessary if lawmakers go with the original language that's been well-vetted, but if they pass 11th-hour amendments that signicantly change the terms, it would be unconscionable to vote without a thorough public airing of the implications.
Volcanic Ash
December 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Aloha, David. I agree! Absolutely, we should be have new public hearings ASAP!!! We only had two in the last ten years.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Aloha ~
STARDATE 2,156 - Washington, D.C.: Today Sen. David Akaka, great, great, great, great, great grandson of the late Daniel Akaka, chaired the Senate Native People's Committee, as they once again debated amendments and listened to comments concerning the controversial "Akaka" bill.
In today's session, over 263 years after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the last-remaining 37 Kanaka Maoli made clear they intend to finally clarify their agreed-to Hawaiian assets.
As the eight major Hawai'ian islands now closely resemble Hong Kong in human concentration and commercial development, the native representatives agreed to compromise by accepting a small park near Waikiki.
A*L*O*H*A
December 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I have to disagree with your David on two points. One is the central premise of the Akaka Bill and other laws aimed at (I paraphrase) benefiting native Hawaiians for their loss of sovereignty as a result of the annexation of Hawaii to the United States. The sovereignty issue is a political issue; not a racial one. The overthrow of Liliuokalani not only impacted the descendents of Native Hawaiians, but the descendents of Hawaiian citizens of non-Polynesian ancestry as well of which there are many. Yet these laws benefit only persons of Tahitian ancestry. They take a political issue and make it into a racial one. That is the inherent injustice of these laws and why they can be (have been and will continue to be) challenged on a constitutional basis. Secondly, the original bill does indeed need public hearings in order to gather and receive input from the Hawaiian community. Yes, the bill has been around long enough for public edification. But Akaka and his fellow proponents have done nothing to obtain local community input as to the popularity of the bill's approach to the problem of Hawaiian sovereignty.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Aloha, Segregation! Rolling back 45 years of progress.
"but if they pass 11th-hour amendments that signicantly change the terms, it would be unconscionable to vote without a thorough public airing of the implications."
Sounds a lot like Harry Reid's health bill.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Trisha Kehaulani Watson has a helpful discussion of the proposed amendments on her Advertiser blog, He Hawai`i Au:
http://hehawaiiau.honadvblogs.com/2009/12/16/a-stand-on-the-akaka-bill/
December 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
this sort of government endorsed racial preference has been tried before with the american indians and african-americans with negative results mostly.the government created the bureau of indian affairs,which lthru their corrupt management left the native americans destitute,in poverty on the reservations.even the "tribe-nations" with the casinos and hunting rights are over-regulated with blood sucking federal agents spying on them.the war on poverty and segregation has been a disaster because of government meddling.the results are that many black-americans live in ghettoes,rat infested public-housing,unemployed and many in prisons for non violent"crimes".do the native hawaiians really want a government that is increasingly declaring war on our civil liberties to create aprogram for them?what this government can give you today,they can takeit from you with violence tomorrow.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:46 am
In 2007, the Attorney General went to Washington and worked with the Bush Administration on amending the Akaka Bill. The bill was substantially amended from earlier versions, without participation from any Native Hawaiian organizations or representatives, and at no time did the Attorney General proclaim that public hearings on that version should be held. The Attorney General and the Governor, who seems to have turned over the handling of all Native Hawaiian issues to the AG over the past few years, are now, ironically, demanding that public hearings be held because substantial changes have been made to a version of the bill that the AG put together previously without public hearings. Is it really a question of public hearings or a question of who gets to control what goes into the bill? With respect to the Akaka Bill and the Lingle Administration, it is clearly the latter.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Kaimuki Sam,
Spot on observation!
Mahalo!
December 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Kaimuki Sam, I may have missed something, but I'm not aware that the governor and AG have called for public hearings. They've objected to the substance of some of the amendments and not being notified of the changes and being given a chance to comment. Akaka, Inouye and Abercrombie have all apologized for the oversight and have said they'll work with the state to try for language everybody can live with. Basically, you seem to be bashing the administration for something the delegation has apologized to them for.
The calls for public hearings I've heard have come from Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian groups that oppose the Akaka bill for different reasons.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
a native hawaiian government,their own sovereign state.free from state taxes(yay!!).free from state regulations.i hope it works out.they waited a long time.they may even get land that is now military installations.(yay again!!).awesome responsibilities! i hope they will allow a free market of ideas and commerce so that prosperity will flourish in their nation.and since governments are involved,there 's going to be a price to pay.especially for non-natives.higher taxes and probably a loss private sector jobs.my advice to new nation is: keep tribe/government small and weak!no taxes.lot's of economic and civil freedoms and liberty!
December 19th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Thanks, Dave,
Please read the AG's written testimony to the House Committee on Natural Resources. You will see his complaints about substantial changes being made without public hearings.
December 19th, 2009 at 7:00 am
P.S. The Attorney General and the Governor were told by certain members of the delegation that they would now have input before the bill moves to the floor for final vote. Maybe that is why the Attorney General and the Governor are not now making an issue about public hearings, which leads me back to my original point. The Governor than says in this morning's paper that unless they get the changes they want, she cannot support the bill. Again, I think this is all about who gets what in the bill. We all know that Governor Lingle is extremely effective with media relations as well and she is putting all the leverage that she can muster on the delegation right now.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
The AG's letter to Nick Rahall subtly criticizes on page four the lack of public hearings, "We note, moreover, that there has been no public hearing ... in at least the last seven years." Mark Bennett is right, there has not been, but as Kaimuki Sam points out, the Lingle Administration was playing a more active role in amending the Akaka Bill. While they were getting their amendments in, they were not encouraging new hearings.
What we should also recognize is this; everyone knew the Bush administration, and its Department of Justice, DID NOT support the Akaka Bill. It would've gotten vetoed. How convenient it must have been for the Lingle Administration to "support" a bill that it knew would not pass. Now, under a different administration that has vowed support for the Akaka Bill's passage Lingle has reservations?
We are now in a position where we must and should question Governor Lingle's sincerity in her so-called support of the Native Hawaiian community and addressing historical injustices. This is the same Administration that not only took the position that it can sell "ceded" lands before resolving the un-relinquished claims of Native Hawaiians to the "ceded" lands, BUT also argued that plaintiff Jon Osorio was "not Hawaiian enough" to maintain the lawsuit in state court.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The US Constitution is the only law we have under which to measure laws passed by the Congress. If someone sees something they think is unconstitutional, then I have a hard time understanding anyone's opposition to clarifying the issue.
Aloha,
Keahi