What’s your real
By Rowena Akana
agenda, Mr. Rice?On March 22, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Rice v. Cayetano, and decide whether the state of Hawaii may limit by their race voters who elect the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Harold Rice incorrectly presents the issue as whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the 14th and 15th amendments to the U. S. Constitution permit the adoption of a racial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials.
As the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted, restricting voter eligibility to Hawaiians cannot be understood without reference to what the vote is for. It is for the limited purpose of electing trustees who have no governmental powers and perform no general governmental duties.The voting restriction applies only to a special election of trustees to the OHA board.
District Court concluded "...that the requirements of the 14th and 15th amendments are not violated because the restriction on the right to vote is not based upon race, but upon a recognition of the unique status of native Hawaiians. This classification derives from the trust obligations owed and directed by Congress and the state of Hawaii. Consequently, the legislation will be upheld if it can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of the unique obligation to native Hawaiians."
Hawaii was an independent kingdom recognized by the United States from 1826. In 1893, the constitutional monarchy was illegally overthrown, as acknowledged by the United States 100 years later in 1993, in the Apology Resolution.
After the overthrow, the provisional government subsequently declared itself the Republic of Hawaii and sought annexation to the United States. In 1898, congress accepted the cession of the sovereignty of Hawaii and of 1.8 million acres of royal lands. In 1900, Congress passed the Organic Act, which provided a government for the Territory of Hawaii and defined its political structure and powers.
By 1920, the plight of the true inhabitants, native Hawaiians, had become desperate. Some scholars estimate that a population of 1 million Hawaiians in pre-contact Hawaii had plummeted to 40,000.
Congress responded by enacting the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), a well-meaning effort by Prince Kuhio, the territorial delegate to Congress, who hoped that returning Hawaiians to their aina, their agricultural land, could save them. The act was supposed to allow the remaining native Hawaiians to lease a small sliver of their former land. Testimony from the hearings describes the native Hawaiians as "our wards" and the Congress as "the trustees."
In 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the union through the Admission Act. Section 5(b) of the act returned the lands ceded to the United States at the time of annexation to Hawaii to be held as a public trust. Hawaii amended its constitution to reflect these provisions, and the United States turned over trust responsibilities to Hawaii. The origin of the trust structure was Congress' requirement that the new state accept the congressional definition of native Hawaiian in the HHCA, and accede to the purposes of the 5(f) trust obligations, which include, in part, betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.
No benefits actually went to native Hawaiians from 1893 until the state constitution was amended in 1978 to establish OHA. As a condition of statehood Hawaii agreed to take on the trust relationship with native Hawaiians. Hawaii created OHA as a means of fulfilling its inherited obligation from the federal government.
A board of trustees governs OHA. Trustees must be Hawaiian. Qualified voters who are Hawaiian elect them in special elections. Consequently, voting in this election is not improper; rather it is based on the political status of a native people.
I truly believe that Hawaiians are doing a better job for Hawaiians than both the state and federal government. This has been demonstrated by the way OHA has managed its investment portfolio. Although Rice says he has nothing against OHA, he has previously filed litigation against the Bishop Estate to challenge educational benefits for Hawaiians.
Perhaps this fifth-generation descendant of missionaries, whose ancestors can be traced to the nine members of the provisional government who overthrew our queen, has a different agenda than the one he states.
Rowena Akana is chairwoman of the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
