Capitol View
THE executive director of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America wants the nation to know what is going on in Hawaii. He is shocked. Arguments on
fairness and OHAThe Color-Blind America campaigners are not concerned with my aloha shirt selection, but are against racial preferences.
"This is a remarkable case," says Marc Levin, referring to the Rice vs. Cayetano suit under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The suit was brought by a Big Island rancher, Harold "Freddy" Rice, who although his family can trace its lineage back to the monarchy is not allowed to vote in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections, because he isn't part-Hawaiian.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs claims that if the Supreme Court says Rice can vote in OHA elections, the entire set-up for native Hawaiian preferences is in danger.
The case is to be heard today in Washington, D.C.
Interestingly, the federal government opposes Rice's argument.
"The United States has concluded that it has a trust obligation to indigenous Hawaiians because it bears a responsibility for the destruction of their government and the unconsented and uncompensated taking of their lands," said U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.
Rice maintains that OHA has violated the 15th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits denying a citizen the right to vote on the basis of "race, color or previous condition of servitude."
The case has quickly spiraled out of rational control with special interest groups on one side saying there should be no preferences given for any government operations and another side charging this is all part of a plot to destroy the native Hawaiian culture.
"Cool head, main thing," may be a local sentiment that has fallen out of favor, but this is precisely the time when the leaders arguing both sides need to be sure this is a debate and not demagoguery.
OHA reasons that only Hawaiians get to vote because only Hawaiians are represented or will benefit from the actions of OHA.
Rice notes in his petition that OHA controls a total fund of $238 million, held for the sole benefit of native Hawaiians.
Rice contends he is Hawaiian because his family was a citizen of the nation of Hawaii.
"The classifications of 'Hawaiian' and 'native Hawaiian' are suffused with condescending and paternalistic racism," Rice argues.
WHAT is not argued, however, is that non-property-owning native Hawaiians were excluded from voting by constitutions promulgated by the nation of Hawaii. Although the constitutions were rammed through by the Americans and Europeans living in Hawaii, the result was to disenfranchise the native Hawaiians.
The anti-affirmative action groups are fond of saying, "I didn't do that, I'm not responsible for what happened then." Not argued, however, is the fact that the very lineage of some results in a benefit.
In other words, just because your ancestors didn't own slaves doesn't preclude you from having an easier time of things because you are white.
But that is the debate for affirmative action. The state and others supporting OHA argue that this case is not about affirmative action, but about voting rights.
Native Hawaiians and Harold Rice maintain it is about equality and fairness.
Sometime next year the Supreme Court will rule and we will know how that search for fairness balances against the laws of the land.
Richard Borreca reports on Hawaii's politics every Wednesday.
He can be reached by e-mail at rborreca@pixi.com