Akaka bill would
divide Hawaii
MY grandmother married a full-blooded Hawaiian and I have many relatives of native Hawaiian blood quantum. It is said that my family and children are part Hawaiian, although back in the old days not all births to Hawaiian women were properly recorded on the birth certificates. Nevertheless, I am proud to be an American.
A recent newspaper poll showed that 80 percent of Hawaiians opposed sovereignty; one-third wanted nothing, a third felt division of existing lands was enough, and only a third wanted special treatment or reparations.
If Hawaiians are so split on this issue, what about the rest of the people of Hawaii?
I oppose the concept of sovereignty because:
It is divisive in our community. It pits Hawaiians against other Hawaiians over blood quantum and secession from the U.S., and against relatives who have other ethnic blood.
There is no such thing as secession or quasi secession (i.e. where individuals retain American citizenship in conjunction with forming their own country) since the Civil War established that there is no right to secede from the U.S.
The 1959 vote for statehood by the citizens of Hawaii affirmed the free choice of its inhabitants to become part of the U.S., thus mooting the question of the unlawful overthrow of the 1893 kingdom.
The proper legal definition of the citizens of Hawaii under both the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the apology bill and the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop should include all peoples or citizens living in Hawaii as of the overthrow in 1893.
It is erroneous to compare the internment of Japanese Americans and subsequent reparations with the issue of sovereignty because the actions taken against the Japanese were unconstitutional, blatantly racial and illegally taken against U.S. citizens. The citizens of Hawaii voted for statehood and these individuals were descendants of or from the kingdom.
Based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice vs. Cayetano -- holding that non-Hawaiians cannot be prevented from voting in OHA elections (which, by definition, will soon further be extended to allow non-Hawaiians to run for a trustee's seat on OHA) -- I oppose any and all laws of any type that would separate and differentiate the Hawaiian people from other citizens of Hawaii.
The use of OHA funds for only Ha-waiians is unconstitutional since revenues from the ceded lands should be for all citizens and all others who can trace their descendants to 1893, since all were treated equally under all three constitutions of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Since a recent Circuit Court decision held that the state owes OHA $800 million, and since no source of payment is in sight and since, therefore, for all practical purposes the state is insolvent, this matter of the unconstitutionality of OHA must be addressed by the citizens of Hawaii before any action is taken by Congress.
I believe it to be against the interest of the Hawaiian people to be treated similarly to the American Indians (who were Asians) and treated separately by the U.S. government. The plight of the Indians supports this conclusion.
The congressional transcript of the 1993 apology bill states that it was just that: an apology and no more. The residents of Hawaii need to go forward as one people to cure and solve their economic and educational problems. If we stop fighting over sovereignty issues, and use the ceded lands and other trust monies to help all the inhabitants and children of Hawaii, this would help all impoverished families, regardless of their racial extraction.
FOR those reasons, I oppose the Akaka bill as being racially divisive among peoples of the State of Hawaii and unconstitutional as not being inclusive of all peoples who trace their heritage to the kingdom. I ask that it be revoked and voted against by Congress.
Furthermore, Congress should consider any such bill only if:
1) The 1959 Hawaii statehood vote is found to be illegal by a court of law.
2) The people of Hawaii, via a referendum, are in agreement as to which course of action to take.
3) An international court rules.
At this time, there is no clear consensus as to which approach to take. Therefore, any action by Congress such as passing the Akaka bill would be premature and create and promote racial hostilities in Hawaii.
Richard Y.S. Lee is a Honolulu attorney.
