Two down, with who knows how many more lawsuits to go for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Judge rejects suit against OHA
By Pat Omandam
pomandam@starbulletin.comOHA successfully defended itself again yesterday from a federal lawsuit that sought to stop state payments to OHA, as well as prevent OHA from using its money only for those of Hawaiian ancestry.
While U.S. Chief District Judge David Alan Ezra ruled plaintiff John Carroll did not have standing to bring his lawsuit before the federal court, Ezra stressed the merits of Carroll's complaint may one day be debated in court as OHA's constitutionality continues to be challenged following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that struck down the Hawaiians-only election in February 2000.
"This is not a voting-rights case," Ezra said. "This is the other shoe, and it is a very different brand and nature."
Ezra dismissed Carroll's lawsuit yesterday after hearing brief oral arguments from OHA attorney Sherry Broder and Carroll attorney Paul Hicks. Last July, Ezra ruled plaintiff Patrick Barrett also did not have standing to challenge OHA's programs for Hawaiians.
OHA chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said Ezra's ruling is good news for OHA but the challenges continue.
"Like he said, this is not a decision based on any merits," Apoliona said. "I think should they choose to go through a process (to have appropriate standing in such a case) it certainly would be looming down the road."
Broder successfully argued yesterday morning the case should be dismissed because Carroll has a generalized grievance even less substantial than Barrett's. She said Carroll has a philosophical difference with OHA that includes support for $95 billion in reparations to Hawaiians and a free trade zone for Hawaiians.
But Hicks countered OHA is misreading Carroll's standing in this case, and said the discriminatory state law that allows OHA to serve only Hawaiians must be repealed. He said it goes against human dignity to deny all Hawaii residents equal access to all state programs, even those at OHA.
"How can a state create an office for exclusive use of one race?" Hicks argued.
Ezra, however, explained federal courts have limited jurisdiction and they don't usually hear cases of a general nature. He said Carroll may be entirely sincere in his efforts, but in this particular instance, he does not have any specific grievance to bring against OHA.
What he does have, the judge said, was a political grievance best addressed in the U.S. Congress or at the state Legislature.
"It means that at this point in time ... he does not have the standing to bring the challenge he is bringing," Ezra said.
Meanwhile, Ezra said his ruling means both Carroll and Barrett can now file a joint appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both plaintiffs had consolidated their cases against OHA before the federal court and, if desired, can now appeal Ezra's decisions that they lacked standing.
"I'm more than happy to decide this case on the merits," Ezra said.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
