A U.S. District Court judge has allowed a case challenging state-run programs for Hawaiians to continue to a possible trial. Court upholds taxpayer
challenge to OHAA judge says that the plaintiffs
have a legitimate standingBy Pat Omandam
pomandam@starbulletin.comU.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled on Wednesday that 16 plaintiffs do have standing as taxpayers to challenge direct payments of tax money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs by the state Legislature.
But she said the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge ceded-land revenue payments to OHA, as well as to the state's $30 million-a-year, 20-year settlement over the use of ceded lands with the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
"Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge disbursement of money from Hawaii's general fund when the money does not come from state taxes," Mollway said in her 34-page ruling on the motion to dismiss the case. "The settlement of past claims is not an improper purpose that plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to assert."
Plaintiff attorney H. William Burgess said yesterday that while his clients do not have standing to make a claim based on ceded-land revenues, they can challenge the annual matching funds OHA receives from the Legislature.
"She didn't give us everything we wanted, but it was a good result for us because she recognized that we do have taxpayer standing, so our case can continue on that basis," said Burgess, who added that the next step is a request for a preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs set for July 24.
Attorneys for OHA and Hawaiian Homes had urged Mollway last month to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs had only a generalized grievance and could not show any direct "pocketbook" injury so, therefore, did not have standing.
The lack-of-standing issue resulted in the dismissal in U.S. District Court of previous cases brought against the agencies serving Hawaiians by Patrick Barrett and John Carroll.
The two men originally filed separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The cases were later combined but dismissed because the court ruled that plaintiffs suffered no legal injury and therefore did not have proper standing.
Yesterday, a panel of judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Honolulu related to Barrett's and Carroll's appeals of their cases.
Attorney Walter Schoettle, who represents a group of native Hawaiians, wanted to intervene in the two appeals to get the court to rule that OHA is required to provide services to those with 50 percent Hawaiian blood.
But OHA attorney Sherry Broder said OHA and the state opposed allowing this group to intervene because the blood quantum issue is divergent from the issue of standing, and its complexity may not be addressable in this appeal.
Judge Richard Tallman said the controversy over the constitutionality of state-run programs for Hawaiians has been stuck in procedural issues, and no one has yet dealt with the substance of the cases.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
