Hawaiian program
suit sees new delayAn attorney's illness forces a
three-month hearing postponement
A Monday hearing on a federal lawsuit that could end state programs for native Hawaiians was delayed until early September because one of the attorneys who filed the suit suffered a heart attack.
But H. William Burgess, co-counsel on the case alleging racial discrimination, strongly objected to the decision to delay the proceeding.
Burgess said he is ready to argue the case alone and said the plaintiffs he has spoken with want to continue now.
He added there have been enough delays in this lawsuit.
"It's very unsatisfactory," Burgess said.
U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway held a telephone conference call yesterday with attorneys involved in the Arakaki vs. Lingle case to tell them she was postponing the oral arguments to dismiss the case until Sept. 8 to give plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Hanifin time to recover from heart surgery.
Hanifin, 48, was at work early yesterday morning when he suffered a heart attack, said Burgess.
Burgess said Hanifin drove himself to Queen's Hospital, where he underwent successful open heart surgery. He was told Hanifin is expected to make a full recovery.
The three-month delay means the case could be affected by the outcome of a federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians. The so-called Akaka bill is pending before the U.S. Senate, and action could be taken on it before the Sept. 8 hearing.
Attorney Sherry Broder, who is defending the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said passage of the Akaka bill would bolster defense arguments against the case.
Broder said yesterday that defendants were ready to argue the case.
She explained Mollway wanted to give the 16 plaintiffs the opportunity to be represented by both of their counsels.
Burgess and Hanifin represent a group of multiethnic Hawaii residents, including those of Hawaiian ancestry, who believe OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands programs are unconstitutional because they are race-based and discriminate against non-Hawaiians.
They are asking the courts to end these programs.
Their March 2002 lawsuit is the latest since the Rice vs. Cayetano ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The February 2000 high court ruling opened up OHA's Hawaiians-only elections to voters of all ethnicities. A subsequent case in U.S. District Court opened OHA board elections to non-Hawaiian candidates.
On Monday, OHA, Hawaiian homestead and state attorneys were expected to ask Mollway to throw out the Arakaki lawsuit because the challenge to DHHL is more a political than judicial issue. They also contend Congress and state government have recognized the claims of native Hawaiians by providing general funds to OHA as part of the ongoing reconciliation.
Meanwhile, the Arakaki lawsuit and the Akaka bill continue to draw interest from the Hawaiian community. More than 500 people attended workshops in Waianae, Waimanalo and Papakolea last week to learn about these issues.