CRAIG T. KOJIMA / CKOJIMA@STARBULLETIN.COM
Several members of the 1978 Constitutional Convention held a news conference yesterday to defend OHA, which was created by the convention. Frenchy DeSoto, William Paty and John Waihee shared a lighter moment during the meeting.
Veterans of ’78 Con-Con
publicly back OHA
Several former leaders of the 1978 Hawaii Constitutional Convention supported the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs yesterday in its fight against legal challenges.
Appearing at an OHA news conference yesterday were William Paty, former president of the convention; Adelaide "Frenchy" DeSoto, a former convention delegate who became OHA chairwoman; and former convention delegate and Gov. John Waihee III, who voted in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to create OHA.
U.S. District Judge Susan Mollway is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Arakaki vs. Lingle lawsuit, which seeks to abolish the state agency tasked with bettering conditions for Hawaiians.
H. William Burgess, one of two attorneys representing the people challenging OHA, was also a delegate to the 1978 convention. He could not be reached for comment.
Waihee called on Hawaiians to refocus the legal debate over Hawaiian programs away from racial preference and back onto Hawaiian entitlements and Hawaiian self-determination, the issues leading to the creation of OHA.
DeSoto said native Hawaiians are "literally faced with self-survival. This is not play time anymore, when they want to kick thousands of people off their homesteads."
The lawsuit also sought originally to abolish the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, but Mollway removed the department as a defendant because the plaintiffs did not challenge the federal law that established the program to distribute former crown lands to native Hawaiians.
Sherry Broder, the attorney for the 1978 Constitutional Convention who assured delegates that the creation of OHA would not violate the U.S. Constitution, said she did not anticipate the Hawaiians-only provision for OHA elections would reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court struck down the Hawaiians-only voting provision in Rice vs. Cayetano in 2000, spurring Arakaki vs. Lingle and other lawsuits challenging programs benefiting Hawaiians.
