Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Why it's important to defeat Neil Abercrombie for a second term as Governor of Hawaii

Published May 14, 2014 by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
in honor of U.S. Flag Day

The purpose of this essay is to explain why people should vote against Neil Abercrombie in the Hawaii contest for Governor in 2014. The focus of this essay is on Abercrombie's long history of pushing the Akaka bill for federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe, and his published personal views on the history of Hawaii which make it clear that he will continue to push for the partitioning of Hawaii along racial lines and/or the secession of Hawaii from the United States.

President Obama has two more years in office. Neil Abercrombie was a close friend and mentor to Obama during Obama's adolescence growing up in Honolulu at the same time Abercrombie was a radical activist. Obama publicly supported the Akaka bill on several occasions as Senator and as President. Bureaucrats in Obama's Department of Interior are currently working on using rule-making, or an Executive Order, to grant federal recognition to ethnic Hawaiians as an Indian tribe. If Abercrombie is elected to a second term lasting four more years, he will use his power as Governor and as friend of Obama to make sure federal recognition takes place during the first half of Abercrombie's second term, and then to use his power as Governor to hand over huge amounts of land, money, and jurisdictional authority to the newly created tribe.

The greatest threat to Hawaii is the ongoing effort to break apart the State of Hawaii along racial lines. See the 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

The racial partitioning of Hawaii is being done by creating a list of ethnic Hawaiians who swear they believe in "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people"; then declaring that racial registry to be a state-recognized tribe and a federally-recognized tribe; and then dividing the people and lands of Hawaii along racial lines or asking for international recognition of the entirety of Hawaii as an independent nation.

The consequences of creating a state-recognized Hawaiian tribe are bad enough; the consequences of creating a federally-recognized Hawaiian tribe would be devastating. See "Why businesses, labor unions, and community groups in Hawaii should oppose state and/or federal recognition of a phony "Native Hawaiian" tribe -- letter to Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, and commentary in Honolulu Star-Advertiser, as examples" at
http://tinyurl.com/mfozw6v

Having Abercrombie as Governor for the next four crucial years magnifies those threats enormously. Abercrombie must be defeated at all costs. That's why in the primary election on August 9, 2014 I strongly recommend that people who choose a Democrat ballot vote for David Ige. I make that recommendation even though I know very little about Mr. Ige, because Abercrombie is so dangerous. And in the general election, if Abercrombie has won the primary, I recommend voting for Republican candidate Duke Aiona even though Aiona is an ethnic Hawaiian who can be expected to push for a Hawaiian tribe and even though Aiona previously wore the red shirt and gave a speech in solidarity with ethnic Hawaiian activists at a political rally at Iolani Palace.

Here's a table of contents for the remainder of this essay. Scroll down to read each item.

1. How Abercrombie used stealth and deception to pass the Akaka bill through the House of Representatives in year 2000: He placed it on the calendar of non-controversial bills to be passed by unanimous consent during the dinner hour when only a handful of Congressmen were present, and he sandwiched it between two other bills regarding bureaucratic transfers of small parcels of land in Washington D.C. He then crowed in a Honolulu newspaper that this was the most significant and precious achievement of his life.

2. Excerpts, and then full text, of a 4-part interview in "Indian Country Today" in Spring 2005, just a few weeks before the Akaka bill was expected to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate. In the interview Abercrombie essentially said Hawaii should never have become part of America, and all the ceded lands [indeed, the entire archipelago] rightfully belong to ethnic Hawaiians. [Do we want this guy to be Governor, in charge of defending the State of Hawaii against demands from the Hawaiian tribe for land, money, and power at the expense of the ever-diminishing state?]

3. How Democrat Abercrombie tried to sneak an especially dangerous version of the Akaka bill through a Democrat-controlled House committee in December 2009 without letting Hawaii's Republican Governor find out about it until it was too late to voice her strong objections.

4. Abercrombie's celebratory signing ceremony for Act 195 (2011) recognizing ethnic Hawaiians as Hawaii's only indigenous people and launching the Kana'iolowalu racial registry to begin creating the fake tribe. The ceremony took place at Queen Lili'uokalani's private home along with racial partisan celebrities.

5. Abercrombie personally brokered the "settlement" between OHA and the State of Hawaii that turned over to OHA 10 parcels (25 acres) of prime land in Kaka'ako worth $200 Million. Abercrombie staged a boisterous signing ceremony on April 11, 2012 at the home of Queen Lili'uokalani, which included all the OHA trustees and Senator Akaka. This is only the beginning of a transfer of perhaps half the lands of Hawaii to a future ethnic Hawaiian tribe if Abercrombie gets reelected and is able to implement the views he expressed in his "Indian Country Today" interview. With Abercrombie displaying such exuberance while giving away $200 Million worth of land to OHA, should the people of Hawaii trust him during the next four years to protect the interests of the 80% of us who lack Hawaiian blood, as a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe begins to make demands? Abercrombie expressed little concern when told there might be a lawsuit by Hawaii citizens seeking to protect their rights.

================

** Excerpts from news report: "My heart is pounding; I am so happy," Abercrombie said after the House vote. "This is the biggest thing that has ever happened to me in my legislative career. ... It justifies my life in public service." ... Abercrombie was trying to keep the issue as quiet as possible so as not to attract any opposition. He did not speak in favor of it on the floor, only entering a written statement into the Congressional Record. Congressional staff said Abercrombie was prepared to pull the bill off the floor and delay the vote if he heard of any opposition. If a member who opposed it had called for a recorded vote, instead of a voice vote, the measure would have required two-thirds approval to pass.

Full text of news report, copied from the Honolulu Advertiser of September 27, 2000 from the following URL, which no longer works.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/Sep/27/927localnews1.html

House OKs native bill

By Susan Roth
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- In a major victory for supporters of a bill to federally recognize Native Hawaiians, the U.S. House yesterday passed the measure by voice vote, with only 10 minutes of discussion. The passage was also an important victory for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawai'i), who quickly steered the bill through the contentious House Resources Committee and the House, whose 434 members represent myriad political philosophies on issues related to indigenous people.

The elated Hawai'i congressional delegation's focus moves to the Senate, where the bill isn't expected to face nearly as much difficulty as in the House, given the strong influence of Sen. Dan Inouye and the strong friendships of Sen. Daniel Akaka, the state's Democratic senators. About two weeks remain in the legislative session.

Though Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawai'i) has been silent on the issue since her statement at the end of August hearings on the bill in Hawai'i, she spoke in favor of the measure on the House floor. In Hawai'i, Mink had said she wanted to see a referendum on Native Hawaiian recognition, but she was never clear on exactly how that would occur. Yesterday, she said her concerns had been satisfied.

The measure would federally recognize Native Hawaiians as a distinct indigenous group with a right to self-determination, and it would set a process to establish a Native Hawaiian governing body within the state. The governing body would have government-to-government relations with the United States, similar to those of American Indian nations.

"My heart is pounding; I am so happy," Abercrombie said after the House vote. "This is the biggest thing that has ever happened to me in my legislative career. Forty-one years ago, I came to Hawai'i without any idea of serving in Congress on behalf of Hawai'i's people. What I owe to Hawai'i in some small measure has been repaid today. It justifies my life in public service."

Help soothing the pain

The bill would help Hawaiians resolve the grief and pain remaining from the United States' 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, Abercrombie said. He said he believed he was able to overcome opposition to the bill in the House by explaining the issues involved to fellow members and allaying their concerns, especially that the new Hawaiian governing body would require substantial federal financial aid and that the bill could lead to gambling in Hawai'i.

Mink declined comment afterward. But in her statement on the House floor, she complimented Abercrombie for getting the bill through committee "in record time."

The Supreme Court's Rice vs. Cayetano decision, which rejected the state law allowing only Native Hawaiians to vote for trustees of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, "has immobilized our state in the performance of its mandated trust responsibility to the Native Hawaiian people," Mink said. The bill "replaces what the Supreme Court struck down. (It) must pass."

Mink said she was pleased to see that the amended bill was "stripped down to create a concept" of self-governance but left the procedural details to the Native Hawaiians themselves. Referring to her initial insistence on a referendum, she said she was satisfied because Hawaiians would voluntarily participate in the new native government, and those who participate would vote to ratify the governing documents.

Akaka, who returned to Washington yesterday morning nearly two months after undergoing hip surgery, said he was elated and gratified by the bill's strong bipartisan support.

With the help of House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, the bill was placed in the middle of a list of noncontroversial measures expected to easily pass the House without much discussion.

Abercrombie fought silently

Abercrombie was trying to keep the issue as quiet as possible so as not to attract any opposition. He did not speak in favor of it on the floor, only entering a written statement into the Congressional Record.

Congressional staff said Abercrombie was prepared to pull the bill off the floor and delay the vote if he heard of any opposition. If a member who opposed it had called for a recorded vote, instead of a voice vote, the measure would have required two-thirds approval to pass.

In Hawai'i, the bill's passage in the House was a cause for celebration for those who supported it and helped craft it.

"This is really good news for the Hawaiian people," said Beadie Kanahele Dawson, vice president of the Native Hawaiian working group that gave input on the draft legislation. The bill "is not an end in itself, but it's a beginning, and I'd like to see all Hawaiians come together to make this work."

Anthony Sang, chairman of the state Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, credited American Indian and Alaska Native groups for helping garner congressional support.

However, if and when the bill clears the Senate, more hurdles lie ahead within the Native Hawaiian community, he said. "The most difficult step will be trying to create this Hawaiian government," Sang said, "That's a major challenge, and we Hawaiians will have to come together."

Advertiser staff writer Yasmin Anwar contributed to this report.

===============

Philip Burnham, of the online news magazine "Indian Country Today", published an interview with Congressman Neil Abercrombie in four parts dated March 22, 2005; March 28, 2005; April 04, 2005; April 12, 2005. Here are some excerpts showing Abercrombie's personal beliefs about Hawaii's history which continue to display his attitude that Hawaii should never have become part of America, and all the ceded lands [indeed, the entire archipelago] rightfully belong to ethnic Hawaiians.

------------

Excerpts of Abercrombie's answers to interviewer questions

Land in Hawaii is money. What I'm talking about here is ceded land - land that belonged to the kingdom and was ceded to the republic and then to the state when we achieved statehood. [It was ceded] With guns and a takeover and land courts. All the land was held in common at one point in the feudal society of the kingdom on behalf of the people ... The ceded lands, or crown lands, were always seen as those which had previously been held in trust for the people ... We made stabs in the legislature after statehood to try to find some way to relieve the state of both the burden and obligation of administering lands that otherwise were construed as belonging to Native Hawaiians historically. ... Those of us who wanted to see this issue resolved put in the Akaka bill to enable and encourage the Hawaiians to organize themselves and come to the Interior Department (DOI) to be recognized as a governing entity and take control of the land and money assets that now exist. We're talking about 2.2 million acres of land. It's scattered, but it comes in sufficient batches to be worth bundles if you can get the infrastructure in.

[Is it fair to say that Native Hawaiians have had a trust relationship with the state?] It's not only fair to say, I think it's essential: and that's one of the most contentious points. They've had a trust relationship with the United States, too, all this time ... we've had a trust relationship with the United States from the time of annexation right up until now. One of the principal bones of contention from those who do not wish to recognize Native Hawaiian rights in any way is that no trust relationship exists. Now, any objective analysis of the legislative history and the social realities indicates that of course it does. If the relationship exists, then that complicates things for the people who are against sovereignty for the Hawaiians.

[Discussing the Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano] The cultural blindness, the misunderstanding of what was at stake, the complete inability to understand the relationship of land and dollars: this was completely lost on these folks. They saw it all in terms that were being fought elsewhere - what happened with tribes, what happened with land questions, what about immigration, affirmative action, racial preferences, all these things that applied to circumstances in other places and had nothing to do with the history of Hawaii.

Even if the Akaka bill establishes a sovereign entity to have a relationship with the U.S., that doesn't end the argument about who controls the assets. It's just that we're trying to get the Hawaiians to do it. ... My own particular preference is for a Hawaiian version of the Native Alaskan approach because the Hawaiians are not a tribe, they're an indigenous people. The parallels are there about indigenous people being exploited. But governmentally speaking, the Hawaiian experience is unique to Hawaii.

[What kind of support do you have among Hawaiian residents as a whole?] Are there 1,000 people in the state who even know what's in the bill? For all practical political purposes, it's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of people are for it in the sense that they don't know anything that would make them be against it. ... in the Resources Committee ... the only question ever asked me [in committee] was, ''If we set this up, does that mean we have to give them land, does that mean we have to give them money?'' My answer was ''No, no, no, no. That's already there. [*Ken Conklin's note: Abercrombie is saying no federal lands or money are at issue, it will all come from the State] This is just to get the state out of the administration of this,'' which appeals to conservatives.

[Is it your belief that getting something started now is important so that 10 years down the line, when you realize it isn't right, at least there's something in the statute books?] Yes. ... We've got to get something on the books to get this, or this is going to go into a big drift and there's going to be real disillusionment. The social reality is that failure to do this is going to end up with rancor and bitterness and societal division in Hawaii that we're not going to be able to sustain.

[So what's holding up the bill? Is it a philosophical opposition?] No. It's an appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party, the 21st century version of the Know Nothings. Racial preferences [they argue], affirmative action, special privileges, reverse discrimination: it even gets into the immigrant argument. ... Just think about it: What possible threat are Native Hawaiians to anybody up here on the mainland in any way, shape or form? ... My position on the Akaka bill is essentially a conservative one: people ought to be in control of their own destiny. If you've got assets, you should take proper care of them; you shouldn't be a ward of somebody else. You should exercise sovereignty over your own existence. Now what's more conservative than that? ... you've got the bigger question here of justice for the Hawaiians.

--------------

** Full text of all four parts of the interview.
** Series title: The Akaka bill: Endangered species?
** The original URLs no longer work.

-----------

Part 1, March 22, 2005

Since 1991, Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie has served continuously in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Hawaii's First District on the island of Oahu. He is a member of the House Committee on Resources and the Committee on Armed Services. Long active in municipal and state politics, Abercrombie served in the Hawaii State House of Representatives for two terms, after which he served in the state Senate for eight years. He also held a seat on the Honolulu City Council between 1974 and 1990.

Abercrombie is the primary sponsor of the House version of the Akaka bill, named for Hawaiian Sen. Daniel Akaka. The bill proposes the establishment of a governing apparatus by and for people of Native Hawaiian descent. First introduced in 2000, the bill would recognize and reorganize Native Hawaiians as an entity with government-to-government powers under oversight by the Department of Interior. The sponsors are hopeful the bill will come to a vote during this congressional session.

Given the unusual history of Hawaii, the Akaka bill is a unique piece of federal legislation. Indian Country Today interviewed Abercrombie about the history of the state and provisions of the bill in his Washington office across the street from the U. S. Capitol.

Indian Country Today: As a sponsor of the House version of Akaka, when did your interest in Native affairs begin?

Neil Abercrombie: You mean how does a haole boy - which is a Hawaiian word for Caucasian that originally meant ''stranger'' - from Buffalo, N.Y. end up not just representing Hawaii in Congress but being an advocate for this Native Hawaiian bill? I came to Hawaii in 1959 with statehood, and of course the whole foundation of this multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic society in Hawaii is the aloha spirit, the legacy of the Polynesian pioneers who had come from across the ocean to Hawaii ...

At the same time there's a history in Hawaii of the emergence from pre-feudal separate islands into a kingdom, into a shotgun republic, into an annexed territory, and then into a state. The Iolani Palace is right downtown in Honolulu, the only palace in the country. There was a queen that was overthrown here. So I was affected by all of that and felt profoundly grateful for the opportunity to live in Hawaii, and I set out at once to try to fit in.

In this rainbow society that we have, it became very apparent to me after I entered into an electoral political life that the question of settling the issues on the assets of the Hawaiians is what the Akaka bill is about. Are the Native Hawaiians going to be able to control their own land and their own money? When the land was seen as worthless, nobody gave a damn. When there wasn't any money involved, for all intents and purposes, nobody gave a damn. But now the land, supposedly worthless, is seen for what it really is: an incredibly valuable asset.

Land in Hawaii is money. What I'm talking about here is ceded land - land that belonged to the kingdom and was ceded to the republic and then to the state when we achieved statehood.

ICT: By what method was it ceded?

Abercrombie: With guns and a takeover and land courts. All the land was held in common at one point in the feudal society of the kingdom on behalf of the people - with all the usual attendant tales of chicanery and stupidity and sometimes nobility and kind-heartedness and low-dealing and all the rest. Fundamentally, the land was held in common and administered by a group of nobles called the alii on behalf of the common good.

Then, of course, Western concepts of ownership and privatization came in and clashed with that. So land began to be exchanged. Land began to be seen as something to be owned privately and exploited for private interests, and never was entirely reconciled with the old ideas that land should be utilized in common for the good of all.

I'll give you an example. All Hawaii beaches are open to the public - there's no such thing as a private beach. In highly affluent areas, between multi-million dollar estates, you'll see a right of way so that anybody can get their surfboard and walk between these estates and get down to the beach, which is public. So there's always been this clash between what is the public good - that which belongs to all of us in common - and what can be exploited for a private interest. The ceded lands, or crown lands, were always seen as those which had previously been held in trust for the people and remained held in trust for them, but administered by whomever - the territory first, and now the state of Hawaii.

We made stabs in the legislature after statehood to try to find some way to relieve the state of both the burden and obligation of administering lands that otherwise were construed as belonging to Native Hawaiians historically. Take the Honolulu International Airport. A good portion of the airport is on ceded lands, and lease money was paid for that. So the state's collecting lease money because all of a sudden ''worthless'' land now has an airport on it.

ICT: Is the state collecting money that it uses for the benefit of Native Hawaiians?

Abercrombie: That's right. There's a series of benefits - educational, health, etc. - that benefit Native Hawaiians. The revenues are starting to mount into the millions. When I was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 1974, one of the committees I was assigned to was Land, Water and Hawaiian Homes.

In 1920, a couple hundred thousand acres had been set aside called ''Hawaiian homelands.'' The idea was to rehabilitate Hawaiians by letting them homestead on acreage set aside for them. A lot of the homelands turned out to be land where no water was readily available, no roads, no amenities. So you had your ceded lands of a couple million acres, and you had your Hawaiian homestead lands of a couple hundred thousand acres.

I was assigned to Land, Water and Hawaiian Homes to deal with this legacy. I remember saying to the chairman after serving the first year, ''Why are we doing this? Why don't the Hawaiians have control?'' ''Well, we have no mechanism to do it,'' I was told.

Shortly after the 1978 constitutional convention, we put together an amendment passed overwhelmingly by state voters to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). These voters were both Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian - non-Hawaiian by virtue of blood quantum, which had been set up in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act [1921] in which to have a homestead you had to be able to prove you had 50 percent blood quantum Native Hawaiian. Well, Native Hawaiians have one of the highest percentages of out-marriage there is. So virtually every Hawaiian is a mixture. The thing that distinguishes them as Native Hawaiians is that Native Hawaiians were part of their racial and ethnic heritage.

Everybody voted across the state and decided the trustees would be elected to conduct the affairs of the OHA and that the election of trustees would be decided by those of Native Hawaiian ancestry. Then the state entered into negotiations with OHA to get the state out of administering anything, to pay back rent of the ceded lands - a settlement. The OHA trustees rejected that. The sad fallout from that is why we end up with the Akaka bill and various lawsuits right now.

Those of us who wanted to see this issue resolved put in the Akaka bill to enable and encourage the Hawaiians to organize themselves and come to the Interior Department (DOI) to be recognized as a governing entity and take control of the land and money assets that now exist. We're talking about 2.2 million acres of land. And the capital now residing with the OHA is between $350 and $500 million, depending on the stock market, with an income stream from leases on ceded land and so on of tens of millions of dollars. You're talking serious money already in the bank, and millions of dollars coming in every year.

So as soon as the land was worth something and there was money in the bank, all of a sudden everybody got interested in non-discrimination, in who's really going to administer this stuff. Everybody got interested in ''How do I get mine?'' Which motivates, I think, 99 percent of the opposition to the bill.

----------

Part 2 March 28, 2005

First introduced in 2000, the bill would recognize and reorganize Native Hawaiians as an entity with government-to-government powers under oversight by the Department of Interior. The sponsors are hopeful the bill will come to a vote during this Congressional session.

In this installment of an interview with Indian Country Today, Abercrombie discussed Native Hawaiians and their historical trust relationship with the government.

Indian Country Today: So you've said Native Hawaiians have 2.2 million acres of ceded and homestead land. Is it contiguous?

Neil Abercrombie: It's scattered, but it comes in sufficient batches to be worth bundles if you can get the infrastructure in.

ICT: Is it worth a lot because of agriculture? Tourism?

Abercrombie: As originally conceived, since it was homestead land, it was to be for farming. But how are you going to farm if you don't have any water? How are you going to farm if the utilities aren't there? You couldn't get the capital. It was the same with building a house or being able to sustain yourself. In theory, it was great - free land. But the practical realities were, ''How are you going to make it work?''

Today, the answer is that even though the land is somewhat scattered around on the different islands, although it comes in some pretty big chunks, you now have the capital and the income stream available so that you can make loans.

The land itself, because of the extension of roads and utilities right up to and including the Hawaiian homelands, is suddenly very valuable. Before, it was seen as essentially worthless and simply a theoretical nod in the direction of justice for the Hawaiians who had lost their land and their kingdom and their sovereignty.

ICT: Is it fair to say that Native Hawaiians have had a trust relationship with the state?

Abercrombie: It's not only fair to say, I think it's essential: and that's one of the most contentious points. They've had a trust relationship with the United States, too, all this time - how did this all get administered? We've got about 150 pieces of legislation on the books nationally and all kinds of legislation on the books in the state. All of which, by the way, has to be under the terms of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, certified by the Congress after it passed the state.

When I was in the state Legislature, we passed a whole bunch of laws having to do with the administration of the Hawaiian Homelands, all of which had to be vetted and certified by Congress. So we've had a trust relationship with the United States from the time of annexation right up until now.

One of the principal bones of contention from those who do not wish to recognize Native Hawaiian rights in any way is that no trust relationship exists. Now, any objective analysis of the legislative history and the social realities indicates that of course it does. If the relationship exists, then that complicates things for the people who are against sovereignty for the Hawaiians.

ICT: Have most Native Hawaiians benefited from the trust relationship?

Abercrombie: Yes, to the extent that the social and economic position of the Native Hawaiians has still been disadvantaged. Like any other human endeavor, the system that existed [before] had its good points and its fearsome points. Nonetheless, there was a sense of loss, of displacement, of being seen as the ''other'' by those who were in economic and social control after the overthrow - principally Caucasian ... When I first came to Hawaii in 1959 with statehood, there were a lot of people who submerged the fact that they had any Native Hawaiian ancestry. The language had fallen into not only disuse but was almost a historical artifact.

That's one of the ironies. With statehood actually came the renaissance of Hawaiian culture - language, dance, mythology, history, scholarship.

ICT: How many Native Hawaiians live in Hawaii?

Abercrombie: Those who self-identify in the census are about 240,000, about 20 percent of the state. The OHA registration to vote was about 100,000, which of course only includes those of voting age. So there's a considerable number of those willing to identify themselves as at least part Native Hawaiian.

ICT: If Native Hawaiians already have a trust relationship with the federal government, then why the Akaka bill? What does the bill give Native Hawaiians they don't already have?

Abercrombie: The reason for the Akaka bill is simplicity itself. The second that the state proposal for a settlement to the trustees was turned down, an avalanche of lawsuits over what constitutes this trust relationship began to take place.

The most notorious was a case called Rice v. Cayetano. An individual named Harold Rice sued Governor Cayetano over the election of trustees of the OHA, who were selected by those who claim Native Hawaiian ancestry. ''That's unconstitutional. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for the OHA trustees'' [the suit said].

Of course, the answer was ''because the people of the state, including you, voted to set it up this way in order to take care of the land and money for the Hawaiians.'' It went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The cultural blindness, the misunderstanding of what was at stake, the complete inability to understand the relationship of land and dollars: this was completely lost on these folks. They saw it all in terms that were being fought elsewhere - what happened with tribes, what happened with land questions, what about immigration, affirmative action, racial preferences, all these things that applied to circumstances in other places and had nothing to do with the history of Hawaii.

The court ended up ruling [in 2000] that electing people by the state constitutional amendment empowering only those who could trace their Native Hawaiian ancestry was unconstitutional. Therefore, everybody had to vote.

OK, we did that. Everybody voted. What did everybody do? They voted for Native Hawaiians. But that wasn't good enough. What became apparent very quickly was that the vote wasn't really the answer. ''There's all this land and all this money; somebody's got to control it,'' they said. ''How come these brown people are controlling it? This is discrimination.'' What they really meant is, ''How come we can't get a shot at it?''

You strip away all the verbiage, all the pseudo-philosophical trappings, and this comes down to who's going to control the land and who's going to control the money. Even if the Akaka bill establishes a sovereign entity to have a relationship with the U.S., that doesn't end the argument about who controls the assets. It's just that we're trying to get the Hawaiians to do it.

The premise behind the bill is simplicity itself - to put together a process whereby you can facilitate Native Hawaiians to come to [the Department of the] Interior with a proposal for controlling their assets that is satisfactory to the DOI. My own particular preference is for a Hawaiian version of the Native Alaskan approach because the Hawaiians are not a tribe, they're an indigenous people. The parallels are there about indigenous people being exploited. But governmentally speaking, the Hawaiian experience is unique to Hawaii.

--------------

Part 3 April 04, 2005

Congressman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, is the primary sponsor of the House version of the Akaka bill, named for Hawaiian Sen. Daniel Akaka. The bill proposes the establishment of a governing apparatus by and for people of Native Hawaiian descent. First introduced in 2000, the bill would recognize and reorganize Native Hawaiians as an entity with government-to-government powers under oversight by the Department of Interior. The sponsors hope the bill will come to a vote during this Congressional session.

In this installment of an interview with Indian Country Today, Abercrombie discusses specific provisions of the Akaka bill.

Indian Country Today: Is there in the Akaka bill any provision for membership on the Native rolls according to blood quantum?

Neil Abercrombie: There is in the sense that it's now recognized that the blood quantum is disappearing. We're getting down to [the] 9th or 10th generation now from the Western discovery of the islands. The Akaka bill provides that membership in the governing entity will be determined by those who are in it when it starts. So they can set up any criteria they want. The bill simply establishes the opportunity for the Hawaiians to decide how to handle it.

ICT: In fact, to vote for the interim governing council, you have to trace yourself back as a lineal descendant of someone on the 1893 roll or someone who was eligible for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921. So it's not a blood quantum, it's lineal descent.

Abercrombie: Obviously, the homesteaders who are eligible under the 50 percent rule, I'm sure, would prefer that it end right there. But realistically, that's not the way it's going to end up.

ICT: Under the Akaka bill, will Native Hawaiians and their affairs be administered by the BIA?

Abercrombie: For federal purposes, the Secretary of the Interior has an interim role. That's being set up right now. The intention is to have an office of Native Hawaiian Affairs in the DOI to administer it all. What we're trying to say is that once this thing comes into existence, we're not going to say we're eligible to be under the BIA and can tap into that fund. One of the ways we've secured the support of Native American tribes across the country is assuring them that we don't want to get into their particular pot ... particularly because the Hawaiians are bigger than virtually all other tribes.

ICT: One of the bill's provisions deals with a group of Native claims that are given a 20-year statute of limitations. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) awarded Native tribes a lot of land and money with the understanding that Native claims would be extinguished. Does the Akaka bill propose something similar?

Abercrombie: That's where the 20 years comes in. If you can't figure it out in 20 years after the governing entity has been established and recognized, at some point you have to say that's it. Everything has a statute of limitations. It's been 100 years - if you can't figure out that you've got some claim, that's it. That hasn't been a point of very much contention, at least legislatively.

ICT: One of your information sheets suggests that only a certain class of claims are covered - those already in existence. No other claims appear to be affected.

Abercrombie: Not being a lawyer, I'm not sufficiently versed to know if this stops everything; but my thought is that if someone wants to sue they can sue, it doesn't matter what we write. Now whether they get accepted or not is another story.

What we're trying to do is put something together that makes some legal sense, is respectful of the history, and is adequate for any fair-minded person to judge that we gave the maximum opportunity for people to press their claims under the Constitution.

ICT: What are some of the parallels between the Akaka bill and ANCSA?

Abercrombie: How Native Hawaiians organize their government is up to them, but I'm particularly attracted to ANCSA because the Native Hawaiians are an indigenous people, and there's a historical and political reality we're dealing with here rather than a racial reality. The diversity among the Alaska Natives is apparent on its face.

The Alaska Natives have come to the conclusion that the assets that were available to them they wanted to administer on the corporate model. They were trustees who would administer their assets like a board of directors. The ANCSA bill was not seen as an end-all in itself. It's been amended, I believe, in 30 years some 30 times one way or another because you're trying to reflect the realities and consequences - sometimes unintended - from what took place in the original language. So it's virginal territory there.

But having the example of the Alaska Natives and how they conducted their struggle to make the intentions of the original bill come to fruition, the Native Hawaiians, at least my hope is, would use that as a template and come up with a Hawaiian version of managing their assets in a similar way to benefit Hawaiians in the generations to come.

ICT: ANCSA, as you say, has been heavily amended. Is it your belief that getting something started now is important so that 10 years down the line, when you realize it isn't right, at least there's something in the statute books?

Abercrombie: Yes. Look what they did with the Constitution. Those were pretty smart people who put the Constitution together. Even that had to get 10 amendments before you could put the thing over. And we've amended it many times since. We've got to get something on the books to get this, or this is going to go into a big drift and there's going to be real disillusionment.

The social reality is that failure to do this is going to end up with rancor and bitterness and societal division in Hawaii that we're not going to be able to sustain.

ICT: Why does the bill emphasize that it shall not be construed to authorize any gaming activities?

Abercrombie: Does the phrase ''support of Indian tribes who have gaming'' ring a bell? We want the support of Indian tribes. You get into gaming, then you're competing with them. The second thing is that Hawaii is one of two states, Utah being the other, that forbids any kind of gaming.

There's a very strong anti-gambling bias in Hawaii to begin with, and we don't want to even remotely indicate that we're doing this because it's an opportunity for Native Hawaiians to back-door their way into a casino operation. We think it would undermine our support among tribes, and we think it's at best a real marginal, peripheral element with regard to the principle of sovereignty ... Our object here is to get the Native Hawaiian assets under the control of the Hawaiians, not to go off on tangents like gambling.

------------

Part four April 12, 2005

Indian Country Today: What kind of support do you have from Native Hawaiians for the Akaka bill?

Neil Abercrombie: Over-whelming support. Every poll ever done shows that. It may be eroded somewhat now. For example, I don't know if there are 100 people in the state who want to restore the kingdom. But I guarantee you that at any given hearing, 99 of those 100 will show up to testify.

But the average person who's for this, who would like to see it happen, they have to make a living: they've got to feed their kids, they're going to work, they're not going to show up at the hearings. The extremes are the people who show up, and then other people get discouraged from coming because they don't want to go down there and get in the midst of a shouting match.

ICT: What kind of support do you have among Hawaiian residents as a whole?

Abercrombie: Again, an overwhelming majority were for it. But over time, especially as the thing doesn't get passed, you get the extremes writing in the newspaper complaining about it. Are there 1,000 people in the state who even know what's in the bill? For all practical political purposes, it's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of people are for it in the sense that they don't know anything that would make them be against it.

ICT: You also have the support of the National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives.

Abercrombie: Yes. As recently as the fall election they made public appearances at forums where the Akaka bill was under discussion, and officers of both organizations reiterated their support.

ICT: Do you have bipartisan support in the House?

Abercrombie: Yes. The one time we got it on the floor we had a unanimous vote in 2000.

ICT: So what's holding up the bill?

Abercrombie: The White House. There may be various and sundry internal machinations in the Senate, but if the White House said, ''Yes, we'd like to see this moving,'' I have an idea that the opposition, to the degree it exists at all in the Senate, would melt away.

ICT: Hasn't Sen. John McCain come out against it?

Abercrombie: Sen. McCain [R-Ariz.] says lots of things. He also said he wasn't going to stand in the way of it being heard. Very few bills, to my knowledge, pass unanimously. The question is whether the legislation is going to be allowed to get to a point where people can vote on it. That is strictly a function, at this stage, of the White House.

ICT: You have the support of your own Republican governor.

Abercrombie: That's what they say. That's the public perception. But to my knowledge, the Republican governor [Linda Lingle] has never exchanged a word on this with the White House except perfunctorily.

ICT: You can't speak for the White House, but ...

Abercrombie: I can't speak for the White House, but I can speak for what the White House did because I was there when it happened. The Office of Management and Budget director, Mr. Joshua Bolten, explicitly stated to the Appropriations Committee in the House that the White House was opposed to this.

ICT: Is it a philosophical opposition?

Abercrombie: No. It's an appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party, the 21st century version of the Know Nothings. Racial preferences [they argue], affirmative action, special privileges, reverse discrimination: it even gets into the immigrant argument.

The sad part is that the Akaka bill, which really has nothing to do with any of this stuff, is trapped in the ''Well, we couldn't get the Indian tribes, we couldn't get the Native Alaskans, these are the only guys out there, tough luck that they didn't get in on the deal 30 years ago.''

Just think about it: What possible threat are Native Hawaiians to anybody up here on the mainland in any way, shape or form? There's a strain of nativism, which is ironic.

ICT: And you have the support of the state congressional delegation?

Abercrombie: Yes. I have virtually unanimous support in the Resources Committee, even Republicans with impeccable conservative credentials. My position on the Akaka bill is essentially a conservative one: people ought to be in control of their own destiny. If you've got assets, you should take proper care of them; you shouldn't be a ward of somebody else. You should exercise sovereignty over your own existence. Now what's more conservative than that?

In fact, the only question ever asked me [in committee] was, ''If we set this up, does that mean we have to give them land, does that mean we have to give them money?''

My answer was ''No, no, no, no. That's already there. This is just to get the state out of the administration of this,'' which appeals to conservatives.

ICT: Do the supporters of the bill think that having a federal trustee rather than a state trustee is going to make it a lot easier to use this money?

Abercrombie: There'll be no federal trustee. This is just for recognition purposes. The law requires that the DOI recognize that entity as having control over these assets; and to the degree or extent the federal government has to involve themselves, that's what they'll deal with.

ICT: How will the land and money be made more available once the bill is passed?

Abercrombie: Right now, the state of Hawaii has control of the land part, including the Hawaiian homelands, because the state appoints the board and the state does the funding, and the legislature still votes on all questions that amount to zoning and everything else.

On the money part, now that the OHA has been voted on by everybody, they kind of control the money; but even there the state still collects the lease money, still controls the airport leases, and there's some question as to whether people can challenge the right of the OHA to have control over the money.

ICT: But the DOI has a checkered past in terms of its trustee relationship with tribes.

Abercrombie: Yes, but that depends on the talent in the room. The Constitution does not guarantee you good government, it guarantees you the opportunity for good government. Whether you get it or not depends on the talent in the room.

I'm sure a lot of tribes would say you're being kind when you say there's a ''checkered past.'' They probably have a description that would be a lot more harsh and probably deservedly so when you talk about management of assets.

ICT: Like the Cobell case ...

Abercrombie: Literally, the trust relationship in terms of Question: ''Did the money disappear? Where's what I'm entitled to?'' Answer: ''Well, it all went away.'' Question: ''Where did it go to?'' Answer: ''God knows.''

In this instance, I think we could probably avoid a lot of that because here there's no history of this to begin with. It's not as if the Bureau or the DOI or any of its sub-entities have ever had anything to do with this in terms of administering the land or controlling the funds.

ICT: The bill gives a lot of authority to DOI. It's Interior that appoints the nine members of the original commission. Interior also has to sign off on the governing documents.

Abercrombie: But that's all mechanical. They do have to sign off. But that exists right now. That's not anything new. That's just what we're told are the legal mechanics that have to take place. But once that's done, the whole idea is for the DOI to be able to do a handoff. I don't think there's anything sinister in it. As a matter of fact, if we could get the White House eventually to approve it, I think they'll be only too happy to hand it off.

ICT: What are the bill's prospects?

Abercrombie: In terms of legislation, I think they're excellent. In terms of executive approval, they're pretty bad. And the bill won't move, in my judgment, particularly with the House's concern, absent the approbation of the White House.

ICT: Are you saying the wrong man won in November?

Abercrombie: If anything, it has to do with the wrong woman who won in 2002. Part of the victory of the governor was that she could do something for the Native Hawaiians that Democrats could not do, that she would have access, that she would have political leverage with the Bush White House. But I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'd be happy if she could - it would help her in 2006 - but you've got the bigger question here of justice for the Hawaiians. She has been, at best, supine. Maybe she's waiting for the right time.

==============

3. How Democrat Abercrombie tried to sneak an especially dangerous version of the Akaka bill through a Democrat-controlled House committee in December 2009 without letting Hawaii's Republican Governor Lingle find out about it until it was too late to voice her strong objections.

Full text of all published news reports, and news releases from the House committee's Republican minority and from Governor Linda Lingle and her Attorney General Mark Bennett, are compiled in the bottom half of a webpage covering September through December, at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaHist111Sept2009.html

Here are some excerpts focused on Abercrombie's stealth maneuvers.

Honolulu Advertiser, BREAKING NEWS/UPDATES
Updated at 1:52 p.m., Monday, December 14, 2009
Sen. Inouye responds to charges of Akaka Bill 'sneak attack'
U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye issued a statement in response to a protest today by Native Hawaiian groups at the state Capitol over the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, also known as the Akaka Bill.
The groups claimed that Inouye is trying to "sneak" the so-called Akaka Bill into spending bills to get its passage.
"I have never suggested that the Akaka Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill be passed and adopted as part of the defense appropriations process," Inouye said in his statement. "I don't know where this nonsensical suggestion originated. The Akaka bill for the past many years has been considered under what we call the regular order. It has had hours upon hours of hearings, many, many revisions and amendments and has gone through the scrutiny of three administrations. We have had hearings in Washington and in Hawaii. It is not a measure that has been shepherded in the dark of the night. It has been fully transparent."
The Akaka bill is scheduled for a markup in the House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Thursday.

----------

U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
Minority [Republican] caucus
December 15, 2009
Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett sent a letter to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Member Doc Hastings stating his and Governor Linda Lingle's "strong opposition" to the latest version of H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, which is slated to be offered as a substitute amendment by Rep. Neil Abercrombie during a full committee markup tomorrow. Both Governor Lingle and Attorney General Bennett have been active, outspoken advocates of the original text of H.R. 2314, which has been rewritten and unveiled only after the Committee suddenly announced its intention last Friday to markup and advance the altered text.
Ranking Member Hastings will be sending a letter tonight to Chairman Rahall requesting that H.R. 2314 be removed from consideration at tomorrow's markup.
"Although many Committee Republicans have fundamental concerns with the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, the Governor and Attorney General of Hawaii's strong opposition to the rewritten bill is extremely disconcerting and raises serious red flags," said Ranking Member Doc Hastings. "Consideration of this bill should not go forward when the people and government officials who would be directly impacted by this legislation have raised serious objections and have not even had a chance to properly review the text. Rather than rushing this bill through a hasty markup, Chairman Rahall must move consideration to a future date that will allow the rewritten text to be thoroughly analyzed and vetted by all parties."

----------

Text of the letter from the Hawaii Attorney General: [excerpts here, full text on webpage] As Hawaii's Attorney General and chief legal officer, I write to express the strong opposition of Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and myself to many of the proposed changes (in a "markup") to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, H.R. 2314, also known as the "Akaka Bill." It my understanding that H.R. 2314 will be marked-up in the House committee on Natural Resources on Wednesday, December 16, 2009. We were only provided copies of the proposed changes today by the Committee's Minority Staff (yesterday we received an informal copy of two sections of the new bill). None of the changes were drafted with our input or knowledge. As noted, we strongly oppose a number of the changes, but note we have not had the opportunity to carefully study and analyze many of the changes in the new bill.
Governor Lingle and I have been strong advocates and supporters of the Akaka Bill for seven years. We have worked with the Hawaii Congressional Delegation to craft a bill that had strong bipartisan support. The version of the Akaka Bill which we support is the current version of H.R. 2314.
The changes under consideration will completely change the nature of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. ...
These changes, taken together, change the bill from one where the status quo and the relations between the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian governing entity can be changed only after negotiations and after passage of implementing legislation, to a model in which the status quo immediately changes, pursuant to an Indian law model.
The magnitude and potential impact of such changes cannot be overstated. The present version of the bill preserves all the rights and interests of the State of Hawaii until the Congress and the State Legislature can evaluate the result of negotiations. The proposed revisions make immediate changes to the rights and interests of the State of Hawaii. These changes may immediately incorporate into the law governing Native Hawaiians a vast body of Indian law, much of which is unsuited for the State of Hawaii, and none of which (to our knowledge) has been evaluated for its impact on Hawaii.
These changes are extensive, have been not part of any bill which we have supported, and have an enormous potential to negatively impact Hawaii and its citizens. We note, moreover, that there has been no public hearing reflecting this new model in at least the last seven years. The views of Hawaii's citizens, native Hawaiian and non-native Hawaiian alike, have not been heard (certainly not recently) with regard to this new model.
The implications of forever changing the relationship between native Hawaiians and the State of Hawaii, and simply deciding native Hawaiians are an Indian tribe (for at least some purposes), are potentially enormous. We oppose these changes. And, we do so mindful of the fact that Governor Lingle and I have been among the strongest supporters of the Akaka Bill for seven years.

-----------

U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
Minority (Republican) webpage
Press release for December 16, 2009
Democrat Majority Proceeds with Markup of Native Hawaiian Bill Despite Strong Opposition WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec 16 - Today, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings offered a motion to postpone the markup of H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, until February 24, 2010 -- allowing interested parties 60 days to thoroughly review proposed changes to the bill. Last night, Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett on behalf of Governor Linda Lingle sent a letter stating "strong opposition" to the latest version of the bill, which was unveiled only after the Committee suddenly announced its intention last Friday to markup and advance the altered text.
The Democrat Majority defeated the motion to postpone and the Committee will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the bill.

================

** Excerpts from published reports

----------

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Gov-to-sign-law-recognizing-Native-Hawaiians-1455101.php
The Albany (New York) Times-Union,
Updated 10:44 p.m., Wednesday, July 6, 2011
by JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER, Associated Press
Gov. to sign law recognizing Native Hawaiians
HONOLULU (AP) -- A new state law recognizes the first people of Hawaii and lays the foundation for Native Hawaiians to establish their own government.
Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the bill into law Wednesday afternoon at Washington Place, which was the home of Queen Liliuokalani, the last monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
"We sit here today in her memory, her honor," Abercrombie said during a ceremony on the home's veranda, punctuated with Hawaiian chanting and hula. The law comes 118 years after Liliuokalani was deposed.

--------

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/Governor_signs_bill_giving_recognition_to_Native_Hawaiians.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Wednesday July 6, 2011, posted as breaking news sometime after 8 PM HST
New law gives recognition to Native Hawaiians
With historic Washington Place as the backdrop for a ceremony that included conch shell blowing, traditional Hawaiian music and hula, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed into state law a bill that formally recognizes Native Hawaiians as "the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population" of the islands and begins a process to create a roll of qualified members to work toward the reorganization of a native government.
Senate Bill 1520 supports efforts in Congress to gain federal recognition of native Hawaiians similar to that offered to American Indians and native Alaskans, but would continue the effort at a state level regardless of whether that goal is achieved.
Abercrombie appeared to choke up as he described his remembrances of Hawaiian aunties and other family members as he also referenced the decades-long effort made by Hawaiians in seeking such recognition.
"This bill is the first step in seeing to it that we have a Native Hawaiian government entity," he said. "It's not only the first step, it is a practical manifestation of all that has gone on before."
The signing took place today on the outdoor lanai, within shouting distance of sovereignty activists who decried the measure as an attempt to deny Native Hawaiians' claims to govern as a sovereign independent nation.
"This is an affront to those of us whose nation was stolen," activist Pilipo Souza said.
The mood at the ceremony was mostly celebratory as lawmakers past and present, along with representatives from several native Hawaiian organizations, packed the lanai to witness the historic occasion.

-----------

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/07/06/12000-first-step-to-a-native-hawaiian-governing-entity/
Honolulu Civil Beat, July 7, 2011
'First Step' to a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity
By Chad Blair
Inside Washington Place, the sentiment was of unity of purpose.
The VIPS included top legislators, former Gov. John Waihee, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian legal and business groups and many others. Separate press releases and a compact disc were issued by the administration, the state Senate and OHA, and an event program featured the sad visage of Liliuokalani.
While Abercrombie was the ranking official, Big Island state Sen. Malama Solomon was the emcee. Solomon, who was chiefly responsible for pushing SB 1520 through the Senate, was also one of the featured speakers along with three other Hawaiian lawmakers (like Solomon and Abercrombie, all Democrats): state Sen. Clayton Hee, Senate Majority Leader Brickwood Galuteria and state Rep. Faye Hanohano.
In fact, it was the Native Hawaiian Senate caucus that fought most for the bill. Galuteria, who explained that the caucus met weekly in his second-floor office overlooking Iolani Palace, said, "It would have been easy to go our separate ways and fortify the notion that Hawaiians can't work together. We wanted to create the new model."
At one point, Akaka himself visited the caucus, and Galuteria said his colleagues had the odd experience of being thanked by the senior senator for their work toward self-determination.
"There wasn't a dry eye in the room," he said.
Abercrombie, in his remarks, choked up several times as he recalled a visit with his late mother to Waianae, where he was accepted into the family of Aunty Aggie Cope, who sat in the front row of the VIPs.
But the governor largely turned the occasion over to others, and the message was obvious: It was a day for Hawaiians. A pule, oli, hula and music marked the program, and many speakers pointed out that in that very room there were people who are living links to ancestors who lived at the time of the 1893 overthrow and 1898 annexation.
"This brings to a conclusion the long journey that began with Queen Liliuokalani in this home," said Abercrombie.
A conclusion, but also the start of a new, and possible transformative, chapter.

==================

** Excerpts from published news reports

------------

http://www.civilbeat.com/2012/04/15498-oha-kakaako-deal-a-victory-for-abercrombie/
Honolulu Civil Beat, April 12, 2012
OHA-Kakaako Deal A Victory for Abercrombie
By Chad Blair
** See photo showing Abercrombie with huge grin holding pen in victoriously upraised hand
https://civilbeat_production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_files/photos/15497-84d266c0d0625d3efcdeb8e4e2b9a32316d497dfa176037b538d6b1d_w%3A1024_px.jpg
It took many of the state's sharpest legal and political minds months of hard work but the result was the enactment of historic legislation that settles a $200 million tab from the state to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. But in the end it might not have been possible were it not for Gov. Neil Abercrombie. His administration was able to do what his predecessors were not: resolve a 30-year-old unresolved claim to income and proceeds from ceded lands. ... give the governor his due. It was his attorney general, David Louie, that crafted the proposal with OHA attorney Bill Meheula, and it was Abercrombie staff like Blake Oshiro and Kate Stanley who helped shepherd the controversial bill through the unpredictable Hawaii Legislature. It was also Abercrombie's friendship with OHA Chair Colette Machado and his obvious love and respect for Native Hawaiians that helped make things happen. ... After reading a sermon delivered from the Rev. Abraham Akaka -- the senator's late brother -- at the time of statehood, Abercrombie largely turned the bill-signing ceremony over to Machado. The result was a lively, loud, chicken-skin event equal to the historic occasion. Machado called for a three-piece Hawaiian music band to play "Ekolu Mea Nui," a hymn which means "The Three Greatest Things." "Faith, hope and love," said Machado, first in Hawaiian and then in English. During the song, Machado's predecessor, Haunani Apoliona, went to the podium microphone and joined in singing along, her arm around Machado. It was also a touchingly personal ceremony. Machado recognized the late Frenchy DeSoto, whom she called "the mother of OHA," and former Gov. John Waihee, who was instrumental in helping found OHA through the 1978 Constitutional Convention. Machado also praised the late UH Law Professor Jon Van Dyke. "Is Jesse here?" she asked the audience, knowing that Akaka's communications director, Jesse Broder Van Dyke, was certain to be in attendance. "I honor your dad because he established the framework. ... And I thank you ... mahalo nui." Perhaps Machado's greatest praise was for Abercrombie. Observing that he had signed legislation last year recognizing Native Hawaiians as the indigenous population and establishing a roll commission to begin counting Hawaiians for a new government, she said the governor "willed this to happen." Abercrombie was so happy that he invoked a familiar phrase he hasn't said much about lately. Signing SB 2783 with a koa pen, he said, "We begin this new day for Native Hawaiians."

------------

http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/Possible-legal-challenge-ahead-for-historic-Kakaako-land-transfer/15186114#!YQFEv
KITV4 News
June 21, 2012
Possible legal challenge ahead for historic Kakaako land transfer
State to formally transfer title to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on July 1
** Includes video of news report It is a historic settlement to resolve ceded claims over a decades-old lawsuit.

Two months ago, and with great fanfare, the state signed the deal to turn over prime makai lands in Kakaako to OHA.

July 1 is when title of the real property is to be transferred, but just this week questions are being raised whether the state and OHA can legally do so.

Ewa resident Garry Smith, who may join in legal action to block the transfer. He believes the state has made a serious mistake.

"They cannot give land that belongs to all of us, regardless of race, to one particular race," said Smith.

Honolulu attorney Bill Burgess called it a $200 million dollar giveaway.

Burgess, who has both won and lost previous OHA challenges, believes the governor has a responsibility to all the people of Hawaii that conflicts with responsibilities to Native Hawaiians.

He believes the governor and OHA must ask for clarification from the Hawaii Supreme Court before the deal goes through.

"There is a direct conflict. He should apply to the Supreme Court of Hawaii before he implements the law. That's our position," Burgess said.

Burgess believes the question to the court is whether the Equal Protection clause under the U.S. Constitution precludes a state from making distribution to trustees consisting only of members of one particular race.

The state attorney general's office said it is reviewing Burgess' letter.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who views the settlement as a major achievement of his administration, did not seem overly concerned about the potential roadblock.

"I am confident that everything the legislature did this session, with regard to to bills that have been signed, which will bear any scrutiny," said Abercrombie.

OHA did not return calls for comment.

Burgess is giving the governor and OHA until June 22 to respond. Otherwise, he said he will be forced to take action in court.

================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

SEE MORE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES