(c) Copyright 2015
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=============
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING NOVEMBER 2015.
November 1, 2015:
(1) Final Interior Department Rule [published in Federal Register on October 19] Allows OHA Hawaiians to Steal Land from DHHL Hawaiians [without needing DOI approval]
(2) Nai Aupuni Lets Candidates on Ballot With Fraudulent Registration -- Why were some delegate candidates allowed to run when they failed to properly obtain 10 registered voter supporters?
(3) Kawika K. Burgess, former chief operating officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and a former land assets and operations manager for Kamehameha Schools, is CEO of Real Property Management Alliance. His commentary in Honolulu Star-Advertiser pleads with ethnic Hawaiians to "Follow in the footsteps of our kupuna" by voting in the Nai Aupuni election.
(4) Hawaii Island newspapers report list of candidates in Nai Aupuni election, with ballots becoming available today.
Nov 2:
(1) Indian law blog "Turtle Talk" published links to 6 important documents in the lawsuit seeking to block the Nai Aupuni election, including full text of the 64-page decision by Judge Seabright dismissing the case.
(2) BBC News Magazine lengthy article "Aloha to the US: Is Hawaii an occupied nation?" explores historical grievances of ethnic Hawaiians and the clash between those seeking total independence vs. those seeking tribal status
Nov 3:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that voting is underway in the Nai Aupuni election; 3 candidates have withdrawn because they object to a flawed and unfair process; a slate of 19 candidates urge ethnic Hawaiians to vote.
(2) Candidate Kelii Lopez writes in Civil Beat urging people to vote; says the nasty radicals of the past were necessary to get things moving, but now the silent majority of nice activists will help all ethnic Hawaiians come together.
Nov 4:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser online poll shows 82% of 3224 respondents are not eligible to participate in the Nai Aupuni election (as expected, thats approximately the percentage of Hawaiis people with no native blood), including 58% who dont care about it; whereas more than half of the 18% who are eligible choose not to participate.
(2) Problems with the Nai Aupuni ballot, which includes one recently deceased man plus two others whose names appear even though they wanted to withdraw.
(3) Ian Lind analyzes Department of Interior proposed rule regarding the quorum it sets for voter participation to make the outcome be considered credible, and asks "Should getting the vote of one out of four adult Hawaiians here be considered a success for the Nai Aupuni election?"
(4) Senior professor of Hawaiian Studies Lilikala Kameeleihiwa says "For Native Hawaiians, Land Is The Biggest Issue. Taking advantage of the current opportunity for a federally recognized Native Hawaiian government does not hinder or preclude the push for full independence."
(5) Letter to editor from Davianna Pomaikai McGregor, Candidate for Oahu delegate says "I support the Star-Advertisers endorsement of electing delegates to an aha convention."
(6) 4-minute video from FreeHawaii: 32 of the candidates in the Nai Aupuni election are being paid by various race-based institutions that will benefit if a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition; names are named.
Nov 5:
(1) Grassroot Institute and Judicial Watch press release on their 9th Circuit Court appeal of Judge Seabrights order in Honolulu U.S. District Court denying a preliminary injunction in the case against the Native Hawaiian election. Full text of the press release includes libks to full text of the appeal and selected quotes from it.
(2) Link to amicus brief from the American Civil Rights Union
(3) OHA trustee Peter Apo has another in his continuing series of essays favoring creation of a Hawaiian tribe -- this one focuses on grievances: "A Vote To Overcome Our Trauma"
Nov 6:
(1) Hans von Spakovsky, legal expert for Heritage Foundation, writes important article in "Bench memos" at National Review online blasting "A Federal Judge Refuses to Stop a Jim Crow-Type Election in Hawaii" including links to important court documents.
(2) Letter to editor urges feasibility study on jurisdictional conflicts to be expected if Hawaiian tribe is created, and whether federal government will reimburse Hawaii for difficulties.
(3) Blog article in The Antimedia.org describes current events in creation of Hawaiian tribe, using title "Hawaiian Natives Move One Step Closer to Declaring Sovereignty from U.S. Government"
Nov 7:
(1) Letter to editor in Kauai newspaper by Kona candidate in the Nai Olowalu election explains why she has withdrawn her candidacy because "This process is not forth right."
(2) Letter to editor in Kona newspaper by a different Kona candidate in the Nai Olowalu election explains what will happen at the convention and why he or she believes its the right thing to do.
Nov 8: Hawaiian secessionist filmmaker commentary in Sunday Honolulu Star-Advertiser entitled "Nai Aupuni and stealing a nation -- twice" saying the Nai Aupuni election is the way the U.S. and State of Hawaii are trying to bamboozle ethnic Hawaiians into legitimizing the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the U.S.
Nov 9: Davianna McGregor, a professor of ethnic studies, wrote article in Honolulu Civil Beat "Two Movements, Both With Inherent Rights to Sovereignty -- The Native Hawaiian indigenous people might be well-served by U.S. recognition. Thats different than the true independence of a multi-ethnic Hawaii nation-state."
Nov 10: Truthout [far-left blog] "US Government Asks Native Hawaiians to Legitimize Occupation With Vote"
Nov 11:
(1) Full text of 4 responses to the Grassroot Institute and Judicial Watch appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, filed by Nai Aupuni, State of Hawaii, OHA, and amicus brief by U.S. Department of Justice.
(2) UH Professor Jonathan Osorio essay in Civil Beat: "Coercive Nature Of Nai Aupuni Process Ultimately Dooms It To Failure -- Claiming to be able to produce an entity that can speak with one voice for our people is not at all credible."
Nov 12:
(1) Nai Aupuni officers send email to all its registered voters saying pay no heed to protesters boycotting the election.
(2) Independence activists call for protest on Friday against Nai Aupuni election in front of state capitol.
Nov 13:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser publishes a puff piece biography of Kuhio Asam (head of Nai Aupui)
(2) 6 candidates competing for 3 Maui seats in 40-member Native Hawaiian convention make presentations at a forum on Maui; loud protests were made against the process
(3) 2 past presidents plus current president of Ka Lahui sovereignty group write article in Honolulu Civil Beat "Self-Governance Can Come Without State Or Federal Interference"
Nov 14: Nai Aupuni defends election -- Says protesters have not proposed alternative plan to form an effective government
Nov 16: Guest commentary in Kauai newspaper from group of 50 ethnic Hawaiians and supporters [a secessionist sovereiognty group known as the "Lawful Hawaiian Government"] provides 10 objections to the Nai Aupuni election
Nov 18
(1) Critics of the ongoing Nai Aupuni election for Native Hawaiian self-governance will hold a public panel discussion at Wilcox Elementary School Friday.
(2) Ethnic Hawaiian blogger Ian Lind, well-informed on sovereignty issues, has been undecided for many years whether to support Hawaiian sovereignty; has ballot for Nai Aupuni election; favors holding the election but hasnt figured out who to vote for.
Nov 19:
(1) and (2) Breaking news: 9th Circuit Court rejects Grassroot appeal
(3) Grassroot Institute says it will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 20:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports 9th Circuit rejects Grassroot appeal and Grassroot will appeal; Nai Aupuni election continues.
(2) Noelani Arista and Randall Akee article in "Indian Country Today" complains that the Nai Aupuni election does not reflect the will of the Native Hawaiians and is culturally insensitive for including dead people on its voter roll.
Nov 22: News report about public forum on Kauai featuring 3 secessionists who oppose the Nai Aupuni election. Although the event was on the island of Kauai, two of the three presenters are from Oahu and one is from Molokai.
Nov 23
(1) "Maui Now" online newspaper publishes what is essentially an advertisement entitled: "Naʻi Aupuni: 8 Days Left to Vote in Native Hawaiian Election"
(2) Opinion editor at Honolulu Civil Beat urges Native Hawaiians to participate in commenting on the Department of Interior proposed regulation to recognize a Hawaiian tribe
(3) Writer in "Indian Country Today" opposes U.S. House committee chairmans effort to pass a bill HR 3764 that would strip the Department of Interior of the authority to grant federal recognition to any new tribes.
Nov 24: Grassroot Institute and Judicial Watch file emergency request to U.S. Supreme Court seeking injunction to block Na'i Aupuni election
(1) GRIH press release includes link to full text of appeal
(2) Associated Press "breaking news" report in Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Nov 25:
(1) Hawaii Public Radio article recalls interviews about the Na'i Aupuni election with Hawaiian activists William Meheula and Trisha Watson; online comment by Ken Conklin
(2) Moloka'i Dispatch: "Hawaiian Election Continues Amid Concerns"
Nov 26: Outline of 134 page testimony by Ken Conklin presented to Department of Interior on Thanksgiving Day, in opposition to proposed regulation for granting federal recognition to a phony Hawaiian tribe; including link to full text of all 134 pages.
Nov 27: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the decision in Rice v. Cayetano in 2000 and who has sole jurisdiction over all U.S. 9th Circuit Courts in emergency cases, issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the counting or certification of votes in the Na'i Aupuni election until he or the full Court takes further action.
(1) Honolulu Star-Bulletin breaking news, with Ken Conklin comment listing links to 5 major documents filed in U.S. Supreme Court appeal: Grassroot Institute 36-page application for injunction; 427 page appendix with full text of District and 9th Circuit documents; State 31-page response; Grassroot reply to response; Justice Kennedy's order granting temporary injunction
(2) Grassroot news release
(3) Scotus Blog analysis
(4) New York Times news report by Adam Liptak
(5) Fox News
(6) Wall Street Journal (Associated Press)
(7) PJ Media
(8) KHON2 TV news
(9) Huffington Post
Nov 28:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser (first time in this newspaper's hardcopy): Na'i Aupuni election halted -- Is the Native Hawaiian election known as Na'i Aupuni in trouble?
(2) Kona and Hilo newspapers report approvingly report that Na'i Aupuni is urging voters to submit ballots by Monday deadline
(3) The Hill [Washington D.C. newspaper focusing on Congress]
(4) Eu Claire Wisconsin TV station 4x15-second quickie reports
Nov 30:
(1) Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper EDITORIAL: "Lift The Stay, Count The Votes In Hawaiian Election -- Justice Kennedy's 11th-hour stay of the Nai Aupuni delegate election process allows for a full review that ought to yield a decisive victory for Native Hawaiian self-governance."
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser mini-editorial laments "It's unclear how this ultimately will end, but it surely will delay the 'aha, if it is to be held at all."
(3),(4),(5) Three news reports about Na'i Aupuni announcement that it is extending the deadline for voting for 3 weeks, to December 21.
(6) Grassroot Institute news release: "The decision to extend the election -- despite an injunction from the country's highest court preventing the counting of ballots -- continues to divert public funds from meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, education, job opportunities, and health care ... It is a mistake to underestimate the significance of Justice Kennedy's injunction and the compelling rationale for his intervention."
(7) Judicial Watch press release
(8) Breitbart News
(9) Election Law blog
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING NOVEMBER 2015.
================
** Full text of news reports and commentaries from November 2015.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16234/Final-Interior-Dept-Rule-Allows-OHA-Hawaiians-to-Steal-Land-from-DHHL-Hawaiians.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, November 1, 2015
Final Interior Dept Rule Allows OHA Hawaiians to Steal Land from DHHL Hawaiians
by Andrew Walden
In Hawaii all eyes are on the US Department of Interior Proposed "Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community."
The Feds solemnly promise, "The proposed rule recognizes HHCA beneficiaries unique status under Federal law and protects that status."
But another DoI Rule "RIN 1076–AE93 Secretarial Election Procedures"--finalized October 19, 2015, but unnoticed in Hawaii--makes those promises worthless. RIN 1076–AE93 allows Tribal Trustees to rewrite the Tribes Governing Documents without Federal oversight and even without a Tribal membership vote.
Under US Indian Law, certain types of Tribal elections had required oversight by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to ensure fairness and honesty. The new rule eliminates the requirement for these so-called "Secretarial Elections."
The Final Rule states:
"Once the requirement for Secretarial approval is removed ... future elections will be purely tribal elections, governed and run by the tribe rather than BIA. Additionally, without a requirement for Secretarial approval, the (tribal) constitution will no longer be governed by the other election-related requirements of the IRA, such as the minimum number of tribal voters to make an election effective. Such matters will be governed by tribal policy decisions rather than Federal ones."
In fact no election would be required at all if the Tribal Governing Documents say so:
"The 1990 amendments to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)...(allow) the tribal governing body, rather than a majority vote of the adult Indians living on the reservation, to ratify the charter. ...a Secretarial election is required to amend a charter only if the charter itself states that a Secretarial election is required...."
Tribal Trustees could simply vote to change the DHHL blood quantum from 50% to 25% or even 1% and thereby seize lands that are now reserved for Hawaiian Homesteaders under the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the Hawaii Admission Act.
Even if the Aha comes up with Governing Documents full of flowery language about protecting the rights of Hawaiian Homes beneficiaries, that language could be stripped out later--without a vote of the Tribal membership.
Thanks to the DoI Final Rule "RIN 1076–AE93 Secretarial Election Procedures"--approved just two weeks ago--this would all be perfectly legal under US law.
----------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16232/Nai-Aupuni-Lets-Candidates-on-Ballot-With-Fraudulent-Registration.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, November 1, 2015
Nai Aupuni Lets Candidates on Ballot With Fraudulent Registration
Why were some delegate candidates allowed to run when they failed to properly obtain 10 registered voter supporters?
by Andrew Walden
From Nai Aupuni, October, 2015
The Election-America online registration application included the statement: "Please enter the names of ten eligible voters that you hereby represent have in writing nominated you as a delegate candidate."
The online application system was designed to not allow the applicant to complete the application unless all ten slots were filled in. There are a few of candidates who filled the ten slots by repeating names or with symbols and not with ten registered voters.
Nai Aupuni decided to allow these applicants to maintain their status as candidates because they received an electronic notice from Election-America that their application was complete. Because they received this notice, and because Nai Aupuni was unable to inform all of them that their application was being revoked with enough time for them to attempt to correct their deficiency, Nai Aupuni decided to allow them to remain as candidates because once registrants received notice that their applications were completed, Nai Aupunis policy was to allow the voters to make the ultimate decision on the appropriateness of them as candidates. Nai Aupuni also decided that these candidates would not be allowed to amend their applications after the September 15 deadline to insert registered voters.
---
Will candidates be required to disclose campaign contributions?
Yes, candidates will be required to submit how much was spent on the campaign and the sources of the contributions on the day after the election through an electronic disclosure to Election-America that the candidate commits is accurate and truthful. This information will be disclosed after the election.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/guesteditorialspremium/20151101_follow_in_the_footsteps_of_our_kupuna.html?id=339152532
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 1, 2015
Follow in the footsteps of our kupuna
By Kawika K. Burgess
Today, the Native Hawaiian community is at a historic crossroad. We are faced with an opportunity, being facilitated by Nai Aupuni, to reorganize our lahui (community of people) and take the first steps on the long road toward rebuilding the nation. At the same time we also face a separate question from the United States Department of Interior as to whether or not our lahui should pursue a federal rule, which would allow for federal recognition of our lahui if we so chose. These monumental decisions will not only impact us, but also our children and the future generations of Hawaiians, as well as the broader community in Hawaii.
Some Hawaiians refer to the example of our kupuna who formed the Hui Aloha Aina and Hui Kalaiaina, signed the kue petitions, and protested the treaty of annexation in 1897 as the political strategy we should follow today. Indeed, our kupunas activism at the end of the 19th century was a heroic feat in which nearly every Hawaiian adult signed the petitions opposing the United States annexation of Hawaii and were successful in stopping the treaty of annexation in the U.S. Senate.
However, while some use this historical act as a reason for Hawaiians to disengage from local, state and federal politics today, those who signed the kue petitions did not disengage from American politics after 1898. To the contrary, our kupuna who formed the Hui Aloha Aina and the Hui Kalaiaina, our same kupuna who signed the kue petitions, our same kupuna who protested annexation, also encouraged the lahui to engage.
They established the Home Rule Party and did the best they could to elect leaders within the government system that exercised power over Hawaii. They lobbied to become a state, for homestead lands, to improve the education system, for farms, roads and bridges. They opposed monopolies, burdensome taxes and limiting the right to a trial by jury. They sent the Hon. Robert Wilcox and then-Prince Kuhio Kalanianaole to Congress.
Hawaiians dominated early territorial politics, holding Hawaii legislative meetings in the Hawaiian language. They formed Hawaiian Civic Clubs, restored the Royal Order of Kamehameha, and substantially influenced the local Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the county governments, where they again had strong representation in each county and elected Hawaiian mayors for the City and County of Honolulu, including John Lane and John Wilson.
Hawaiians today indeed should follow in the footsteps of our kupuna who signed the kue petitions. But those footsteps did not end at the protest of annexation. Those footsteps continued into full participation in local politics where they continued to ensure the rights of our people were protected. For us to do anything less today, to not participate, or worse, to oppose other Hawaiians who choose to get involved and have their voices heard, would be contrary to the example given by our kupuna.
"Aole o kakou kuhina aku i koe, koe wale ae la no keia pono akea i haawi ia mai e Amerika ia oukou ka lahui, e hopu a paa, a na oukou e hooponopono no kakou no keia mua aku."
("There is no other option left, all that remains is this public benefit which was given by America to you the lahui, grab hold of it, it is up to you to make things right for all of us for the future.")
-- Ka Moiwahine Liliuokalani, 1900
----
Waipahu resident Kawika K. Burgess, former chief operating officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and a former land assets and operations manager for Kamehameha Schools, is CEO of Real Property Management Alliance.
------------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/ballots-go-out-sunday-native-hawaiian-election
West Hawaii Today, November 1, 2015
and
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/ballots-go-out-native-hawaiian-election
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, November 1, 2015
Ballots go out Sunday for Native Hawaiian election
By Nancy Cook Lauer West Hawaii Today
ncook-lauer@westhawaiitoday.com
Ballots begin going out today to the 95,000-plus Native Hawaiian voters who registered by the deadline to help choose 40 delegates to an aha, or constitutional convention.
The voters, who will be able to vote electronically or through the U.S. postal system, will pick from more than 200 listed candidates representing various geographical districts. Big Island voters will choose from 32 candidates running for seven seats. Voting ends Nov. 30.
Those who registered to vote should check the list at kanaiolowalu.org/list to ensure their name is on it, according to Nai Aupuni, the independent group set up to oversee the election, convention and ratification process. Those who think they should have gotten a ballot and do not can contact Elections America at naiaupuni@election-america.com or call Elections America toll-free at (844) 413-2929.
"This is an important election for Hawaiians to exercise our right of self-determination and to discuss self-governance," Nai Aupuni President Kuhio Asam said in a statement Friday. "The candidates in this election are diverse in their ages, backgrounds and purpose and are representative of a cross-section of the Native Hawaiian community. We encourage all certified Hawaiians to vote."
The 40 candidates who prevail will meet in Honolulu in February to explore what it takes to reach consensus among Native Hawaiians regarding self-determination. They also may propose a governing document for a ratification vote.
Some Native Hawaiians are protesting the process, and six delegate candidates have asked to be taken off the list.
Divisions among Native Hawaiians about what some see as a U.S. government-guided process of recognition escalated Wednesday with the announcement by prominent Native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte of Molokai that he is dropping out of the race. Ritte urged a boycott of what he calls a "continuation of the U.S. goal to illegally occupy the Hawaiian Islands."
Ritte and others say there is no need for the United States to recognize Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people, similar to how Native Indian tribes are recognized on the mainland, because Hawaii was never legally annexed as a territory. Without an annexation treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law, regardless of what the United States does or doesnt do to recognize its people, they say.
Nai Aupuni, in an unsigned statement Wednesday, discounted those concerns, saying all voices should be heard at the convention.
"(T)he fact that some Native Hawaiians protest because they are concerned that their desired outcome will not be accepted emphasizes the need for a Native Hawaiian convention," Nai Aupuni said in the statement. "Without a process where elected leaders can discuss various options and issues to find a consensus, the Native Hawaiian community will never proceed forward in unity."
The Hawaii Island candidates, in alphabetical order are:
*Solomon Aikau, retired lifeguard
*Moanikeala Akaka, trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1984-96
*Alvin Akina Jr., 40 years in hospitality industry, heavy equipment operator in Hawaii National Guard
*Chad Awai, 20-plus years in the tourism industry
*Clarence Ching, attorney and trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1986-90
*Keoni Choy, fishpond manager, golf course maintenance supervisor, mechanic shop owner
*Kalikookalani Chun, committee clerk, legislative aide for Hawaii Legislature since 2001
*Desiree Cruz, talent agency owner, former public relations specialist for Mayor Billy Kenoi, Big Island Visitors Bureau
*Kaipo Dye, Pacific Island Climate Change Cooperative, and University of Hawaii at Manoa Soil Ecology and Biogeochemist
*Norine Fitzgerald, former accountant in law office, now studying mediation and homeschooling a child
*Faye Hanohano-Kaawaloa, state House of Representatives, 2006-14, Kulani Correctional Facility officer, 1982-2006
*Lunakanawai Hauanio, Department of Public Safety sheriff, Hawaiian Law Foundation, Hoona Ohana
*Thomas Hickcox, no information provided
*Herbert Ishibashi Sr., business consultant, land manager, and entrepreneur
*Craig Kahui, executive director Laiopua 2020, 2001-08, former bailiff, commercial fisherman
*Amy Kalili, business manager, editor, operations manager, media program coordinator
*Clifford Kapono, former vice president Motorola, currently independent consultant
*Manuel Kiaha, hospitality industry auditor
*Lei Kihoi, attorney, hooponopono practitioner, mediator, UH instructor
* Harlan Lee, no information provided
*Ralph Lee Jr., no information provided
*Scott Mahoney, unexploded ordnance specialist, stevedore, firefighter
*Joshua Mangauil, founder/director, E Ola Mau I Ka Pono Hawaiian Cultural Center of Hamakua, Hawaiian studies teacher
*Judy Moa, insurance adjuster
*Shane Palacat-Nelsen, no information provided
*Kahiolani Papalimu, no detailed information provided
*Shawn Rivera, construction, mason, carpenter
*Michael Stevens, no information provided
*Diana Suganuma, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, medical outreach and support assistant
*Michalann Rae Trainer, self-employed, Momilani Farm/ Momilani Productions, Momilani Development, LLC
*Kanoe Wilson, Kamehameha Schools, UH, Bishop Museum
*Karyle Yamane, Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii, UH-Hilo, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
--------------------
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/challenge-to-native-hawaiian-self-governance-election-fails/
Turtle Talk, November 2, 2015
Challenge to Native Hawaiian Self-Governance Election Fails
by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here are the materials in Akina v. State of Hawaii (D. Haw.):
47-1 Motion for PI
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/47-1-motion-for-pi.pdf
80 State Response
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/80-state-response.pdf
83 OHA Response
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/83-oha-response.pdf
91 Reply
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/91-reply.pdf
93 US Amicus Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/93-us-amicus-brief.pdf
114 DCT Order
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/114-dct-order.pdf
An excerpt:
Act 195 is a unique law. It is both symbolic and remarkable. It reaffirms a delegation of authority in the Admissions Act from the United States to the State of Hawaii to address conditions of Hawaiis indigenous people. It declares that the Native Hawaiian people are Hawaiis only "indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people." It is meant -- in limited fashion -- to facilitate a possible mechanism of independent self-determination and self-governance of Hawaiis indigenous people. It facilitates -- simply by creating a Roll of qualified Native Hawaiians -- a possible process for the Native Hawaiian community to determine for themselves (absent any other involvement by the State of Hawaii) what collective action, if any, might be sought by that community.
Undoubtedly there is some "state action." But, based on the information presented at this preliminary injunction stage, Nai Aupunis planned election of delegates is not; Nai Aupunis determination of who may participate is not; the planned convention is not. And the state is not involved in whether this process is or will be "fair and inclusive" and "reflect the will of the Native Hawaiian community" for purposes of the Department of the Interiors NPRM.
The election will not result in any state officials, law, or change in state government. The election and convention might be a step towards self-governance by Native Hawaiians, or it might accomplish nothing of substance. Even if, however, a self-proclaimed Native Hawaiian governing entity is created with a governing document or a constitution, the result would most certainly not be a state entity.
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that excluding them from this particular private election is unconstitutional, or will otherwise violate federal law. And that is the only question now before this court.
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
-----------------
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34680564
BBC News Magazine, 2 November 2015
Aloha to the US: Is Hawaii an occupied nation?
By Taylor Kate Brown
An upcoming election has highlighted the deep disagreement between native Hawaiians over what the future should look like. For some, its formal recognition of their community and a changed relationship within the US. Others want to leave the US entirely - or more accurately, want the US to leave Hawaii.
When US officials came onto the stage that June night, they must have known they would be hearing from a hostile audience.
Speaker after speaker came up to the microphone, decrying a rigged process and an occupying government with no legitimacy.
"We do not need you here. This is our country."
"Get out of our house! Go home."
The officials werent hearing from foreign nationals, but a crowd of citizens in Honolulu, Hawaii. Someone began singing the opening words to Hawaii Ponoī - a national anthem of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the states official song.
"Hawaii ponoī (Hawaiis own), Nānā i kou moī (Be loyal to your king)."
Many in the room at the Hawaiian state capitol began singing along.
This was the first in a series of 2014 hearings by the US interior department about whether it should offer a path to federal recognition to the Native Hawaiian community. Such a path has been long open to Native American groups on the mainland, but not to the descendants of Hawaiis indigenous people.
A year later, the interior department has made it official - publishing a proposed "procedures for re-establishing a formal government-to-government relationship".
The first ballots to elect delegates to a convention, or aha, for this purpose have now gone out in Hawaii. Forty delegates from across the islands will meet in February to discuss whether there should be a Native Hawaiian government and what it should look like in the 21st Century.
But not everyone is happy with the aha. Some of those who would be eligible to vote, or become delegates themselves, have said they will boycott it. One delegate candidate has already dropped out, calling the aha "not pono" (upright or fair).
Federal recognition has been a wish of some activists for decades, but previous attempts to do so in Congress have failed. A prominent Hawaiian in Washington, however, has moved the process forward.
Barack Obama publicly supported the last attempt to gain the recognition option through Congress. Like other issues that have been stymied in the polarised legislature, the administration has now decided to take action through the executive branch.
But for those who see Obama as their best chance, time is running out - his term ends just over a year from now.
Native American tribal governments are a nation within a nation. Such governments hold their own elections, run police departments, courts and other internal infrastructure on reservation land. American Indians are citizens of their tribe, the US and the state where they live.
But tribal nations are still "domestic dependent nations" and the boundaries of their sovereignty have moved based on court rulings and legislation.
Recognition would define native Hawaiians as a separate political entity - protecting many of the federal programmes currently provided to native Hawaiians, like favourable housing loans, a land trust programme, health care, educational and cultural grants.
It would also allow for an element of economic independence, although one industry that has enriched a few Native American tribes - gambling - is banned in Hawaii.
But all of this is predicated on the idea the US government is the rightful authority in Hawaii, something a small but increasing number of Hawaiians no longer believe.
Williamson Chang, a professor of law at University of Hawaii, is one of those Hawaiians. He argues under international law, one country can only annex another by treaty - a document which both parties sign. This is how the entire rest of the US was formed - the Louisiana Purchase, the treaties with Native American tribes, the addition of the Republic of Texas. Anything else - including what happened in Hawaii - is an occupation, Chang says.
Hawaii occupies a unique place in US history - a set of islands 2,500 miles (4,023km) away from the mainland where in 1893, white businessmen and sympathetic politicians, with help from the US military, overthrew a constitutional monarchy.
The coup leaders hoped to be immediately annexed, but President Grover Cleveland rejected the idea, calling US involvement in the overthrow an "embarrassment".
Three years later, a treaty failed in the Senate after lobbying by the deposed Queen Liliuokalani as well as tens of thousands of petitions from Hawaiians opposing the move.
But the next year, with fighting in the Pacific during the Spanish-American war and a new president in office, Congress passed a joint resolution annexing Hawaii. US military might and a welcoming government in the Republic of Hawaii helped complete the process.
But if countries could be simply annexed by anothers legislature, Chang says, "Hawaii by its legislature could declare the United States was part of it."
While the US has formally apologised for their role in the overthrow of the Kingdom - a 1993 Congressional resolution admitted as much - theres been no word from the US government about whether the annexation was legal.
"There are definitely flaws in the way in which Hawaii and its lands were transferred to the US," Melody Kapilialoha Mackenzie, a professor of law at the University of Hawaii, says.
"But for me, the question is - where do you take those claims - is there any forum in which that voice can be heard?"
In 2000, David Keanu Sai brought a case concerning Hawaiian sovereignty to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands. The court agreed to hear the case but ultimately made no ruling, saying it could not even consider the issue because "the United States of America is not a party to the proceedings and has not consented to them".
Sai is also among those who believe that race or ancestry has no place in a Hawaiian bid to be free of the US. The Hawaiian Kingdom was a multi-ethnic government, and thats how it should remain, he says, something that wouldnt happen under federal recognition.
What everyone can agree on is the hurt done to Native Hawaiians.
Peter Apo says he spent almost half of his 75 years "not knowing who the hell I was".
"The only thing I knew about Hawaiians was what I saw in television and the tourism ads," he says. Hes now one of the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency.
By the time of the overthrow in 1893, the Hawaiian population had gone from at least 400,000 to less than 40,000 people - all in the space of a century, in part because of diseases introduced into the islands. After annexation, students were not allowed to speak Hawaiian in school, and the language almost died out as a result.
Kahoolawe, an island considered spiritually important to Hawaiians, was used as test-bombing site by the US army until the 1990s. Unexploded ordnance still remains on the island even after a clean-up attempt.
And today, many health indicators for Native Hawaiians are the worst of all the ethnic groups in Hawaii.
"I think for many native Hawaiians… its not like something that happened way in the past," Mackenzie says.
McGregor says the previous generation of Hawaiian activists struggled for the cultural and political gains Native Hawaiians have managed so far and younger Hawaiians take it for granted. She thinks federal recognition is needed.
"It was fought for and it can be lost," she says.
Joshua Lanakila Managuil, a young activist who is running for a seat on the aha, says hes lucky to be the product of a Native Hawaiian cultural and political renaissance, but hes worried about the ramifications of federal recognition. He points to the uneven and largely difficult situation of Native Americans.
"That is not a model for me that is going to secure our safety," he says. "We need to acknowledge what was done and remedy those things instead of slapping on a [plaster]."
Apo has written a number of editorials calling for a native Hawaiian government for the purposes of federal recognition.
He suggests such a government could "carve out a duty free port of call", and be able to do business with other nations. "That would be huge...that would be an opportunity that would benefit all Hawaiians," even non-native ones.
But Apo says he can see where the opposition is coming from.
"I guess part of the sentiment is why would you want to deal with the very people who did you in?"
While pro-independence Hawaiians dominated the microphones during interior departments hearings over the summer, the breakdown of the written comments was different.
Chang estimates about 60% of those comments were in favour of federal recognition, and he suspects that percentage translates to the larger Hawaiian population.
"I would say the majority of Hawaiians dont agree with sovereignty and independence - either they dont know their history or they think its way too late to separate from the US," he says. "Its an uphill battle for the sovereignty groups."
And it is a battle that now has a timetable.
The aha is going forward after a federal judge ruled the organisation running the election, Nai Aupuni, was sufficiently independent of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to make it a private election, despite receiving funds from the agency through an intermediary.
Once elected, delegates will meet for 40 days and end in April.
There is division within the independence movement whether to engage with the aha at all, says Managuil.
"Truly in legal terms - under kingdom laws - technically this is an act of treason," he says. "But right now our kingdom isnt in any place to be calling the shots."
He and others "are putting ourselves into the mix in order to protect the rights of our people," Managuil says.
Despite Nai Aupunis reassurances, pro-independence Hawaiians feel that the aha is simply a vehicle to push federal recognition.
"People are acting out of fear," Managuil says. "Either route, I think, demands more time."
Apo has a clear preference, but whatever happens, he says, "at least it will be something that Hawaiians decided. Self-determination".
"I think if were able to get to at least to the government-to-government relationship - the stage where were actually negotiating - that would cap the 123 years with a good ending to the story and a great future for Hawaiians in being able to maintain their identity as a people," Apo says.
"If that doesnt happen this is never going to stop."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20151103_hawaiians_election_for_constitutional_convention_begins.html?id=339756712
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 3, 2015
Hawaiians election for constitutional convention begins
By Timothy Hurley
Voting is underway for more than 95,000 Native Hawaiians who will elect 40 delegates to a constitutional convention that will consider models for self-governance.
In the meantime at least three candidates have withdrawn from the election, saying they refuse to participate in a flawed and unfair process, and a grass-roots campaign continues to try to undermine the effort.
The ultimate fate of the convention may still be decided in court, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers an appeal to a judges ruling that allowed the process to move forward.
Voting is scheduled take place throughout November, with ballots going out to Hawaiians registered with the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. Those on the list were also sent emails with instructions describing how to vote online.
A spokesman for Nai Aupuni on Monday said a handful of people called to report trouble with online voting. In response a "vote now" link was set up on the front page at naiaupuni.org.
Veteran Native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte Jr. of Molokai announced his withdrawal from the election last week, describing the process as rigged and rushed to meet the nation-within-a-nation proposal supported by the Obama administration.
Following suit are candidates Scott Parker, a Kamehameha Schools Kapalama campus vice principal from Maui, and Judy Moa, owner of an insurance agency on Hawaii island.
Moa said Monday that shes found too many Hawaiians confused and ill-informed about Nai Aupuni, and that the effort appears to be misleading people into believing they can have self-determination and self-governance.
"It seems to be fixed -- it really does," Moa said.
In an email, Parker said hes had trouble communicating with Nai Aupuni and representatives from Election-America, the contractor overseeing the election.
"The inability for Nai Aupuni to be transparent on this entire elections process concerns me a great deal," he said.
A group calling itself Protest Nai Aupuni continues its social media and grass-roots campaign to discourage participation in the election. They argue that the effort is a scam to create a puppet nation to undercut the independence movement and take away Hawaiian lands.
A website has been launched at
protestnaiaupuni.com
and a "Protest Nai Aupuni Community Meeting" will be held at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 19 at Hauula Elementary School.
Despite the backlash, many independence candidates appear to be sticking to their commitment to Nai Aupuni.
Moanikeala Akaka, a former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee who is running as a delegate on Hawaii island, said she doesnt trust the process, but she wants to be there to make sure things are right.
"I dont feel I have any other alternative," said Akaka, who was arrested in April protesting the Thirty Meter Telescope.
"We need serious delegates inside that convention as well as vigilant watchdogs on the outside," she said in a written statement following Rittes withdrawal. "Walter Rittes strong voice will be missed but we must carry on. We have been, are, and will continue to be a Hawaiian nation."
Meanwhile a slate of 19 candidates calling itself Na Makalehua has emerged as a collective of young leaders who are using the moment as "an opportunity to hooholomua (to move forward) their lahui (nation) and fulfill their kuleana (responsibility)," the group said in a news release. Among the slates candidates are state Rep. Kaniela Ing (D, South Maui) and Oahu kumu hula Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu.
Members of the group are holding a news conference at the state Capitol this morning to urge Hawaiians to vote in the Nai Aupuni election. For more information visit makalehua.com.
-------------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/time-for-native-hawaiians-to-step-forward-before-its-too-late/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 3, 2015
Time For Native Hawaiians To Step Forward Before Its Too Late
Perhaps the "radicals" were necessary to reach this point, but its time for a silent majority to embrace the opportunity to establish our own government.
By Kealii Lopez
Editors note: Kealii Lopez is a candidate in this months election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, or aha, that will determine if a reorganized Hawaiian government will be formed.
Like so many others I have a great love for our people, our heritage and culture.
Whether you are a cultural practitioner or an avid observer, the essence of who we are is within us. No one can or has taken that from us. Who we are as Native Hawaiians is intrinsically intertwined in every fiber of our being, our soul, and our naau.
It is who we are, and no matter how we each choose to live our lives, its there. Even if its only a pinkys worth of koko, it courses through you and connects you to these lands and to the generations who came before you. Its beautiful, loving, nurturing, strong, vibrant and connected. It shows in our aloha, our kuleana, and our ano.
I believe we are at a crossroads for our people. We have been wronged, but we cannot dwell on what might have been. We can continue to argue over what we can become for another 120 years, or we can take action today on a future that will have a starting point.
I believe there are voices that have not been heard in the struggle for sovereignty. I believe I represent that silent majority in believing that we can act on the best opportunity we have had for our people in more than a century.
Working together with representatives of all points of view will only make us stronger. Waiting until there is a "perfect moment" will see our ohana struggle on without a nation for perhaps generations more.
I have been involved in community work for what seems my entire life. I remember standing outside of Mels Market in Waimanalo asking our neighbors to sign petitions at the age of 13. I have served on the Winward Commnity College Konohiki Council to enhance and improve students college experience and created educational videos for the Salvation Army to help teen mothers while at UH Manoa.
I dedicated myself to helping communities find and express their voice through Olelo Community Television. I have been a public servant in state government, and seeking ways to help families work, keep their homes, and put food on their tables. Like others, I have made service my lifes work, and it results from the central Hawaiian ethic of fulfilling ones kuleana.
I have never felt the pull of kuleana as strongly as I do today. Many have been engaged in sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance efforts for decades, and in the beginning, there was an absolute need to be "radical" to convert Hawaiian claims to Hawaiian rights.
Like so many of us in the middle, I have always wanted better for our people, and recognized the importance of our place in the heart of who and what Hawaii is today, but could not join in on the anti-American radical messages that were perhaps needed to bring us to where we are today.
As we mahalo the "radicals" for their important work in heightening awareness of our indigenous rights, it is now time to begin the process of healing ourselves and our relations to those with whom we now share Hawaii. It is time for the hard work of reconciling our past, present and future to begin.
While I am aware that there are still those within our community that feel there are more rights to secure, I am concerned that the tone, rhetoric and personal attack tactics that have become routine in these circles have begun to eat away at the very essence of what makes us Hawaiian, our aloha and our kuleana.
If we cannot be pono as we advocate our claims, then securing the rights dont matter, for who we are will have been lost. To them, I offer this gentle reminder: True na koa do not throw spears at the lahui they are sworn to protect, and they do not insist that all na koa pick up the same weapon to achieve the goal.
Much progress for our Hawaiian community has been made in the last 40 years because we stayed focused on our concepts of aloha and kuleana, and the responsibility of each Hawaiian to contribute to the well-being of our community with the tools, skills and opportunities they each had in hand.
Sovereignty has been advanced through the work of many over decades. Some radical, some not. Akaka, Aluli, DeSoto, Helm, Kameeleihiwa, Kanahele, McGregor, MacKenzie, Silva, Trask -- all names who have contributed to the recognition of our indigenous rights as a people.
There are so many others too. They have served our people in loi and halau, in community, in state offices and through the universities, from mauka to makai. They have served far away from home, in the halls of Congress and the federal government agencies.
Each effort, layer upon layer, building up the understanding within our own community, and a better understanding of us outside of it.
Last year, the U.S. Department of the Interior came out to hear our thoughts on a federal rule that would finally resolve a disparity in federal law that has prevented our people from accessing the same powers of self-governance already in use by indigenous peoples on the continent, powers that the indigenous peoples use to solve their own challenges, overcome the effects of a terrible history, and promote a more indigenous future for their future generations.
I saw the true tension that exists within our people from all sides. I saw Hawaiians working for our people through their posts at the DOI. I saw them bring along others who they thought could help. I saw the "radicals" and felt the sense of powerlessness that longstanding neglect has created. I saw the confusion many of us in the middle have felt, and the fear of expressing our views at the risk of being called a traitor or worse.
It was beautiful, awe-inspiring, promising, horrific, tragic and pilau to see all at the same time. I wrestled with these powerful emotions at every hearing I attended or watched. The beauty, promise and inspiration came from the deep passion for our people, the knowledge of our history, the high level of engagement, and the love for our people.
The horror, tragedy and hewa came from the nasty name calling, disrespect and efforts to silence through intimidation and derision. Too many in our lahui were made to feel it wasnt safe to share their manao by our own people. It is this horror, tragic behavior and pilau antics that have compelled me in such a visceral way to step forward in a way that I would not have previously considered.
I was taught never to stand by while others are being bullied and to stand up for each persons right to their own sense of self. I understand the anger, frustration, hurt, anguish, humiliation, loss, injustice, and so much more. It is a part of all of us, but so is our aloha and our sense of kuleana.
We are not the first generation to be confronted with the question of how to act when our naau is so conflicted, but we are the first to begin to take the lower road.
This decision of how we will act, as a people, is a defining line between whether we are victims of a tragic history, or strong survivors who thrive in spite of it.
I call upon the middle of our people, the important silent majority, to get involved in making the future better for our lahui and all of Hawaii nei. While we mahalo our na koa who have won so many battles on our behalf, we can no longer expect they can carry us into the future we want for our keiki and moopuna.
For me our everyday efforts, sacrifice and struggle is to build a beloved nation, not a warring nation. We must all accept our kuleana to step forward and serve our lahui with the best of our talents, skills and opportunities. As our lahui rises, so does Hawaii.
------------------
Honolulu Star-Advertiser online poll shows 82% of 3224 respondents are not eligible to participate in the Nai Aupuni election (as expected, thats approximately the percentage of Hawaiis people with no native blood), including 58% who dont care about it; whereas more than half of the 18% who are eligible choose not to participate.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/poll/the_big_q.html?c=n
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, The Big Q [daily online poll], November 4, 2015
November 4, 2015, data retrieved at 8:00 PM
Are you voting in the Nai Aupuni election for delegates to a Native Hawaiian convention?
D. Ineligible to vote; disinterested (58%) - 1,858 votes
C. Ineligible to vote but interested (24%) - 776 votes
B. Eligible but not participating (10%) - 320 votes
A. Yes, want to participate (8%) - 270 votes
Total Votes: 3,224
---------------------
http://naiaupuni.org/ballotinformation.html
Nai Aupuni ballot information, November 4, 2015
ANY VOTER MAY VOTE ONLINE:
Whether a voter received a ballot by email or by mail, every voter may use the codes provided to vote online at:
https://vote.election-america.com/naiaupuni/.
This link is also provided on this website by clicking on the "VOTE NOW" button.
OUT-OF-STATE BALLOTS:
For the outside-of-Hawaii voters, the print ballot mistakenly lists some of the candidates twice. Thus, please vote only once for each candidate because only one vote per candidate from each voter will be counted. Election-American and Nai Aupuni apologize for this error.
Please note that electronic ballots do not have this error and thus any voter may vote online (instead of by mail) by entering your code at
https://vote.election-america.com/naiaupuni/.
Mahalo.
MAUI CANDIDATE SCOTT PARKER:
Maui voters, please be informed that Maui candidate Dr. Scott Parker has withdrawn as a candidate. Thus, if you vote for Dr. Parker that vote will not count. Dr. Parker in good faith attempted to withdraw as a candidate before the ballots were printed, but through no fault of his, neither Election-American nor Nai Aupuni got back to him in time. Nai Aupuni apologizes for this situation. Mahalo.
OAHU CANDIDATE LOUIS AGARD, JR.:
Nai Aupuni is saddened to report that Oahu delegate candidate Louis Agard, Jr., affectionately known as Uncle Buzzy, has passed away, and we extend our condolences to his ohana and friends. Nai Aupuni was unable to remove Mr. Agard from the ballot and thus we wanted the voters to know that if you vote for him that vote will not count.
MOLOKAI CANDIDATE WALTER RITTE, JR.:
Although Walter Ritte has publicly announced that he is withdrawing as a delegate candidate he has not officially provided notice to Election-America or Nai Aupuni that he is withdrawing from the election. Thus, Mr. Rittes name remains on the Molokai ballot and votes cast for him will count toward his candidacy.
-------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/ian-lind-setting-a-low-bar-for-hawaiian-vote/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 4, 2015
Setting A Low Bar For Hawaiian Vote
Should getting the vote of one out of four adult Hawaiians here be considered a success for the Nai Aupuni election?
By Ian Lind
Should Hawaiis low voter turnout in state and federal elections justify an equally low bar for the approval of a new Native Hawaiian government that could remake the social, economic, and political landscape of the state?
Thats exactly what the proposed Department of the Interior rules for "Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship With the Native Hawaiian Community" would do.
Instead of setting a higher than normal bar for approving a plan for a Native Hawaiian government in a historic election with major ramifications both locally and nationally, the new rules propose adjusting the number of votes needed to ultimately approve a governing document to reflect the generally low island turnout.
"Adjusting" in this case means lowering the number of votes needed to approve a new Native Hawaiian government and trigger negotiations with the federal government.
Adjusting for low turnout
Theres no escaping the fact that most Hawai residents dont vote, and the number of voters has been falling relatively steadily, election by election.
Only 52.3 percent of Hawaiis registered voters cast ballots in 2014, despite the heightened interest in the race for governor that ended with the surprising ouster of Gov. Neil Abercrombie. And that number represented just 36.5 percent of eligible voters, according to an analysis by the United States Elections Project, which has tracked election turnout across the country over time.
According to the Department of the Interiors notice, published in the Federal Record, the proposed rule includes "a requirement that the turnout in the ratification referendum be sufficiently large to demonstrate broad-based community support."
Even if a high percentage of those voting approved the new Hawaiian government document, this would not be meaningful if turnout were low, the rule recognizes.
"The proposed rule focuses not on the number of voters who participate in the ratification referendum, but rather on the number who vote in favor of the governing document," the public notice states.
How low is too low?
Its hard not to fuzz out while reading through the fine print where data on the Hawaiian population, and the expected number of expected voters, are recited.
The 2010 census counted about 527,000 Native Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians nationwide, including some 290,000 in Hawaii.
The census found about 65 percent of these were old enough to vote (18 years or older), meaning that there would be about 342,000 Hawaiians nationally of voting age, and about 188,000 in Hawaii.
At this point, the Department of the Interior proposal makes a key assumption by adjusting the number of expected voters "for typical turnout levels in elections in the State of Hawaii."
Voter turnout of all registered voters in Hawaii was 61.9 percent in 2012, a presidential election year, and fell to 52.3 percent in 2014 during the gubernatorial election.
Based on these numbers, the Interior Department goes on to adjust the expected turnout of Hawaiian voters in an election to ratify a new governmental entity to between 60,000 and 100,000.
The rule proposes that if the new Hawaiian government garners a majority of all votes cast, and exceeds 50,000, it will be reasonable to conclude that the plan has broad-based support among Hawaiians. Based on that conclusion, the Secretary of the Interior would give the go-ahead to begin negotiations with the new Hawaiian governing entity.
On the other hand, if the majority vote in favor of the new government is less than 30,000, it would be reasonable to conclude that it lacked widespread community support, and the department would decline to enter into negotiations.
And approval by anything between 30,000 and 50,000 Hawaiian voters would presumably leave the decision at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
Using these figures, the proposed Hawaiian government would need approval of just a little more than one out of four adult Hawaiians living in the State of Hawaii (26.5%) , and just 15 percent of all adult Hawaiians in the U.S. as a whole, to be seen as a success with "considerable" community support.
The lower limit of at least 30,000 votes for approval would theoretically allow federal approval of the new government as long as at least 16% of those living in Hawaii, or just 9% of all adult Hawaiians in the U.S. as a whole, approve the measure.
And even those modest minimum voter requirements dont apply to the current election for delegates. Presumably the aha will go forward even if voter turnout is well below these levels.
To those who support Nai Aupuni and its process for carrying out a constitutional convention, these low requirements may offer some confidence that the effort wont collapse for lack of required support. However, those who want to hold out for some form of full independence will see it as further proof that the process is being rigged against them.
Comments on the proposal are being accepted until the end of the year.
From the Federal Register Notice:
You may submit comments by either of the methods listed below. Please use Regulation Identifier Number 1090–AB05 in your message.
Use the Federal eRulemaking portal Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting and viewing comments. The rule has been assigned Docket ID DOI– 2015–0005.
Email your comments. Include the number 1090–AB05 in the subject line.
Send them via U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7228, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
About the Author
Ian Lind
COLUMNIST
Ian Lind is an award-winning investigative reporter and columnist who has been blogging daily for 15 years. He has also worked as a newsletter publisher, public interest advocate and lobbyist for Common Cause in Hawaii, peace educator, and legislative staffer. Lind is a lifelong resident of the islands
---------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/for-native-hawaiians-land-is-the-biggest-issue/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 4, 2015
For Native Hawaiians, Land Is The Biggest Issue
Taking advantage of the current opportunity for a federally recognized Native Hawaiian government does not hinder or preclude the push for full independence.
By Lilikala Kameeleihiwa
Editors note: Lilikalā Kameeleihiwa is a candidate in this months election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, or aha, that will determine if a reorganized Hawaiian government will be formed. She delivered the following speech at a recent panel discussion at the Richardson Law School.
For me the most important issue is land. We Native Hawaiians need land to live upon!
Even if it is just a place to pitch a tent. We need land from which we will not be evicted and forced to live under a bridge to be swept away by flash floods. We need land to live upon where we can practice our culture and speak our own language!
We need land where we can build our houses, and our schools and our own health clinics. We need land where we can grow our own food. We Native Hawaiians are in crisis, we comprise a third of all the homeless, and we need land and housing now!
Just as bad as homelessness today is the modern diaspora of Native Hawaiians fleeing Hawaii to find a house they can afford, so that they wont be homeless! Today, 48 percent of all Native Hawaiians live outside of Hawaii because we cannot afford to live in our own homeland, in the land of our ancestors, in the land where our ancestors have lived for 100 generations. Half of my cousins live away on the continent and yearn to come home. It seems like every month, another cousin decides to move to Vegas or Oregon because the housing is cheaper. How long must we wait for a solution?
Shall we wait another 20 years or until 80 percent of us have to live away?
I am a grandmother now and I worry that my grandchildren will not be able to afford land and will have to move away. Why? Because right now we have three generations living in one townhouse where four adults have college education and where three of us have PhDs, but if any one of us could not work, we could not pay the mortgage.
And I am a full professor! How do folks with less education and less pay make it in Hawaii today? The answer is simple, if they dont live at home, many are moving to Vegas! Housing now costs so much in Hawaii that shacks are going for $700,000 and many houses on Oahu are going for $1 million. Its only going to get worse. How will our grandchildren ever be able to afford a home?
I have had Native Hawaiian friends where each of their three adult children, and their spouses and children all lived in one four-bedroom house. That means that mother and father had one bedroom, and each of the 3 other bedrooms had a husband and wife and several children in each bedroom.
There were 20 adults and children that lived in that house and they were so lucky because they were not homeless! Would they prefer their own house? Of course they would and how do we support them in doing so?
We Must Have A Government
So we Native Hawaiians are in a crisis and we need land. And in order to get land we must have a government, a Native Hawaiian government, not a state agency, who can negotiate with the state and federal governments for land for Native Hawaiians. We must have a Native Hawaiian government, elected by Native Hawaiians, and serving Native Hawaiians -- we need an Aupuni Mālama Hawaii! We need a government who will take care of Native Hawaiians and make sure that we have land forever in our islands to practice our culture, to speak our own language, to grow our own food, and to pass land and housing on to our grandchildren.
So how do we get a government? We have an option before us right now called Nai Aupuni whereby delegates would be elected to write a constitution for a Native Hawaiian government.
Then if that constitution is ratified by Native Hawaiians, an election would be held to seat a government. But some folks are saying that is a bad option, and they argue for us to wait for independence. These folks are Native Hawaiians; some of them are my students for whom I have great aloha, so I must consider what they have to say.
One objection to the Nai Aupuni process is that it is being paid for by the state agency, the Office for Hawaiian Affairs, and that the rolls being used are from Kanaiolowalu, also paid for by OHA. Some prefer that this process of collection of Native Hawaiian rolls be done by a grass-roots process and not by a state agency so that there be no influence from the state of Hawaii, even though the OHA funds are the 20 percent of state revenues owed to Hawaiians by state law.
Another objection to the Nai Aupuni process is that it could lead to U.S. federal recognition of Native Hawaiians under American law, and they argue that federal recognition would prevent Hawaii from becoming independent from America again.
I felt exactly the same way 30 years ago. I was one of the thousands of Native Hawaiians that worked for free for years organizing Ka Lāhui Hawaii. We wrote a constitution in 1987, held two subsequent constitutional conventions, and registered 20,000 citizens. In 1993, we led a march of 18,000 to commemorate the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to call for a return of our sovereignty.
In 1994, we wrote a manifesto supporting fundamental rights, and we worked at the Legislature to ask for control of the Ceded Lands trust. In 1995, we began sending a delegation to the United Nations to ask for international rights to self-determination and for decolonization (and have done so every year ever since) and pushed for federal recognition under American law in 2000. For 17 years we seated a legislature that met three times a year, on different islands, and we did all of this without state money.
We believed that there were four arenas of sovereignty work:
1) International -- or working at the United Nations for formal decolonization;
2) Federal -- or working in Washington, D.C., for federal recognition;
3) Organizing our people -- or enrolling more people into Ka Lāhui Hawaii to support a governing structure and a call for a land base;
and 4) Native nation to native nation treaty making – or engaging with other native nations to support their efforts for self determination.
All of us were determined to work in one of these four arenas. And we didnt get one acre of land for our people. Why was that? We did everything right!
Federal Recognition Is Essential
Our problem in Ka Lahui Hawaii was that we didnt have any legal way to interact with the American government. We could not work out a deal for federal recognition, and without it we could not get any of the powers that be -- that is, the American government at the federal level -- to work with us. And, we didnt believe we should work with the state of Hawaii.
Our other problem in Ka Lahui Hawaii was that we had no money, and it was just too difficult to sustain political action as a part time effort while working full time to pay rent and buy food.
Now fast-forward 30 years. We Native Hawaiians dont have land, we dont have federal recognition, there are still 27,000 native Hawaiians of 50% blood on the waiting list for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands homesteads, and the other 450,000 of us who are Native Hawaiian (less than 50 percent) are being forced out of Hawaii in a modern diaspora by the super-rich who are buying up Hawaii.
There are many of us, and I am one, who are very glad that the state wants to give money to support social justice for Native Hawaiians, and to help right the great wrong that was done in 1893. I think it is a sign of its aloha for us.
It costs money to organize elections, and to hold constitutional conventions. It takes money to hold elections to seat a Native Hawaiian government. And even the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls upon the states, or the colonial power, to pay for the costs of indigenous peoples seeking self-determination.
So I do not object to Kanaiolowalu or Nai Aupuni having state funding. In fact I am delighted that we can proceed with establishing a Hawaiian nation.
Independence For Hawaii?
So does that mean, as my colleagues would suggest, that I do not want independence for Hawaii from the United States of America? No, it does not. If I had a dollar for every time I told a non-Hawaiian that we still want the country back, and had them look at me as if I were crazy, I would be a rich woman today!
But the independent Hawaii that I want does not seem to be the independent Hawaii that others want. I want an independent nation that is for and by Native Hawaiians. I dont want to evict anyone, and I support giving everyone the basic freedoms of religion and speech, etc., but I follow the Ka Lahui Hawaii constitution that would make non-Natives, whom we have married and whom we love, honorary citizens, with all the rights of Native Hawaiian citizens, but not the right to vote or hold elected office.
I want an independent Hawaii that honors special rights for land, language and cultural practices for Native Hawaiians.
Many others want an independent Hawaii where Native Hawaiians have no special rights to land, language or cultural practices, and wherein all people have "equal" rights. This model sounds like what we have right now under America -- what would be the difference under independence? Since we Native Hawaiians are still a minority in our homeland, and since independence folks that I have talked with wont agree to Native Hawaiian rights, I cannot support that model of independence.
Here is something else. Both models for achieving independence for Hawaii -- either decolonization through the United Nations, or deoccupation through the American military, cannot occur without the agreement of the American government.
Now how long do you think it might take for America to completely withdraw its military from Hawaii? Will it happen in 30 years? In 50 years? In 100 years?
Federal Recognition And The DOI Rules
I feel really guilty that 30 years ago I opposed state support and moving ahead. I was wrong then, and I want to right that wrong decision. I cant wait another 30 years. I want to see a Native Hawaiian government in my lifetime, an Aupuni Mālama Hawaii who will mālama my grandchildren, and I want that government to apply for U.S. federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.
I have read the DOI rules (75 pages) and I find them quite fair, especially in their care for the preservation of the rights of the Native Hawaiians (50% blood quantum) to the 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Home Lands. Given how few people of any ethnicity vote in Hawaii, I consider the numbers required to ratify our new constitution are too high, but others say I am mistaken.
Will U.S. federal recognition prevent us as Native Hawaiians from achieving independence from America in the future? Will it stop the Kingdom of Hawaii that includes non-Hawaiian citizens from achieving independence from America in the future? The answer is no, but only if that is what the people want.
As a historian I have seen the political boundaries on maps change frequently over time. It was once said that "the sun never set on the British Empire," and now it does. Those countries that were part of the British Empire were told they could never become independent, but when the people of India wanted their country back, there was no stopping them.
Peoples desires and political opinions make for political change, and laws and constitutions are rewritten. That is how the world really works.
It seems that there are 1,300 Ahupuaa in the Hawaiian Archipelago and I want land for our Native Hawaiian nation in each of those 1,300 ahupuaa. I want those lands put into trust so that they can never be sold. I want a Native Hawaiian government that will work continuously to secure the decommissioning of the military bases.
I want the 1,300 acres of Bellows Air Force Station in Waimanalo and the return of our sacred lands at the Mokapu Marine Corps Base Hawaii, where in the Kane tradition, the first Hawaiian man was made. I want all of our sacred mountains put into this trust – Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, Hualalai, Haleakala, Puu Kukui, Moaula, Lanaihale, Kamakou, Kaala, Konahuanui, Kanehoalani, Waialeale and Paniau.
I want the Aupuni Malama Hawaii to have co-management of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, including Papahanaumokuakea.
I want the federal monies that go to federally recognized tribes for housing, health and education. I want us to build our own houses and schools. Did you know that today 40 percent of all children in the DOE schools are Native Hawaiian, but are learning almost nothing about our ancestral culture and barely able to pronounce our ancestral names? And did you know that out of all the children in the DOE schools only 1 percent are in Hawaiian Immersion? Do you think that our ancestral language will survive another 30 years of DOE mismanagement?
I want each of us who are Native Hawaiian to ask those who oppose the Nai Aupuni process and U.S. federal recognition to show us their plan and their timeline for securing land and housing for Native Hawaiians.
Some who oppose this process have Hawaiian Homelands; will they invite houseless Hawaiians to come live on their lands?
Others own lands in fee simple; will they give land to my grandchildren? If one argues for no dealings with the state or the federal governments, will they give up their jobs at the university? Will they give up their federally mandated Hawaiian Homelands? I dont think so, because we all have children and we are all one paycheck away from being homeless.
Nai Aupuni Constitutional Convention
So I ask all of you who are Native Hawaiian to vote for those leaders who want to write the best constitution possible. I recommend that we begin to study various constitutions and documents that declare allegiance to fundamental rights and to the support of Native Hawaiian lands, language and cultural traditions. We should look at the Ka Lahui Hawaii constitution, and the Bolivian constitution that enshrined the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We should look at the Tongan constitution that doesnt allow non-Tongans to own land in Tonga, or to the Cook Island constitution that does not allow the buying and selling of land. We should look at the Norwegian and Swedish constitutions that give free medical care and education to their people.
We should proceed to make our Native Hawaiian nation and ensure that we survive as a distinct people and culture in the land of our ancestors. We should invite our cousins to move home from the continent, making sure that they have land, too. When we have 1 million Hawaiians in Hawaii and we are in the majority once more, and when we can show the world how we Mālama āina and Mālama kanaka, then we can apply for independence.
Aloha nui kakou.
About the Author
Lilikala K. Kameeleihiwa is a senior professor at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and currently its director. Trained as a historian, and fluent in the Hawaiian language, she is an expert in Hawaiian ancestral knowledge, history, cultural traditions, and on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20151104_howard_hughes_gets_sweet_deal.html?id=340039492
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 4, 2015, Letter to Editor
Aha a good path for Hawaiians
Aloha. I support the Star-Advertisers endorsement of electing delegates to an aha convention ("All Hawaiians have voice on sovereignty," Star-Advertiser, Our View, Oct. 31).
I support the process. This is a historic move to reclaim Hawaiian governance. While it may not be perfect, broad-based participation to elect honest and knowledgeable delegates can make it meaningful, effective and "pono."
The aha can create programs to promote the well-being of our Native Hawaiian people.
Every day that we wait, more Hawaiians move out of Hawaii; our lands and seas are mismanaged, threatening subsistence livelihoods; our resources -- the alii land trusts, Hawaiian Home Lands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and protection of Hawaiian language, culture and traditions and customs in our state Constitution -- are exposed to race-based litigation.
Holomua! It is time to organize our Native Hawaiian government. We can start by voting for delegates Nov. 1-30.
Davianna Pomaikai McGregor
Candidate for Oahu delegate
--------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05x5fvwP7jU
From FreeHawaii, November 4, 2015
4-minute video
32 Candidates on Payroll: Nai Aupunis Privileged Class
"HAVE THESE PEOPLE NO SHAME?"
Who Are These People Running As Nai Aupuni Delegates?
Why Do They Want To Get Elected So Badly?
Do They Represent Average Hawaiians?
Watch This As We Name Names & Reveal Whats In It For Them If They Win.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
-------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=e3abafaf71&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, November 5, 2015, Press release
Judicial Watch has issued a press release on the appeal of Judge Seabrights order denying a preliminary injunction in the case against the Native Hawaiian election. For the full text of the release, which includes selected quotes from the appeal, see below.
Judicial Watch Asks Appeals Court to Halt Race-Based, Separatist Election in Hawaii
State Uses "One Drop of Blood" Rule to Define Voter Eligibility in "Native-Hawaiian"-Exclusive Vote
(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed an Urgent Motion for Injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stop a race-based, state-sponsored, Hawaiians-only election that violates the "fundamental constitutional rights" of American citizens (Kelii Akina, et al. v. The State of Hawaii, et al. (No. 15-17134)).
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-race-based-election-appeal-17134/
The motion asks that the Appeals Court enjoin the counting of ballots, now scheduled for November 30, until the resolution of a Judicial Watch appeal of an earlier district court ruling in the case (Kelii Akina, et al. v. The State of Hawaii, et al. (No. 1:15-cv-00322)).
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-race-based-voter-rolls-00322/
In August, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-civil-rights-lawsuit-to-stop-race-based-separatist-vote-in-hawaii/
on behalf of the five Hawaiian residents who have joined with a Texas resident to oppose voter registration requirements instituted under Act 195, which became a Hawaiian state law in 2011. Judicial Watch sought a preliminary injunction
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-preliminary-injunction-to-halt-native-hawaiian-only-separatist-election/
to stop the vote, scheduled for the month of November 2015, arguing that its clients injunction are denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Act 195 authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) to create a list of "Native Hawaiians" who would be eligible to elect delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare "governance documents" for a separate Native Hawaiian entity.
The Obama administration supported the race-based election in this litigation
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/dept-of-interior-amicus-hawaii-race-based-election-00322/
despite the fact that the State of Hawaii limits eligible voters in the election to those who have at least one drop of Native Hawaiian blood. Judicial Watch notes
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-race-based-election-appeal-17134/
that this "one drop of blood" rule is like other laws last seen in the racist Jim Crow era: "It also has an unfortunate resonance in American history. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 5 n. 4 (1967) (discussing Virginia statute holding that [e]very person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person)."
The lower court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, ruling that the election was being conducted by the Nai Aupuni foundation (NA), a "private actor holding a private election," which would allow for race-based qualifications that would be obviously unconstitutional in any government-run election. Judicial Watch argues to the Ninth Circuit that the lower court erred on the facts and the law. Judicial Watch attorneys point out that it is undisputed, that the allegedly "private" foundation was organized in late 2014 for the sole purpose of carrying out the election set in motion by Hawaiis Act 195.
The brief cites to a mass of evidence suggesting the foundation is merely a front for the State of Hawaii:
NA was formed, three years after Act 195 was passed, for no other purpose than to hold the election that [the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or "OHA"] could not. NAs bylaws refer to OHAs legislative goals. OHA was, at least for a time, a member of NA. NAs vice-president is married to the CEO of the NHRC. NA was given millions of dollars of public money to hold an election described in a state law, Act 195, in a series of contracts with OHA, wherein OHA retains all sorts of special rights and privileges. NA "decided" to use the race-based Roll the NHRC had been developing for years, and that OHA is statutorily required to use ... Indeed, it is particularly telling that NA gave OHA assurances that it would use the race-based Roll to hold a race-based election before the two parties entered into contracts awarding NA millions of dollars to hold that election.
As Judicial Watch attorneys argue, the "historic" election is about important public issues, including whether to change the government under which Hawaiians live:
The delegates who win will attend a convention at which they may draft "governance documents" for an all-Native Hawaiian entity. Their decisions could affect the legal, social, and financial relationships of huge numbers of Americans. In 2010 there were 1.36 million people in Hawaii. The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 527,000 Native Hawaiians in the United States, of whom 290,000 reside in Hawaii. Indeed ... Plaintiffs here have "views as to whether a change is appropriate and, if so, what that change should be." They should not be shut out because they are the wrong race.
On July 20, 2012, using taxpayer funds from the States Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the NHRC launched the Kanaiolowalu campaign,
http://www.kanaiolowalu.org/news/story/?id=49
opening a registration process strictly confined to Native Hawaiians -- and even then only those who were also willing to "affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people" and who desired to vote for a new race-based sovereign government.
Judicial Watch represents citizens harmed by the discriminatory Hawaii election process. Kelii Akina and Kealii Makekau are descendants of Native Hawaiians, who cannot register to vote because they will not affirm that they favor Native Hawaiian sovereignty and self-governance. Joseph Kent and Yoshimasa Sean Mitsui are citizens and residents of the State of Hawaii, who are prevented from registering to vote because of the race-based ancestry requirements of Act 195. Melissa Leinaala Moniz and Pedro Kanae Gapero are Native Hawaiians who were registered to vote without their knowledge or consent.
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a Hawaii-based think tank, has been assisting Judicial Watch in its investigation of Hawaiis plan for a race-based election. "Every day that this unconstitutional election is allowed to proceed is another day that Native Hawaiians are misled, peoples rights are bypassed, and the will of the thousands of Hawaiians who have voiced their opposition to the states nation-building scheme are ignored," said Kelii Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the Plaintiffs in the case. "We must stop wasting time, money, and good will on a divisive and unconstitutional race-based election and begin looking for ways to improve the lives of everyone who lives in our state."
"As symbols of the Confederacy are removed from public display, the political left is pushing for a racist separatist campaign in Hawaii with the help of Barack Obamas administration," said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. "The federal courts cannot put an end this constitutional abomination soon enough. This Hawaii race-based election is a comeback for segregation. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission are both hiding behind private parties in order to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and get around the civil rights protections afforded every American through the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments."
Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watchs Election Integrity Project, is Judicial Watchs lead attorney on the lawsuit. Mr. Popper was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones is serving as Judicial Watchs local counsel for the plaintiffs.
In separate litigation, Judicial Watch forced the release
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-wins-court-fight-for-release-of-state-records-regarding-hawaiian-racial-separatist-campaign/
of the actual enrollment list, which includes the names of Hawaiian residents placed on that list without their permission. The Obama administration took controversial executive action
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25626266/obama-administration-offers-path-to-federal-recognition
towards "the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=1090-AB05
------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION
November 5, 2015
http://publicinterestlegal.org/files/ACRU-Hawaii-Amicus-Brief.pdf
-------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/peter-apo-a-vote-to-overcome-our-trauma/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 5, 2015
A Vote To Overcome Our Trauma
It may not be easy, but there is a way to bring closure to long-standing grievances and provide new opportunities for all of the people of Hawaii.
By Peter Apo
At the start of November, about 95,000 election ballots were mailed to registered Native Hawaiian voters, including many who reside outside of the islands.
It has taken over a century of pain and anguish for Hawaiians to finally forge a democratically convened electoral process.
Those who are elected, including delegates who dont live in the islands, are supposed to conduct a political dialogue that leads to the proposition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity that will redefine the political relationship between Hawaiians and the United States.
The anticipated outcome is a proposal that spells out what the political re-emergence of a Hawaiian nation will look like. The dialogue will likely bring anxiety and painful introspection for generations to come. Some things might be gained, others lost.
Recognition Or Independence?
The delegates will soon face a fork in the road, one that highlights a fundamental political divide. Do they favor federal recognition or independence from the United States?
Should the new governing entity embrace the well-trod and somewhat predictable path of Native American Indians and Native Alaskans, who obtained federal recognition? Or should this new Hawaiian governing entity pursue a complete legal separation from the United States -- a political option being aggressively pursued by some Native Hawaiians known as Independents or Hawaiian Nationals.
The federal recognition-versus-independence argument has been swirling for decades. But it is only in the last 10 years that the independence model has picked up many vocal new supporters.
As a result, independence is likely to be carefully vetted by Native Hawaiian delegates.
An Identity Crisis
Managing the merging of Hawaiian cultural and national identity has been an emotional passage for many Hawaiians.
How are we supposed to feel about the American overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom which, in its aftermath, exacted a high toll on the Native Hawaiian population? We lost our lands, cultural customs and many traditions. A once-proud nation suffered an enormous loss of dignity. All of this capped by the death of two-thirds of the population who had no immunity to common western diseases.
A great deal has happened since then.
The world has continued to evolve, as have both the United States and the Hawaiian people. This leads to some important questions: What does it mean to be an American of Hawaiian ancestry today and are the cultural and national identities reconcilable?
America -- The Enemy?
A considerable number of Native Hawaiians see America as the enemy. To them, the United States is an occupying or colonizing force in our islands. To them, if Queen Liliuokalani never relinquished the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom, it still exists.
They cite the terrible historical consequences of the overthrow as an irreparable act of war and they come to the somewhat logical conclusion that it doesnt make sense to place faith in the same destructive American political system.
From such a perspective, seeking justice and self-determination through federal recognition is not an option.
America -- The Rational Option?
Others, in spite of the historical trauma, value their American citizenship as they move forward.
This group looks back in sorrow, but does not dwell on the tragic past. They see the federal recognition process as a rational and emotionally acceptable opportunity to hit a re-set button. They want to pursue a future of new-found opportunities based on a negotiated settlement.
This has been possible for other indigenous peoples in this country, but it has been denied to Native Hawaiians for the 122 years since the overthrow.
In their view, recognition would officially sanction dialogue with the federal government to restore strategic elements of self-determination and sovereignty and, most importantly, trigger a healing process that might bind deep wounds.
The Nation I Know
Since the overthrow of 1893, five generations of Native Hawaiians have lived the American experience.
For many of us there is a mokuauhau, which is a genealogy of common experiences that bonds successive generations of Native Hawaiian in the islands since the end of the queens reign.
Through the years we -- yes, I am one -- have set the color-blind standards of inter-ethnic marriage and the emergence of Hawaiis signature population of culturally hybrid children. American-educated, we emerged from a time of cultural assimilation into American society, but we share a unique multicultural DNA.
We are also bonded to an American national identity forged by the shared pain of World War II, as well as major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. With each succeeding generation, the emotional ties to America have tended to grow deeper.
With these things in mind, I argue for reconciliation through federal recognition. We should continue to aggressively investigate the circumstances that led to annexation and address the subsequent injustices.
We should also fashion a nation-within-a-nation model of reconciliation that will not only bring closure to many long-standing grievances, but also provide new opportunities for all of the people of Hawaii.
There is no denying that Americas history is scarred with injustices of all sorts: Racism, sexism, the violation of indigenous peoples rights, income inequality, unjust wars -- all those things that have blighted and that continue to blight the country.
But, America remains a young country. It has a long ways to go to live up to the full measure of its promises which are painfully slow to be realized and can only be measured over decades and lifetimes.
For Native Hawaiians perhaps we are on the brink of a historic breakthrough to finally join all other indigenous peoples of the United States as constitutionally recognized Native Americans with equal opportunities to shape our own political destiny as a Hawaiian nation.
About the Author Peter Apo
COLUMNIST
A former legislator, Peter Apo is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the president of the Peter Apo Company LLC, a cultural tourism consulting company to the visitor industry. He has also been the arts and culture director for Honolulu, the citys director of Waikiki Development and served as special assistant on Hawaiian affairs to Gov. Ben Cayetano. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of OHA or other organizations he is involved in.
-------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/426699/federal-judge-refuses-stop-jim-crow-type-election-hawaii-hans-von-spakovsky
National Review, November 6, 2015
BENCH MEMOS -- NROS HOME FOR JUDICIAL NEWS AND ANALYSIS
A Federal Judge Refuses to Stop a Jim Crow-Type Election in Hawaii
by HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY
Its bad enough having a state hold an election that is racially discriminatory. Now we have a judge willingly to allow it to move forward.
That would be federal district court Judge J. Michael Seabright (a George W. Bush appointee, surprisingly enough). Hes refused to issue an injunction to stop an election in Hawaii to set up a separate government that excludes anyone who doesnt meet the states definition of "Native Hawaiian."
Seabrights deplorable decision in Akina v. State of Hawaii
http://publicinterestlegal.org/files/kelii_akina-v-the_state_of_hawaii-doc-114.pdf
is on an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- which, unfortunately, doesnt always seem to believe in following Supreme Court precedent.
Meanwhile, voting has already started in Hawaii. The election is intended to select delegates to a convention, which will draw up "governance documents" for a Native Hawaiian government. Registration to vote was restricted to "Native Hawaiians," who are defined as only those whose ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778 -- and even then only to those willing to confirm a statement affirming "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people." Voting by mail started on November 1 and runs through the end of the month.
The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-race-based-voter-rolls-00322/
on behalf of six residents of Hawaii, several of whom actually meet the ancestry requirement. However, they could not register to vote because they refused to agree to the prerequisite for registering - agreeing with the statement about the "unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people." Two of the plaintiffs are also native Hawaiians who were registered without their knowledge or consent.
This is the second time that Hawaii has tried to conduct such a restrictive election, which resembles the whites-only elections held in some parts of the South before the Civil Rights movement began in the 1950s. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already told Hawaii it could not do this the first time it tried.
In Rice v. Cayetano,
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/528/495.html
Hawaii restricted the residents of the state who were allowed to register to vote for trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a department of the state government, as well as to vote in a special election that asked whether Hawaiians should elect delegates to propose a native Hawaiian government. This latter issue is the identical issue present in the current case, as is the definition of native Hawaiians.
This definition that the state of Hawaii uses "implicates the odious one drop rule contained in the racial-segregation codes of the 19th and early 20th centuries" according to Peter Kirsanow,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/the-obama-administrations-attempt-to-balkanize-hawaii
a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Or as former Justice John Paul Stevens ironically pointed out in his dissent in another case, Fullilove v. Klutznick,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/448
if a government "is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935," which similarly defined Jews based on their ancestry.
The Supreme Court threw out Hawaiis discriminatory registration and voting scheme in 2000 as a fundamental violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. It criticized the states defense, saying it was using ancestry as a proxy for race and was based on "the demeaning premise that citizens of a particular race are somehow more qualified than others to vote on certain matters." The states "reasoning attacks the central meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment":
There is no room under the Amendment for the concept that the right to vote in a particular election can be allocated based on race. Race cannot qualify some and disqualify others from full participation in our democracy.
Judge Seabright refused to enjoin this latest Jim Crow-type election because he claims it is an entirely private election, not a state election and will "not result in any state officials, law, or change in state government." Seabright essentially dismisses the involvement of the state government. Thus, he says, the Rice case does not apply.
Yet not only did the states Office of Hawaiian Affairs provide a private nonprofit entity, Nai Aupuni, with $2.6 million in public funds to conduct the election of delegates and the convention, the state supplied the nonprofit with the voter registry being used. That registry was implemented under a state law, Act 195, passed in 2011 and run by a state entity, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
http://manage.hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/in-the-news/governor-abercrombie-announces-native-hawaiian-roll-commission
All of the commissions members were appointed by the governor of Hawaii.
According to Judicial Watchs brief in the Ninth Circuit, there is a mass of evidence showing joint action and "outright collusion" between the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and Nai Aupuni (NA):
NA was formed, three years after Act 195 was passed, for no other purpose than to hold the election that OHA could not. NAs bylaws refer to OHAs legislative goals. OHA was, at least for a time, a member of NA. NAs vice-president is married to the CEO of the [Native Hawaiian Roll Commission]. NA was given millions of dollars of public money to hold an election described in a state law, Act 195, in a series of contracts with OHA, wherein OHA retains all sorts of special rights and privileges. NA "decided" to use the race-based Roll the NHRC had been developing for years, and that OHA is statutorily required to use ... Indeed, it is particularly telling that NA gave OHA assurances that it would use the race-based Roll to hold a race-based election before the two parties entered into contracts awarding NA millions of dollars to hold that election.
Thus, contrary to Judge Seabrights opinion, state action permeates this biased election.
Seabright discounts the public funding, pointing to prior case law holding that the government is not responsible for actions of private entities who receive government funding. But there is no question, as the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF)
http://publicinterestlegal.org/files/ACRU-Hawaii-Amicus-Brief.pdf
says in an amicus brief supporting the emergency appeal, that the state "government has been operating a brazenly racially discriminatory voter registration process."
Without that registry (and the states funding), the election could not be held. Yet astonishingly, Judge Seabright actually says that establishing, maintaining, and using this discriminatory registry is not a violation of equal protection.
What is going on, according to PILFs brief, is that the state, knowing that the Supreme Court has barred it from directly conducting this type of racially discriminatory election, is using "a private entity as its proxy to conduct the very same type of election that was condemned by the Supreme Court in Rice."
Moreover, Judge Seabright makes no mention anywhere in his opinion of the Supreme Courts 1996 decision in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/517/186.html
In Morse, the Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment, as implemented through the Voting Rights Act, prohibited the Republican Party of Virginia from imposing a registration fee to attend and vote in the partys nominating convention -- which was being run by a private entity.
The state of Hawaii may not be directly administering this election. But the state government supplied the money to hold the election and convention, and it provided the restrictive, discriminatory voter registry being used in the election. Moreover, the states top government official appointed the members running the registry. Yet Judge Seabright is allowing Hawaii to violate the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act to engage in unmitigated racial discrimination, using both ancestry and a private entity as a proxy to avoid the Constitution and the law.
Of course, this type of organized misbehavior does not occur in a vacuum. The Obama administration filed an amicus brief supporting the state.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/dept-of-interior-amicus-hawaii-race-based-election-00322/
And on Oct. 1, 2015, the Obama administrations Department of the Interior published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOI-2015-0005-2438
for "reestablishing" a "formal government-to-government relationship" with a new native Hawaiian government if it is established.
The executive branch has no legal or constitutional authority for this unilateral action.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/the-obama-administrations-attempt-to-balkanize-hawaii
But it is part of the administrations continuous effort to Balkanize America and tear apart the ties that bind us together as one people. It amounts to granting secession for certain residents of Hawaii.
Since the voting is already ongoing in an election that has excluded hundreds of thousands of Hawaiians from participating, the Ninth Circuit should immediately apply the Supreme Courts precedent in Rice and enjoin the election. If it doesnt, it will be up to the Supreme Court to once again take Hawaii -- and the Ninth Circuit -- to the woodshed for their misbehavior.
-- Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20151106_letters_to_the_editor.html?id=341489242
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 6, 2015, Letter to editor
Study impact of sovereignty
On the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty, I am sure that Hawaiians are sick of hearing non-Hawaiians like me tell them what to do.
But I suggest that the federal government needs to do a feasibility study on the jurisdictional issues that can arise if sovereignty doesnt mean a geographically separate area where Hawaiians would live.
If sovereignty creates long-term costs or losses for other Hawaii taxpayers, will we get reimbursed by the federal government? There are some practical issues here. We need an impact study.
Lloyd Lim
Makiki
--------------------
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The following article from an alternative blog contains numerous falsehoods and twisted versions of Hawaiian history, but makes interesting reading.
http://theantimedia.org/hawaii-moves-one-step-closer-to-declaring-sovereignty-from-u-s-government/
The Antimedia.org, November 6, 2015
Hawaiian Natives Move One Step Closer to Declaring Sovereignty from U.S. Government
by Carey Wedler
(ANTIMEDIA) Honolulu, HI -- This week, Native Hawaiians initiated an historical election that may grant them sovereignty from the United States and the state of Hawaii, itself, after well over a century of colonial rule. More than 95,000 indigenous people will elect delegates to a constitutional convention, scheduled for this winter, when they will work to create a government that serves and represents Native Hawaiians -- the only group of indigenous people in the United States currently restricted from forming their own government.
In the 19th century, European and American missionaries and traders began settling in Hawaii. They quickly formed a political movement and succeeded in transferring power from the king to his cabinet and the legislature. Though they drafted a new constitution limiting the kings control, they also limited the voting rights of Asians and Native Hawaiians while granting that right to wealthy non-citizens.
When the king died and his sister, Queen Liliuokalani, assumed the throne, she attempted to restore power to the monarchy and return voting rights to those who had been excluded by the white settlers. White businessmen disapproved of her intentions and formed the Committee of Safety, which sought to overthrow the Queen and have Hawaii annexed by the U.S. On January 16, 1893, backed by a militia and 162 U.S. marines, the Committee achieved its goal. The Queen surrendered, and in 1898, Hawaii was annexed by the United States.
The federal government apologized for its colonization of the island and its natives in 1993, but that failed to improve conditions for many indigenous people. According to a government report, Native Hawaiians suffer higher rates of poverty and unemployment than the rest of the population and are underrepresented in business ownership and education. Further, Native Hawaiians "are the racial group with the highest proportion of risk factors leading to illness, disability, and premature death" -- a problem compounded by a lack of access to healthcare.
These stark conditions, as well as the states imperial history, have led many Native Hawaiians to seek sovereignty from the United States government.
In 2011, Hawaii passed a law to recognize Native Hawaiians as the first people of Hawaii. That bill also established the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to "assemble a list of qualified and interested Native Hawaiian voters" -- a move that gave infrastructure to the current push for self-determination.
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled to allow the vote, which will not be administered by the state. The month-long election will select 40 delegates to attend a constitutional convention in February. Though delegates will not be elected to any public office, they will be instrumental in deciding how Native Hawaiians will rule themselves. At the eight-week convention scheduled for February, the elected delegates will decide whether or not they want to create a new Native Hawaiian government. If a Native government is formed, delegates will also decide whether to establish a "government-to-government" relationship with the U.S. or seek total independence.
One of the members of the commission, Native Hawaiian Robin Danner, expressed optimism for the new vote:
"For the first time in over a hundred years, there will be a definitive voice on Native Hawaiian issues," she said. "A definitive and recognized government to speak for our culture, our people, our issues, instead of county or state government attempting to have a subcommittee within their agencies or structures to mouthpiece the value of native viewpoints, which has not worked well at all."
However, the process has not been without opposition. In August, two non-native Hawaiians (sponsored by Judicial Watch) sued to stop the vote, claiming it was racially discriminatory -- and therefore unconstitutional -- because only Native Hawaiians would be allowed to participate. Two Native Hawaiians also joined the suit to protest that their names were added to voter rolls without their consent. Then, two additional Native Hawaiians joined to voice general opposition to the proposed process of attaining self-determination.
Kellii Akina, one of the plaintiffs, said it was "wrong for the state government to use public resources in order to promote a racially discriminatory process." She added, "Whats really at stake here is not only the constitution of the United States but also the aloha spirit."
Nevertheless, the case resulted in Judge Seabrights decision last month to allow the vote.
Judicial Watch has since filed an injunction in an attempt to halt the election.
Criticism also came from an unlikely corner: Walter Ritte, a delegate candidate who dropped out of the race last Wednesday, expressed the concerns of many Natives that the government is too involved in the process. For example, though the election is administered privately, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs provided $2.6 million to fund it -- evoking protests from plaintiffs in the August suit. Further, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, which has played an instrumental role in the push for the vote, is after all, a government entity.
Witte argued the proposed path to sovereignty would simply facilitate "continuation of the U.S. goal to illegally occupy the Hawaiian Islands."
"If youre going to plant a seed that is not pono [righteous]," he said, "then youre going to harvest something that is not pono." He called the election "a fake pathway to nationhood and its disillusioned vision of sovereignty," encouraging voters to remove themselves from the rolls.
Independent nonprofit Nai Aupuni, which has campaigned in favor of the vote, quickly responded to Rittes criticisms that the proposed path to sovereignty was counterproductive:
"Nai Aupuni encourages Native Hawaiians to voice their opinion on the Nai Aupuni process because the voters and delegate candidates should hear all voices.
"However, the fact that some Native Hawaiians protest because they are concerned that their desired outcome will not be accepted emphasizes the need for a Native Hawaiian convention. Without a process to vote in leaders who can advocate among each other to find a consensus, the Native Hawaiian community will never proceed forward in unity," a statement read.
As Danner, who works for the government-created commission, expressed, "Being native in the United States is like living a cycle of grief. Because being native in the United States is to have lost something powerful. First, youre depressed. Then youre angry. Then there is some acceptance and then you get to a point where you say, What am I going to do about it? As a people I think we are at the stage where we are ready to do something about it."
These divisions highlight a common conflict in American political life that echoes the "lesser of two evils" dilemma: should Hawaiians wait for a purer movement devoid of government influence to seek sovereignty, delaying the process and extending the suppression of their right to form a government? Or should they seize the state-sponsored opportunity they have been offered for the sake of expediency and resolution?
Assuming Judicial Watchs appeal fails and the vote continues, it appears Hawaiians are one step closer to determining their fate -- whether they like it or not.
-------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-for-nov/article_c0ad3b6d-11ff-5e3c-a052-26faa5090801.html
The Garden Island (Kauai), November 7, 2015, Letter to editor
Candidate: Process is not forthright
I applied for candidacy to become a delegate in the Nai Aupuni process in an effort to understand what this is really about as none of this was clear at the outset yet I was eager to seek resolve for our Hawaiian people and non-Hawaiians who are implicated in this issue.
Last night at an assembled meeting coordinated by the Moku o Keawe home owners association I announced my withdrawal of candidacy to the Nai Aupuni process for the following reasons:
This process is not forth right.
It misleads our people to believing we can have self‐determination and self‐governance if we choose but eliminates our qualified voters by closing the voting opportunity where many are still uninformed because of the ambiguity and understanding of how to participate.
This process further neglects to address the issues brought forth in the Apology Bill Public Law 105‐130 and is an effort to relinquish all of our assets in exchange for a better benefit to only the Hawaiian with 50 percent or more blood quantum, of which I am one, and cutting off our descendants that follow.
I encourage all Hawaiians to not be short sighted and participate in this process that will be the demise of the Hawaiian people. As a result, I cannot support this forum and withdraw my application for candidacy.
Judy Mapuana Moa, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
----------------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/opinion/letters/aha-hawaiians-hawaiians-will-change-lives
West Hawaii Today [Kona], November 7, 2015, Letter to editor
Aha: For Hawaiians, by Hawaiians will change lives
By Lei Kihoi
Forty Native Hawaiian delegates will convene an Aha beginning February 2016. This convention will significantly alter the life of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians for generations to come. Delegates will commence the process to re-establish a Hawaiian nation -- for Hawaiians and by Hawaiians. For Hawaiians and by Hawaiians is important because the state has consistently failed to recognize Native Hawaiian values.
About 25 years ago, I introduced a bill in the Legislature to use hooponopono in Family Court. It failed because the eight-step process included a "pule" (prayer) -- considered unconstitutional. In 1998, public safety fired me for speaking Hawaiian while practicing hooponopono in the prison. I was forced to see a psychiatrist. I sued, prevailed, and Hawaiian language and culture flourishes in the prison today. These examples exemplify that our values, cultural sites, love for our land, our ancestors are of low priority in the current system. A system which, in essence, has sought to erode the Hawaiian culture except for events like asking Hawaiians to bless a building, play Hawaiian music for a party, chant for an event, dance the hula, etc. Historically, Hawaiians have been subjected to many injustices -- starting with the illegal overthrow of an intact, peaceful kingdom, followed by inequities that still exist.
This is the time to make it right, a time to make it pono. So, what will happen at the Aha? The first week of the Aha, delegates will be coached by notable professors and lawyers in constitutional, international and Hawaiian law to assure that all delegates will have the basic threshold to begin deliberations. Rules of protocol will be established. Then the work begins.
First, delegates need to address form of governance, citizenship. How does the nation want to be identified? Remain status quo, nation within a nation, become nationals, independent, corporation? Second, develop a governance document -- a constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation? This document will set up the structure and function of government. At this juncture our revenues, transfer of assets to the nation, jurisdiction and more will be discussed. A lot to bite off in eight weeks -- you darn betcha. It is my hope that those 96,000 (17,300 Hawaii Island) registered Native Hawaiian voters for the Aha will do the following: Get out and vote. Choose delegates who are committed to the process and who have the wisdom, knowledge and experience to complete the tasks at hand. It is our nation, our future.
Lei Kihoi Dunne
Kailua-Kona
Editors note: Lei Kihoi Dunne s a candidate running for a delegate spot on the Aha.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20151106_nai_aupuni_and_stealing_a_nation__twice.html?id=342272831
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 8, 2015
Nai Aupuni and stealing a nation -- twice
By Anne Keala Kelly
Nai Aupuni is happening because the U.S. wants to extinguish Hawaiian rights to the crown and government lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom, about 40 percent of the archipelago. These are Hawaiian national lands, referred to as "ceded lands." But to create the appearance of a legal transfer of title, the state and federal governments need Nai Aupuni, Hawaiian acquiescence to the U.S. takeover.
Nai Aupuni was invented and funded by the state, in conjunction with the Department of Interior (DOI), which acts on directives from President Barack Obama. The list of Hawaiians who can vote was derived from Kanaiolowalu, which was the result of Act 195, a mandate to create a Hawaiian roll. Some $4 million from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) was spent in an effort to secure 200,000 Hawaiian names, but only 19,000 signed on. So, another state law, Act 77, was passed to disguise that abysmal failure, giving permission to Kanaiolowalu commissioners to loot other state registries. Lists of Hawaiian people, who were trying to get scholarships and loans or signed other forms of enrollment separate from Kanaiolowalu were counted, ballooning the number to 125,000.
It took a court order to make the list public, which was good because it includes people who have passed away. Twenty-four percent of the names were removed for various reasons, whittling Kanaiolowalus list down to 95,000. That means that 80 percent of the people on this new, state manufactured list of "voters" did not consent. So far, $2.5 million has been spent on this fake election, but were supposed to believe Nai Aupuni is a grassroots movement for Hawaiian self-determination.
Although its funded by the state, when the legality of Nai Aupuni was challenged recently in a federal court, the judge held that its a private election. But why push this now, after failed attempts during the past 15 years to pass Nai Aupunis predecessor, the Akaka Bill?
Simply put, President Obama wants to invoke Executive Order privileges to recognize a group of Hawaiians who will sell our national lands. And hes in a hurry because of pending legislation intended to cut the DOI out of the federal recognition process. But more concerning is what preceded this rush to contain the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
About a 18 months ago, Kamanaopono Crabbe, OHAs CEO, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting proof of jurisdiction. Although Crabbe later rescinded the letter, after blowback from inside OHA, the gauntlet had been thrown. It was a direct challenge to the U.S. occupation by a respected Hawaiian leader who works for the state.
All the U.S. has to do is produce a Treaty of Annexation proving the Hawaiian Kingdom, a nation state, was legally annexed as opposed to illegally occupied. Rather than show proof of ownership over what we Hawaiians say is our stolen country, the Obama administration chose to hold public hearings about federal recognition.
During late June and early July 2014, a series of hearings took place on the major islands. About 99 percent of those who testified told the DOI that Hawaii is not part of the United States, and Hawaiians are not Native Americans.
Just over a year after those powerful hearings, and a few months after thousands of Hawaiians rallied in defense of Mauna Kea, all of which sparked a tremendous resurgence of Hawaiian political agency, we are being Nai Aupuni-ed.
If Nai Aupuni manages to maintain even the appearance of legitimacy, President Obama will federalize us. Hawaiians being bumfuzzled or unable to grasp the deception at hand is one thing. To be complicit, indifferent or complacent as Hawaiian nationality is about to be lobotomized is like us colonizing ourselves.
-----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/two-movements-both-with-inherent-rights-to-sovereignty/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 9, 2015
Two Movements, Both With Inherent Rights to Sovereignty
The Native Hawaiian indigenous people might be well-served by U.S. recognition. Thats different than the true independence of a multi-ethnic Hawaii nation-state.
By Davianna Pomaikai McGregor
The quest of Lāhui Ōiwi (Native Hawaiian people) to re-establish a native government began on Jan. 16, 1893, when U.S. naval forces invaded Hawaii in support of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
It is reinforced by the historical and contemporary injustices reflected in the low incomes, high unemployment rates, disparate incarceration rates, the disproportionate reliance on public assistance and the poor health conditions of Lāhui Ōiwi in Hawaii.
It is provoked by legal suits seeking to dismantle Hawaiian land trusts established by Lāhui Ōiwi Alii (chiefly rulers) and the U.S. Congress and suits seeking to extinguish other Lāhui Ōiwi entitlements. It has been nurtured by the renaissance of Lāhui Ōiwi language, music, hula, navigation and spiritual practices.
For a nation, sovereignty is most effectively exercised through a governing entity. For over seven centuries prior to European and American contact and through 1810, Lāhui Ōiwi exercised sovereignty through the governance of Alii (chiefs) who ruled the Hawaiian archipelago.
During this period, the government of the indigenous Native Hawaiians was identical to the government of the Hawaii nation-state.
In 1810, one ruling chief, King Kamehameha I, established a monarchial form of government that ruled Hawaii through January 1893. During the monarchy, the governance of the mutli-ethnic Hawaii nation-state began to be distinct from that of the self-governance of Lāhui Ōiwi or the Native Hawaiian indigenous people.
The seeds of this distinction were planted when the King Kamehameha III and the Council of Chiefs allowed non-Hawaiians to become citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This distinction grew when the Hawaii government passed laws and negotiated treaties that worked against the interests and well-being of Lāhui Ōiwi, such as the establishment of a system of private land ownership and the Reciprocity Treaty with the U.S.
It fully matured with the imposition of the 1887 Bayonet Constitution upon King Kalākaua.
Two Entities, Two Kinds Of Status, Two Movements
The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, together with the governance policy of the U.S. and demographic changes that reduced Lāhui Ōiwi to 21 percent of Hawaiis resident population by the 21st century has resulted in the existence of two sovereign entities.
The dominant discourse on sovereignty portrays this as one Hawaiian nation with two choices -- nation-within-nation status or independence. However, this is not true.
There are two entities:
* Lāhui Ōiwi, the Native Hawaiian indigenous people, and
* Aupuni Hawaii, the multi-ethnic Hawaii nation-state.
Both have the inherent right of sovereignty and the right to exercise this sovereignty through its own government. Neither has re-established a government that is recognized at the state, national or international level. This political condition has given rise to two distinct movements for sovereignty and self-determination in Hawaii.
One movement seeks to re-establish the government of Lāhui Ōiwi and define a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government similar to that with the other indigenous peoples -- Native Americans, Native Alaskans and Aleuts.
The second movement seeks to re-establish the government of Aupuni Hawaii separate from the U.S. nation-state.
Both movements are rooted in the unique cultural and political history of Hawaii; lay claim to the national lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom currently held by the governments of the U.S. and state of Hawaii; have met challenges and obstacles; and are pursuing distinct political strategies.
A Pathway For Lāhui Ōiwi
The Kanaiolowalu Roll and Nai Aupuni process to elect delegates to a governance convention can re-establish a government of, by and for Lāhui Ōiwi. This government has the potential to manage and control lands that are now managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and the state of Hawaii and receive decommissioned military bases.
With these lands, the Native Hawaiian government can provide housing, health care and insurance; protect subsistence resources; provide cultural education; perpetuate our language and improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians.
The Department of Interior rules will open a pathway for the government of Lāhui Ōiwi to re-establish a relationship with the U.S. federal government.
In each year since the Rice v. Cayetano decision, a group of senators has filed an objection to special funding provisions for Lāhui Ōiwi. Six race-based civil suits have challenged OHA, Hawaiian Homelands and Kamehameha Schools.
Such a relationship will protect federal programs that support scholarships, housing, health, education, elder care and job training for Native Hawaiians from legal challenges. It will also protect the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Alii Trusts and Hawaii state constitutional rights of Lāhui Ōiwi from race-based litigation.
About the Author
Davianna Pomaikai McGregor is a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.
-----
** Online comment by Ken Conklin:
Ms. McGregor describes only two choices for Hawaiian sovereignty, but in fact there are three. The two options she describes are both minority views, meaning that neither of them has support from a majority of ethnic Hawaiians let alone from a majority of Hawaiis people. The third option is the one preferred by a silent majority among both ethnic Hawaiians and all our people. Here are the three choices:
(1) Ethnic nationalism -- Hawaii would become once again an independent nation except that the modern concept of "indigenous rights" would be superimposed to create two levels of citizenship. (There was no such concept in the actual historical Kingdom) Ethnic Hawaiians would have racial supremacy. Everyone lacking a drop of the magic blood would be second-class citizens whose voting rights would be limited to certain topics and whose property rights would be restricted to certain land areas. Bumpy Kanahele has a Constitution for his "Nation of Hawaii" which makes clear the racial supremacy of ethnic Hawaiians in a multiracial nation where everyone has the right to vote, but some citizens are more equal than others solely on account of race. Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, has been pushing this concept for many years on radio, TV, and everywhere else.
(2) Racial separatism -- the concept favored by Peter Apo, Davi McGregor, and by OHA. Its similar to the Black nationalist proposals of the Nation of Islam founded by Elijah Muhammad and still being pushed by Louis Farrakhan. This is the process now underway in the concept being pushed by both OHA and the U.S. Department of Interior. The only people allowed to vote are ethnic Hawaiians. They will create a tribal government and seek federal recognition as an Indian tribe. With or without federal recognition the race-based tribe will demand huge amounts of land and money at everyone elses expense. Theyre already getting more than 850 racial entitlement programs at everyone elses expense, and they complain bitterly whenever someone has the courage to file a lawsuit seeking to dismantle one of those racist, illegal programs. Of course members of the tribe will remain citizens of the U.S. and of Hawaii, so they get to vote both for their tribal leadership and for the state legislators who will supposedly defend an ever-shrinking State of Hawaii against the rapacious demands of the tribe.
(3) Aloha for all, with unity and equality as fundamental principles. Equality: we are all equal in the eyes of God, and we all should be treated equally under the law by our government. No racial separatist tribe. No racial entitlement programs. No establishment of a long-dead religion as a basis for government policy and law. Unity: we remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and Hawaii remains unified with the United States.
I believe that the vast majority of Hawaiis people, including a majority among ethnic Hawaiians, favor the third concept of aloha for all. Im encouraged by the fact that only about 1/5 of all ethnic Hawaiians have ever signed up for any of OHAs racial registries after multiple campaigns in Hawaii and throughout the mainland lasting about 15 years and costing about $20 Million. Most ethnic Hawaiians are proud of their heritage as both Hawaiian and American. They are not racists, despite the best efforts of Peter Apo, Davi McGregor, and OHA to recruit them for a jihad.
---------------------
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33590-us-government-asks-native-hawaiians-to-legitimize-occupation-with-vote
Truthout, November 10, 2015
US Government Asks Native Hawaiians to Legitimize Occupation With Vote
By Sonali Kolhatkar, teleSUR Op-Ed
In early November, a month-long voting period began for a group of Hawaiians to elect delegates to a constitutional convention. Al Jazeera cast the process, called Nai Aupuni as, "a historic election [that] seeks to return sovereignty to Native Hawaiians, a people still stinging from the bitter ruin of colonization." Colorlines picked up the story saying, "Native Hawaiians are Voting to Create Independent Government." For those interested in self-determination for indigenous people, particularly Hawaiians who are the last remaining native population in the U.S. without its own governance structures, the story sounds like good news.
However, to Anne Keala Kelly, an award winning, Native Hawaiian filmmaker and journalist, "this isnt so much a vote, as a stick-up."
Kelly is intimately involved in the movement against the building of a new 30-meter telescope on the sacred Mauna Kea summit. She is making a documentary about it called "Why the Mountain."
"Its as if the state and federal government got together and decided to hold a gun to our head and say, youre going to vote on one of these two things: Do you like me, or do you love me?" Kelly told me in an interview on Uprising.
Two hundred native Hawaiians are running for the chance to be one of 40 delegates to a convention early next year to determine the relationship between the U.S. government and native Hawaiians. But many Hawaiians, like Kelly, are expressing grave doubts about the process.
Walter Ritte, one of the candidates and a long-time Hawaiian activist, recently withdrew his name from the election.
"If youre going to plant a seed that is not pono, then youre going to harvest something that is not pono," he said, using the Hawaiian word for "righteous," or "fair." Ritte also called the election "a fake pathway to nationhood and its disillusioned vision of sovereignty."
At the heart of the matter is the U.S.s annexation of Hawaii, which may not be legal. In one of the more nuanced news reports covering the election, the BBC laid out how the annexation of the islands was done by Congressional fiat after the U.S. began its occupation, and therefore is possibly invalid under international law. Furthermore, in 1993 President Bill Clinton actually signed an "apology resolution" expressing regret for the U.S.s overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Kelly explained that the seeds of Nai Aupuni began when the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wrote to the U.S. State Department demanding the legal basis for Hawaiis annexation. She said, "Within 3 weeks of that letter, out of nowhere, the Department of Interior announced hearings in Hawaii to discuss creating a Native governing entity. Within six weeks, the Department of Interior was in Hawaii holding hearings on each island."
A majority of the hundreds of Hawaiians who testified at the hearings challenged the U.S. governments legitimacy in Hawaii and demanded independence. "We do not need you here. This is our country," and "Get out of our house! Go home," were among the sentiments expressed.
After those hearings, the Obama administration adopted Nai Aupuni, the current election process, which given the historical context, appears as an attempt to retroactively legalize annexation via a facade of native Hawaiian participation.
"Theyve been trying to cover up the overthrow [of the Hawaiian kingdom] for 200 years," said Kelly.
Aside from the problematic origins of this election, there are serious questions over who is actually eligible to cast a ballot. According to Kelly, the Hawaii state government spent millions of dollars over several years, trying to get native Hawaiians to submit their names to a registry. Only about 19,000 out of half a million residents and diaspora Hawaiians did so. The state then cobbled together other lists of people who have applied for scholarships and home loans and expanded the registry to about 150,000. After realizing that thousands of names were those of people who have passed away, it was whittled back down to approximately 95,000. That flawed registry is the list of voters that is being drawn from for this election.
For decades the Native Hawaiian movement for sovereignty has demanded the right to self-determination. In recent years that movement has grown, its strength especially visible during the past year of protests against the Mauna Kea telescope. Activists camped on the mountain and engaged in militant civil disobedience, refusing to let construction crews pass the steep narrow roads leading up to the summit which houses an internationally funded, world class observatory. The political actions received widespread news coverage and demonstrated the power of an organized population. "What they want to do is make that the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, which has now become an independence movement - they want to make sure that it does not have any traction," explained Kelly, in reference to the U.S. governments push for the election.
The fight over Hawaii goes beyond the relationship between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. federal government. From the beginning, Hawaii has housed a crucial military base, enabling the U.S. to expand its reach to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. "The U.S. illegally invaded Hawaii to facilitate its war with Spain and the Philippines," said Kelly. "The American presence here has everything to do with militarizing the Pacific."
The U.S. hosts the worlds largest maritime exercises every other year on the Hawaiian Islands. Tens of thousands of military personnel from dozens of countries attend RIMPAC, including Indonesia, which is overseeing its own occupation of the Pacific islands of West Papua. Indonesias brutally violent crackdown on the West Papuan independence movement is facilitated by the U.S.s long-standing occupation of the Pacific islands of Hawaii.
If native Hawaiians can be corralled into governing their own "nation within a nation," as indigenous mainland tribes have been, then the supremacy of the U.S. state over Hawaiian lands will remain intact. Native Hawaiians will have control over limited territories whose boundaries, like those of mainland Native American reservations, will be determined with the permission of the U.S. government. If this election was truly about Hawaiian independence and sovereignty, then they would be voting on whether their islands should remain a U.S. state, or become their own sovereign nation.
That democratic choice has never been offered by the federal government and likely never will be.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of Uprising, a daily radio program produced at KPFK Pacifica, and the author of Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence. She is also the codirector of the Afghan Womens Mission, and a contributor to Truthdig.
---------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16296/Full-Text-State-Feds-Defend-Nai-Aupuni-Election-Before-9th-Circuit-Court.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Full Text: State, Feds Defend Nai Aupuni Election Before 9th Circuit Court
by Andrew Walden
Four responses have been filed before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in opposition to last weeks "Urgent Motion for Injunction" against the Nai Aupuni election.
Here they are:
Nai Aupuni
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Nai%20Aupuni%20Nov%202015%209th%20Circuit%2023-1%20NaI%20Aupunis%20Opp.%20to%20Motion%20for%20Inj.%20Pending%20Appeal.pdf
State of Hawaii
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Nai%20Aupuni%20State%20Nov%202015%209th%20Circuit%2022%20-%20State%20Def.%20Opp.%20To%20Motion%20for%20Inj.%20Pending%20Appeal.pdf
US Dept of Justice
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Nai%20Aupuni%20US%20DoJ%20Nov%202015%209th%20Circuit%2021-1%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20USA.pdf
OHA
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Nai%20Aupuni%20OHA%20Nov%202015%209th%20Circuit%2019-1%20Opp.%20to%20Motion%20for%20Inj.%20Pending%20Appeal%20(1).pdf
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/coercive-nature-of-nai-aupuni-process-ultimately-dooms-it-to-failure/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 11, 2015
Coercive Nature Of Nai Aupuni Process Ultimately Dooms It To Failure
Claiming to be able to produce an entity that can speak with one voice for our people is not at all credible.
By Jonathan K. Osorio
History matters.
History is not just what we perceive our past to be, definitely not what we wish the past had been. In the end, fact matters. Knowing the sequence of events, knowing what was done and said, knowing that past is how we understand and make sense of the present.
A clear, intelligible vision of the present -- what is going on around us -- also matters. We gaze back, we look around and we chart a course that takes us onward.
As a people we could conceivably sail anywhere. But as a people, we are on a voyage that was charted nearly 200 years ago when the Kānaka Maoli, in the throes of a horrific population collapse, allowed our Alii to lead us into a new future that broke with a thousand years of tradition and ushered in new religious practices, new and strange economic practices and a new kind of authority, constitutional law, that placed the kuleana for ruling and maintaining our nation not just in the hands of the Alii, but in the hands of the makaāinana and ultimately also in the hands of people who came from other places: America and Europe mostly, but even those more recently arrived as contract labor from Asia.
All were welcomed, all were invited to join Kanaka Maoli in their commitment to the nation, their loyalty to the monarch and a new state was added to what would eventually be a global family of nations.
We took great risks as a lāhui allowing people who did not share our ancestry to belong to this nation and one result of that risk-taking was that some of those who managed to enrich themselves with great estates and even greater estimations of their own worth betrayed this country.
They were a small minority, even among the other foreigners who were also Hawaiian subjects, but they were wealthy and influential with American politicians and together with American political and naval power seized our nation, humiliated our queen and confiscated the lands legally belonging to her and to our government.
The United States of America was never an unwitting partner in this chain of events and worse, many Americans insisted that its own ideals prohibited it from taking over another country that had never threatened theirs in any way.
But realpolitik and strategic military and economic considerations overwhelmed that countrys better instincts and the U.S. territorialized Hawaii in 1898, taking over all of our national lands and the property of the monarch in the process.
Representatives of the United States have not sought to ameliorate but rather to disguise this theft ever since.
In the Territorial Organic Act the U.S. permitted Hawaiians to vote in the elections while not requiring them to actually renounce their own nationality and identify themselves as American citizens.
In the 1921 Hawaiian Homestead Act, the U.S. created a mechanism for offering homesteads and agricultural leaseholds not as a just restoration of lands taken from Hawaiian nationals, but as a "helping hand" to a native people who, like other native peoples in America, were struggling with their own losses.
Having lost millions of acres of land to white settlers, American Indians were portrayed as failures unable to keep up with American society. Similarly, the blood quantum requirement of HHA says nothing more clearly than that the more Hawaiian you are, the more assistance you require from the society.
Throughout the 20th century the American government in Hawaii created laws and educational policies designed to produce not just assimilation but a sense of loyalty and patriotism to the American state by obscuring any reference to the fact that the U.S. had supported an insurgency against the Hawaiian government in 1893 and had then had accepted the spoils of that insurgency.
At the time of the Statehood vote in Hawaii, this American education had affected three generations of our people who had come to have wildly divergent ideas about this history, with the vast majority having no other information than that Hawaii had naturally evolved from some kind of makeshift kingdom to a fully fledged state in the most powerful and respected country in the world.
A significant contribution to this indoctrination was the replacement of ōlelo Hawaii with American English as the national language.
But remember that I said we were on a course that was charted for us before the Mōī signed the first constitution in 1840. Despite a shamefully constructed distortion of our history, and demoralizing policies, despite the steady and spectacular loss of political power as Hawaii-born Japanese and later haole transplants from the U.S. replaced Kanaka Maoli as the major voting groups in Hawaii, there was an equally spectacular burst of political energy, fueled by revivals in cultural practices, language and also fueled by resentment of the economic and environmental changes that unabated tourism and U.S. military spending brought to Hawaii in the 1970s.
The Hawaiian movement, which was really hundreds of movements, advocated for protection of our vanishing ways of life and also advocated for established communities over new speculative real-estate opportunities, and even challenged the U.S. militarys destructive and unconscionable use of our lands, not just on Kahoolawe but in Makua, Mokapu, and lately on Haleakala.
In a supremely important way, our diverse political and social movements are what our Lāhui has come to be. For almost as many generations as we had been sidelined by American deceptions, our people have, since the late 1960s claimed a kuleana for these lands for our culture, for our sense of history and for our destiny, and while some of us have grown old and others have passed, we have been seeing young people take up the struggle to restore a Kanaka Maoli authority and political power in our land.
Consider the sequence of events: land struggles on Oahu in the early 1970s; the Kahoolawe struggle from 1975 to the end of the century; Hawaiian language revival and immersion schools since 1983; protection of our burial sites and remains since 1988; access and protection of subsistence and cultural access to the land highlighted by the successful opposition to Senate Bill 8 in 1998; and a succession of political demonstrations demanding national rebuilding from Ka Lāhui in 1987 to Onipaa in 1993; to representing the Kingdom at the Hague in 1999 to the emergence of at least a half-dozen national governments since then.
What some people have portrayed as disunity and confusion, I see as a vital, informed and diverse movement to self-correct 100 years of colonial-style education and suppression of our culture and our national identity.
This diverse and vigorous movement is what has, in the last 50 years, obstructed the attempt by the powerful players in government, business and labor to sell Hawaii literally and figuratively and since the first rendition of the Akaka Bill in 1994, the Democratic Party has sought to remove us as an obstruction by making a creature of its own, something that can claim to be the sole voice of the Hawaiian people and with which future agreements can be made.
And the pilikia is that Kanaioluwalu and Nai Aupuni have both created as much cynicism as hope in the Hawaiian community and thus have contributed to an actual disunity and not just a theoretical one.
But claiming to be able to produce an entity that can speak with one voice for our people is not at all credible given 1) our history, 2) our current reality, and 3) the way these agencies have gone about their work.
Nai aupunis claim that it can be independent of Act 195 is scarcely believable, not just because of the wording of Act 195 but because of the interference by the Department of the Interior to smooth the way to federal recognition and federal recognition only. But Nai aupunis greatest failure has been its insistence on a timeline that has forced Hawaiians to choose something that has no clear objective and to make that choice within an arbitrary deadline, all the while intimating that this was somehow our last chance to participate in the rebuilding of our nation.
It is the coercive nature of this process that ultimately dooms it to failure. This I believe, because I know our people and our history, and I have seen us choose to eat stones before.
And coercion has been the hallmark of this whole process, from the legislations insistence that our own resources at OHA pay for the roll and the convention to the tune of more than $6 million, to Kanaioluwalus request to roll over names from other Hawaiian enrollments into its own. And now Nai Aupuni seduces independence supporters into signing up, claiming that independence too is a possible outcome of the convention.
And here is where I go from skepticism to outrage.
Independence? Forty delegates elected from who knows how many voters but certainly less than 130,000 are going to be able to construct a government for all 1.2 million people in Hawaii Paeāina? And they will do this peacefully?
Perhaps if OHA had spent that $6 million in outreach and education, one could see a plan and a rationale, but I do not think that NaI Aupuni has done anything to educate even the 130,000 purportedly on this list.
I would have more respect for this process if it had never pretended to be anything but a way to secure federal recognition through Department of Interior rulemaking and an Obama executive order. At least people would have known what they were signing up for.
The State of Hawaiis Act 195 was completely clear in its language and intent. Recognize the Kanaka Maoli as the indigenous people of the state and provide the means to create a governing entity that can seek formal federal recognition with the U.S. government.
The Department of the Interiors rulemaking draft is even clearer. A Native Hawaiian government will not be eligible for the same resources as American Indians and it may not challenge federal jurisdiction over military lands.
Act 195 provides a path well worn by hundreds, nay, thousands of agreements with Native American nations who had eventually all succumbed to the U.S. claim of dominion over the lands and their fate. Many succumbed only after murder and terror pacified them.
We have voyaged in difficult waters before and I know that we have all had our moments when we simply wanted some small piece of what has been stolen from us restored. But I believe we are in this struggle for the long haul and the long haul is what is required for us to re-secure our country peacefully and inevitably.
This long struggle is also what has shaped us as a people who have known the deepest kind of betrayal and have maintained our dignity, and I think a sense of purpose. Our people are on a 200-year journey of nation building and rebuilding.
We have time on our side, but only so long as we continue to fight. We have right on our side, but only as long as we remember.
About the Author
Jonathan K. Osorio is a scholar of 19th century political and social history in Hawaii and wrote a book, "Dismembering Lahui," about the colonization of Hawaii. He is an advocate for Hawaiian self-determination, Hawaiian language immersion schools and protection of the land from military abuse and urbanization. He is a professor at the Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies.
-------
** Online comment by Ken Conklin
As usual for Hawaiian sovereignty activists, Jon Osorio tells a twisted history portraying America as a colonizer, invader, and occupier which has oppressed ethnic Hawaiians and stolen "their" nation. I have provided a more accurate historical narrative, with extensive footnotes, defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959, at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwistedFull.html
Two particular small items in Jons essay caught my attention, because they are easy to disprove without lengthy explanations. (1) Jon falsely describes the crown lands as the personal property of Liliuokalani; and (2) he incorrectly blames the U.S. for the demise of Hawaiian language when in fact it was the policy of the Kingdom to adopt English as the language for teaching all school subjects -- 95% of all government schools in 1892 were using English as the language of instruction (the year before the monarchy was overthrown).
1. Jon incorrectly describes the crown lands as the personal property of Liliuokalani. He writes "American political and naval power seized our nation, humiliated our queen and confiscated the lands legally belonging to her ... " and a few sentences later he repeats the falsehood, saying "... the U.S. ... taking over ... the property of the monarch"
It is true that Kamehameha The Great personally owned all the lands of Hawaii by right of conquest. It is true that Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III personally owned the crown lands he set aside for himself when he also created the government lands and fee-simple private lands in the Mahele he set in motion in 1848. It is true that Kamehameha IV and, for a while, Kamehameha V continued to have personal ownership of the crown lands.
However, Lota Kamehameha V mortgaged the crown lands to pay for huge debts he incurred from gambling, drinking, and lavish lifestyle; and when he was unable to pay the mortgage, the creditor prepared to foreclose the mortgage and seize the crown lands as payment. At that point the Kingdom legislature stepped in and passed a bill to issue government bonds to pay off the mortgage, and to take government ownership of the crown lands, making them no longer the personal property of the monarch but setting aside the income produced from the crown lands to pay for maintaining the dignity and splendor of the monarch in his capacity as head of state. The King was very happy to sign that bill into law in 1865, because it relieved him of his huge mortgage debt and guaranteed him an income.
So after 1865 the monarch no longer personally owned the crown lands. Thats why Liliuokalani lost her lawsuit against the U.S. In 1909 she filed a lawsuit demanding payment for "her" crown lands which the Republic ceded to the U.S. as part of the Treaty of Annexation (by the way, in that lawsuit she never disputed the existence of the Treaty of Annexation, and she also submitted herself voluntarily to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts).
In 1910 the court ruled that the U.S. did not owe Liliuokalani any money for the crown lands because the crown lands had never belonged to her in the first place! The court cited the law passed by the Kingdom legislature and signed by the King in 1865 as proof that Liliuokalani had never owned the crown lands and therefore was not owed any money for the ceding of them.
Full text of Liliuokalanis legal complaint from 1909, and the courts ruling from 1910, are on a webpage along with the courts exhibits including text of the Kingdom law of 1865 and text of the Treaty of Annexation (as evidence that the court had jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit). I wonder if Professor Osorio or anyone else at the Center for Hawaiian Studies lets the students know about this legal decision and the courts basis for making it! See
Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910) at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/liliucrownlands.html
2. Jon falsely lays the blame on the U.S. for the decline of Hawaiian language. He writes "At the time of the Statehood vote in Hawaii, this American education had affected three generations of our people ... A significant contribution to this indoctrination was the replacement of ōlelo Hawaii with American English as the national language."
But respected scholars have provided documentation showing that it was the national policy of the Kingdom of Hawaii to infuse English as the language of everyday use in the Kingdoms own public school system. By 1892 -- the year before the revolution that overthrew the monarchy -- 1892 when Liliuokalani was still Queen -- 95% of all the public schools in Hawaii were already using English as the language of instruction used for teaching all the subjects in the curriculum.
A scholarly study of the history of language in Hawaii was done as a dissertation by John Reinecke at the University of Hawaii in 1935. The dissertation was improved and published as a book. John E. Reinecke, "Language and Dialect in Hawaii: A Sociolinguistic History to 1935." Edited by Stanley M. Tsuzaki. Honolulu: Universiry of Hawaii Press, 1969. Reprinted 1988. Paperback edition February, 1995. Mr. Reinecke says the shift from Hawaiian language to English began under the Kingdom and was very far along by the time the monarchy was overthrown (see Table 8, pp. 70-73). Reineckes chart summarizes the number of schools and students operating in Hawaiian and English based on Education Department reports from 1847 to 1902. The number of students in Hawaiian language schools falls continuously through this period while the number in English-language schools rises; likewise the numbers of schools operating in the respective languages. The number of students in Hawaiian-language schools dropped below 50% in 1881 or 1882. By 1892 (the year before the overthrow), only 5.2% of students were in Hawaiian language schools and there were only 28 such schools in the Kingdom; at the same time, 94.8% of students were in the 140 English-language schools.
See also Albert J. Schutz, "The Voices of Eden: A History of Hawaiian Language Studies," (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994). It was an official policy of the Kingdoms schools to promote English-language instruction, because learning English opened the door to the outside world both commercially and culturally.
A remarkable booklet "Hailono 2008" was produced by the staff of the Hoolaupai Hawaiian Newspaper project under the auspices of Bishop Museum. On page 20 the booklet says: "We often hear that the decline of the Hawaiian language resulted from a law banning its use, passed by the Republic of Hawaii in 1896. The newspapers, however, tell a different story. In 1845, S.M. Kamakau petitions Kamehameha III, questioning the merit of appointing non-native over native Hawaiians for government positions. Kauikeaouli responds that he sees the importance of the old ways, but times are changing and he needs in office people trained in the Western ways to deal with foreign nations. I however hope that the time will come when these positions will be again placed among our own, once the young chiefs are educated. To the right [photo of newspaper clipping from Ka Hoku O Ka Pakipika, May 8, 1862, p.2], Kamehameha IV addresses the legislature in 1862, ... I stated previously my opinion to you, that it is important to change all Hawaiis schools to English speaking schools, and I once again put this forth to all. Waiohinu, in 1875, sees English as the way for Hawaii to hold on to its independence. He states, Kamehameha III was greatly admired for his establishing the English language schools for the young chiefs to learn English. His foresight that English would be the means through which we would survive, was like that of a prophet."
The document below from 1882 makes that policy of using English language as the medium of instruction crystal clear. It explicitly says "... it will be advisable to make it a rule that in all select schools, taught in English, the pupils be forbidden during school hours from conversing in Hawaiian. It is thought that the enforcement of such a rule would be of great value in aiding the scholars to master and familiarize themselves with the strange tongue." Thus, if forbidding children to speak Hawaiian in school is regarded as an act of suppressing Hawaiian language, then it was King Kalakaua himself who was already suppressing Hawaiian language in 1882!
This material is taken from Hawaii. Kingdom, Legislature. Education Committee -- Report of the Committee on Public Education. [Honolulu, 1882], Archives of Hawaii.
"The subject of English-language instruction is, in fact, central to this report. The committee express general approval of a plan to introduce English into all the schools, but with some reservations: "It is a good measure, doubtless, to turn all our schools into English schools, and yet it is contrary to rule and precedent in any nation to bring in a new and strange language, and proceed to force it upon the young, in order that they shall forget their mother tongue. A feeling of regret arises in considering the possibility that we, and the nation of the future, are to talk only in English, and that we are no more to hear the familiar accents and smooth-flowing speech that has come down to us from our ancestors." With respect to English instruction in government select schools, "the committee beg to say that in their opinion it will be advisable to make it a rule that in all select schools, taught in English, the pupils be forbidden during school hours from conversing in Hawaiian. It is thought that the enforcement of such a rule would be of great value in aiding the scholars to master and familiarize themselves with the strange tongue."
--------------------
http://www.ilind.net/2015/11/12/nai-aupuni-officials-defend-native-hawaiian-election/
Ian Lind blog, November 12th, 2015
Nai Aupuni officials defend Native Hawaiian election
With the period to cast ballots in the election for delegates to a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention almost half over, election administrators sent out an email blast to registered voters targeting those who have protested the election.
"The Nai Aupuni election of delegates and Aha is the best opportunity Native Hawaiians have to move forward and positively change the status quo of Native Hawaiians," the email argues, while "protesters have not proposed an alternative plan to form an effective government or bring about unity among Native Hawaiians."
The email and its timing would appear to indicate that the protests, and calls for a boycott of the election, are having an impact, forcing election officials to respond.
Below is the full text of the email.
Move forward and vote despite protesters discouraging your vote or discrediting candidates desire to lead.
Protesters are concerned that their desired outcome will not prevail at the aha. But, leadership is about bringing your voice to the table and advocating your views to other leaders – not walking away from the table. Nai Aupuni has set up a process whereby elected leaders can discuss various options and issues to find a consensus so that the Native Hawaiian community may proceed forward in unity.
The protesters argue that the outcome of the Nai Aupuni process is predetermined. But how can the outcome be "rigged" when it involves 200 candidates campaigning for votes from 89,000 potential voters for 40 delegate seats to participate in an 8 week convention?
During the first week of the aha, the delegates will hear from experts on constitution building, federal recognition, international law including de-occupation, de-colonization and the rights of indigenous people under international law, constitutional law, Kingdom law and the claim to the ceded lands. After that, the elected delegates will meet to share, compare, and test their different ideas - exploring what it will take to reach consensus among Hawaiians regarding self-governance. If the delegates create a self-governance document or propose a government, voters will take part in a ratification vote.
The Nai Aupuni election of delegates and Aha is the best opportunity Native Hawaiians have to move forward and positively change the status quo of Native Hawaiians. Proceed, just as did those who came before with strength and determination - and vote - even though others have attempted to discourage you or discredit a diverse group of 200 leaders who have bravely risen to the call as committed, caring, and conscientious candidates who are asking for your vote.
The protesters have not proposed an alternative plan to form an effective government or bring about unity among Native Hawaiians.
-----------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16311/Protest-Narsquoi-Aupuni-at-State-Capitol.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, November 12, 2015
PROTEST NAI AUPUNI --
When: Friday, November 13th, 3- 5:30PM
Where: In front of the State Capitol, Beretania Street
News Release from Protest Nai Aupuni
"Protest Nai Aupuni" is the name of a group of Hawaiians who have come together to educate, organize and protest against the "election" that is taking place throughout November, known as Nai Aupuni, which is intended to select a group of 40 Hawaiians who will represent all 527,000 Hawaiians in negotiations with the US federal government. The "Protest" group will be holding signs and giving away t-shirts and informational flyers on Friday afternoon in an effort to educate people and show Hawaiian resistance to Nai Aupuni.
Shane Pale, Hawaiian activist and artist, who lives on Oahu with his wife and two sons, is one of the organizers of the Protest Nai Aupuni movement. When asked why he opposes it, he says, " Im against it for a number of reasons. First, its a clear violation of our rights to self-determination, both as an indigenous people and as descendants of our kupuna whose country was illegally overthrown by the United States. Also, this process is being forced on the Hawaiian people by the state. Self-determination initiatives need to come from the people, not the government. The fact that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is pushing and rushing this through, and the Department of Interior is pushing it on the federal level, is like the mongoose guarding the chicken coop."
Pale goes on to explain that Kanaiolowalu, a state initiative to create a Hawaiian roll, came out of Act 195, a state law. "OHA funded Kanaiolowalu with millions of dollars, and they still only managed to sign up 19,000 people for that roll. Another state law, Act 77, allowed them to use names from other Hawaiian lists to validate Nai Aupuni, and thats very disrespectful of Hawaiians, especially our kupuna. A lot of the people on that list have passed away."
Hawaiian attorney and former Kiaaina of Ka Lahui Hawaii, Lehua Kinilau-Cano, spoke out in opposition to Nai Aupuni at the "Protest" groups first public gathering several weeks ago. She has been supportive of their efforts since, and her concerns echo those of Pale. She says, "You have to trace this back to Kanaiolowalu and the fact that the state created that roll. And in that process what they did was define what qualifies someone as a Native Hawaiian who can vote. In other words its the state telling us who can participate in any process for self-determination, when legally it should be us deciding who is eligible."
Kinilau-Cano points out that issues, such as the state funding of Kanaiolowalu, can create legal challenges to the validity of Nai Aupuni. But for her, its not just about the legal issues, shes equally as concerned about the social and cultural reality of this process, saying, "Fundamentally, at the bottom of all of this there is no education about it in the larger Hawaiian community. When the new rules come out from DOI at the end of December, rules that will impact Hawaiians, the process should focus on going out and explaining it to the people. Nai Aupuni has not done any of that outreach, and they are spending millions of dollars. Those of us who are protesting it dont have any funding, and yet, what we are doing is an example of what broad based community action looks like."
Protest Nai Aupuni is holding community talk-story events on all the major islands, offering information and dialogue about the implications of Nai Aupuni.
Pale remarked on the absence of community awareness about Nai Aupuni, saying, "The way they are doing this is wrong culturally. My own mom, shes kupuna, and she didnt know anything about this. And she got a ballot in the mail and like lots of Hawaiians she was insulted by it and wont participate. I think a lot of Hawaiians are boycotting Nai Aupuni consciously like her, but media coverage has been one-sided. The only visual representation of Hawaiians opposing this thing is on social media, but plenty of Hawaiians are not using computers to resist, they just wont vote."
When asked about why some Hawaiians who say they are in favor of Hawaiian independence from the US are also participating in Nai Aupuni, both Pale and Kinilau were adamant.
"Its ludicrous," says Pale, "to think you can go into the process and make changes when this whole thing is being controlled by political power mongers in the state and federal governments."
Kinilau agrees, saying, "My concern is that these independence candidates are telling people to vote for them, but that will be translated by the government as community support. They make it seem like we want this by being in it, and that muddies the waters at a time when we need to be clear. We need to boycott Nai Aupuni because it shows that people are making a conscious decision not to validate this process and to take a stand against it."
"There are so many issues related to this," says Pale, "including what will happen to the national lands of the Hawaiian people, the so-called ceded lands, and then there are international issues as well connected to the Trans-Pacific Partnership the Obama Administration is trying to push through congress. Its really complex, so the last thing we should be doing is rushing it through without serious consideration. So were asking Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians to come out on Friday and stand with us in a peaceful demonstration of resistance to Nai Aupuni."
LINK https://protestnaiaupuni.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/protest-na-signholding-final.jpg
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/nameinthenewspremium/Kuhio_Asam.html?id=347362461
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 13, 2015
Kuhio Asam
The president of the group organizing the convention of Hawaiians seeking some form of sovereignty is excited that a firm process toward that end is underway
By Vicki Viotti
* Photo caption
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARADVERTISER.COM
"Those who may oppose the path that we are setting, et cetera, are talking. And thats important; I think thats an important ingredient of the start of governance," said Kuhio Asam, president of Nai Aupuni.
In his roughly 64 years of life as a Native Hawaiian, Kuhio Asam has followed a gradual progression in his understanding of what he now calls Hawaiians "inherent right to sovereignty and to determine their future."
It wasnt always the center of his world, as it is now for the president of Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit organizers of the coming election of delegates to an aha, or constitutional convention.
Both he and his dad had "James" as their first name, but especially after he enrolled at Kamehameha Schools, Asam soon shed the childlike nickname of "Jimmy Boy" and was known as Kuhio.
The next weeks will be telling for Asam and the other directors of the group. They will learn the decision by judges at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that challenged the constitutionality of the election. That funding came from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a basis of the suit.
Assuming the election is upheld, voting, which started Nov. 1, will conclude at months end, and the aha will be planned to convene in February.
The groups president defends the entire initiative and praises the "passionate" work by the directors. But the plan has come up against opposition from various fronts, including former candidate Walter Ritte.
Asam studied at Yale University and the John A. Burn School of Medicine. Retired as a child psychiatrist, married and the father of two grown sons, Asam has occasion to discuss all this with family, too.
"Were all lifelong learners, I would suspect, and that includes family," he said. "So my function really has been to educate about the process. Its been fun."
Is he hopeful about a consensus?
"More than hopeful: confident that people who are open with their views and willing to listen ... very confident that in a lot of areas that will happen," Asam said.
"Certainly there may be areas where there is not a confluence of ideas or a consensus. But we have time. This is a wonderful start for that process to get going."
QUESTION: Is your Hawaiian first name hard to live up to?
ANSWER: Not hard to live up to at all. I was born on March 26, which is Kuhio Day. And my parents, I would imagine, werent very creative, so they named me James for my dad and Kuhio for the day on which I was born.
And think about it -- had I been born six days later it would be April 1. My name would either be April or Fool. (Laughs)...
Q: I assume Hawaiian affairs is one of your interests now, outside your profession.
A: This is a big portion of my current interest, and its been progressive over time.
Q: When did you veer in that direction?
A: I wouldnt even use the word "veer." I was just thinking about this. I was born Hawaiian, raised Hawaiian and never identified myself as Hawaiian because that was not part of what one did when I was a kid.
Although we had an imu in the backyard, and grated coconuts for haupia, it was never identified as a Hawaiian thing. It was just something that our family did.
And therefore, I grew up with Hawaiians, grew up with Hawaiian friends, families, acquaintances, and over time got to hear a lot of different voices about Hawaiians, went to Kamehameha Schools and learned more.
I went through the 60s and 70s with the protests, and the Hokulea and the (Hawaiian) renaissance. So its really a progression, as opposed to a "veering."...
What was very interesting is about 20 years ago when my son was in college, I actually helped host a conference on sovereignty ... at Yale University, bringing together leaders in the community, of all different voices, to come together for the East Coast students at that time. And I think that sparked a renewed interest.
And after that I went back and learned the Hawaiian language, because I thought it was crucial in order to understand Hawaiian culture and what were doing, to be able to have at least a small level of being able to understand our language. Its been very helpful.
Q: A lot of culture lives in the language, right?
A: Exactly. As Ive progressed, gotten older, Ive begun to hear a number of more voices, and different voices, and stronger voices with a lot of different opinions.
And I kept thinking, what is it that can be brought together, so that all of these voices at least have an opportunity to be heard? And not only heard -- to make a difference and have an impact for the future.
And this opportunity with Nai Aupuni came along, and it was like, "Aha!" Timing, everything seemed right. I have the interest, I have the time. I met people who are passionate from the community, who knew the community. It was, if not a marriage made in heaven, certainly the timing for myself was wonderful.
Q: So this was the element you wanted to pursue, the shape sovereignty would take?
A: Well, the wonderful thing about Nai Aupuni is we are not predetermined, in terms of what form of government is possibly out there, if it is at all, that the aha delegates may choose.
But really, whats exciting is laying out a path so that all Hawaiians who choose to can actually participate, and through their participation figure out how they can come to some kind of consensus about what form of nation they would propose back to the Hawaiian community.
Q: There was an earlier attempt to have a convention, called Ha Hawaii, years ago, right?
A: I think the beauty of whats currently going on with Nai Aupuni is that, one, theres funding, which is always important. Second, theres a list of people who are interested in participating ... the timing is right for all of this.
Q: How do you feel about the Native Hawaiian critics who are seeing some predetermined purpose in the whole process?
A: I think there are two things. One, we respect all of the voices, loud and/or soft. Because thats really where governance starts. People think about governance like a piece of paper and structure. But governance has to start with people talking.
And those who may oppose the path that we are setting, et cetera, are talking. And thats important; I think thats an important ingredient of the start of governance. Not only talking, but questioning. ...
I think thats important to recognize: Not only are they questioning others, I think theyre questioning themselves as well. People have changed their minds, which means they have been questioning themselves. As long as people are talking, that is good. ...
I would worry if people stop talking.
Q: So youre seeing the critique as part of the conversation?
A: Oh, definitely. Its helpful, its healthy.
Q: How is it helpful to the process? Viewed from the outside it looks like Walter Ritte is bowing out ... extracting himself as a form of protest.
A: I think its helpful because it really shows that we are respectful of those who may or may not support what were doing. it carries on the conversation so that people will ask further questions. ...
Q: But do you think it will influence the discussion that does happen, ultimately?
A: Oh, certainly ... I would say, "Isnt that great that theyre thinking about other persons ideas and bringing it to the table, and not being exclusive of parts of our Hawaiian community?" So very helpful, in that sense.
I think the other part ... is the confusion between federal recognition and what Nai Aupuni is setting out to do, which is to set the path without a predetermined end point.
So with the Department of the Interior having come in at the juncture of where were unfolding it, people have put the two together.
Q: Right. Theyre suspicious?
A: Not suspicious, just the timeliness of it, I think, has caused people to marry the two. And part of what we need to do, I think, is to assure people that we are quite independent from that process. Its happening, unfolding at a very similar time period.
But its the delegates at the aha who will be making a determination about what kind of government -- if they can figure out one -- that they would like to propose back to the Hawaiian community.
Q: The statements made by people about the process, do you think that diminishes the credibility of it, as being a statement of the whole community?
A: I really believe, with us being as transparent as we can be, that it has opened us up for people to scrutinize and to question, and I think thats good. ...
Q: Gosh, youve got a lot of people running.
A: Among the many successes that weve appreciated is the number of delegate (candidates). Two hundred or so persons who are willing to spend time, their energies and perhaps even their resources -- one, to become candidates, and second, to represent what they believe is a good portion of the Hawaiian community at an aha -- I think is one of our first successes. I mean, 200 people is a lot.
Q: You are supposed to be separate from OHA, which gave you your grant. Usually, doesnt a grantee give a report back? Any communications of that sort?
A: That would be typical of a grant, in terms of reporting structure. In our case, our three-party agreement -- that would be Akamai Foundation, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Nai Aupuni -- that is not part of the contract, not part of the expectation and no plans to have any kind of reporting structure back to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. ...
Q: How do you think you will engage in things, after this is over? Have you thought about whats next for you in this movement?
A: No, I havent. Not at all. The focus really has been how do we get this process in place, make it work as best as possible, and in as transparent a way as we can have it. And then further decisions about my involvement in whatever happens next is -- Ive never thought about it. I truly have not.
Q: I guess this is immense already.
A: You know, its immense, its fun, its exciting, its a historic time.
--------------
http://mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/603958/Opposition-surfaces-at-forum-on-government-options.html?nav=10
The Maui News, November 13, 2015
Opposition surfaces at forum on government options
By CHRIS SUGIDONO
** Original article behind a paywall; below are excerpts as quoted in Hawaii Free Press, November 13, 2015
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/16321/November-13-2015-News-Read.aspx
Maui candidates vying for three seats to a constitutional convention to draft a document allowing Native Hawaiians to govern themselves spoke about their vision and skills to about 50 people Wednesday night at the Queen Liliuokalani Childrens Center….
Six of the 13 candidates attended the information session and candidate panel for the election that is already underway and ends Nov. 30….
Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly Chairwoman Robin Puanani Danner gave the presentation….
…a man in the audience stood up and began shouting at delegates and retired 2nd Circuit Court Judge Boyd Mossman, who acted as moderator. The man tore apart papers that were handed out during a question-and-answer session and threw them on the ground and on the table in front of delegates, while shouting "youre all f---ing liars" and "full of s--t." He was escorted out of the meeting and about half the audience followed him out to show support….
Some Maui candidates have questioned the election process and convention, complaining about its lack of organization and feeling "rushed." Two Maui candidates have dropped out of the race, as well as Molokai activist Walter Ritte, who called for a boycott of the election….
Meheula said "The list (of eligible voters) may not be up to date, some information may be stale…."
Campbell, a law clerk in 2nd Circuit Court, said he agrees with some audience members that the election is being "rushed" and asked that voting and registration be extended to include more Native Hawaiians who may have recently turned 18 years old.
Sousa, a management consultant, added that the election process is not entirely clear, and said that he had tried multiple times to contact Nai Aupuni with questions.
Kamekona, who served 22 years in the Navy, also believed the election was being rushed, which may explain why some candidates have opted out….
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/an-initiative-for-self-governance-without-state-or-federal-interference/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 13, 2015
Self-Governance Can Come Without State Or Federal Interference
Nai Aupuni candidates should not speak for Ka Lāhui Hawaii, the evolutionary product of years of legal research, community dialogues, meetings and workshops.
By Mililani Bernardette Trask, Josiah "Black" Hoohuli, Lehua Kinilau-Cano
In recent weeks, individuals running as delegates for Nai Aupuni have attempted to represent Ka Lāhui Hawaii. This response was prepared to correct the record and is submitted by the three Kiaāina (governors) elected by Hawaiians statewide and on the U.S. continent.
Ka Lāhui Hawaii is a native initiative for Hawaiian self-governance formed by and for Native Hawaiians without the interference of state or federal agencies. Ka Lāhui Hawaii is the evolutionary product of years of legal research, community dialogues, meetings, and workshops.
We also have engaged in nation building with Native Hawaiians without state and federal government interference. From 1987, we enrolled over 20,000 citizens from our islands and on the U.S. continent, convened three constitutional conventions, held over 35 legislative sessions, conducted four general elections with the assistance of the League of Women Voters, ratified 14 treaties of mutual recognition and friendship with Inuit and Indian Nations, sent diplomatic liaisons to the United Nations, and sent delegations to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress on behalf of Hawaiian entitlements and programs.
In addition, Ka Lāhui Hawaii has actively testified on issues at the federal, state, county and community levels, published newsletters and other educational materials, and convened numerous community educational meetings on sovereignty and other critical issues facing our community like protecting sacred lands and advocating for water rights.
Ka Lāhui Hawaii has also conducted hundreds of community workshops in Hawaii and on the U.S. continent to exercise our peoples right to self-determination believing in the advancement of our efforts to be self-governing. To build on this long history of self-determination work and in honor of our citizens who have passed away, Ka Lāhui Hawaii leadership stands in opposition to Nai Aupuni and the U.S .Department of Interiors Proposed Rules.
Understanding Self-Determination
The Nai Aupuni process violates the principle of self-determination as well as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, the process is a political ruse to disenfranchise Hawaiians, deny us our right to our traditional lands, territories and resources and sidestep our historic claims for reparations.
The International Human Rights Conventions and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (applicable to and binding on the United States) defines self-determination as "The right of all peoples to determine their political status and by virtue of that right to freely pursue their Economic, Cultural and Social development."
Self-determination is not a right of governments or state or federal agencies. It is the collective right of "peoples" including indigenous Hawaiian peoples. This means that the Hawaiian peoples are the only group that has the power to "define their political status" and ultimately, determine citizenship in a nation of their own creation.
Once the people have exercised this power, the nation formed has the right and authority to freely pursue social development through programs for housing, education and health. It has the right to freely pursue cultural development by preserving Hawaiian language, protecting sacred sites and maintaining cultural practices. It also has the power to pursue economic development, including the power to tax, to trade under traditional treaties and to engage in and license others to engage in business in order to raise revenues and be economically self-sufficient.
In 1991, the state created the Sovereignty Advisory Council (SAC) in Act 301. As part of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs budget, the state provided SAC with up to $200,000 to develop a plan to discuss and study the sovereignty issue.
On the heels of the 100th commemoration of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1993, the state established the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission in Act 359. Under this legislation, the state appropriated $420,000 to hold "a referendum to determine the will of the native Hawaiian people to call a democratically convened convention for the purpose of achieving consensus on an organic document that will propose the means for native Hawaiians to operate under a government of their own choosing."
The next year, the state amended Act 359 with the passage of Act 200 creating the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council. The state appropriated up to $1.8 million to HSEC to hold "a plebiscite in 1995, to determine the will of the indigenous Hawaiian people to restore a nation of their own choosing."
Ka Lāhui Hawaii and other community organizations opposed the SAC/HSAC/HSEC state-driven initiatives, and called for a boycott of the process. We had grave concerns that this referendum or plebiscite would be used as evidence that the indigenous Hawaiian people relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, in direct contrast to our peoples history of resistance as acknowledged in the Apology Resolution, which provides that "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum."
After Ka Lāhui Hawaii and other community organizations called to boycott the process for nearly two years, a month before the election was to be held, the state amended Act 200 by passing Act 140 in 1996. The new state law specifically changed the requirement that the plebiscite be approved by a majority of "qualified voters" to "ballots cast." In other words, the state first created a process that required a majority of the approximately 85,000 Native Hawaiians to approve. However, the new law required only a majority of all votes cast in order to approve the plebiscite.
On July 15, 1996, HSEC sent out ballots to approximately 85,000 Native Hawaiians. 30,423 ballots were returned, of these ballots, 22,294 voted yes to the question "Shall the Hawaiian People elect delegates to propose a Native Hawaiian government." Ka Lāhui Hawaii and other community groups claimed a victory due to the low turnout. However, the state claimed a victory by looking at the majority of the ballots cast. Consequently, this state-initiated process continued with Ha Hawaii and Aha Hawaii Oiwi.
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (Akaka Bill)
Hawaiis congressional delegation introduced the first version of the Akaka bill, S. 2899/H.R. 4904 in 2000, authorizing a process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government and to provide for the recognition of the Native Hawaiian government by the United States. This bill had only one hearing in Hawaii in 12 years.
Over the next decade, Congress proposed multiple versions of the bill. But the changes and versions that followed were done in Washington, D.C., without the input of the Native Hawaiian people. In stark contrast, the changes reflected input from state agencies like OHA and a select few individuals from the Hawaiian community who continue to push an agenda that excludes the vast majority of Hawaiians from the process. An estimated $30 million in trust money was spent to support passage of the Akaka Bill. No accounting has ever been provided for the Hawaiian trust funds spent on these efforts.
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission Was Created By The State
In 2011, the state established the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission in Act 195 to prepare and maintain a roll of qualified Native Hawaiians defined initially in the law as 1) "an individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands, the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii; or" 2) "an individual who is one of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, or a direct lineal descendant of that individual."
The law also required that a qualified Native Hawaiian "has maintained a significant, cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community and wishes to participate in the organization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity; and is eighteen years of age or older." Funding for the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission was provided by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs while no other community organization was provided money to conduct any kind of educational campaign in opposition to this initiative.
As noted in a Civil Beat article by Trisha Kehaulani Watson, "within the first two years of implementation (between the signing of the Act in 2011 and September 2013), less than 19,000 Hawaiians enrolled, despite having a $4 million budget from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs."
To inflate this low enrollment, the state passed Act 77 in 2013 expanding the definition of "qualified Native Hawaiian" to include "an individual who meets the ancestry requirements of Kamehameha Schools or of any Hawaiian registry program of the office of Hawaiian affairs," immediately swelling the roll to over 107,000 names.
It is this roll that Nai Aupuni is using to conduct its election of delegates to a constitutional convention, or Aha. At the heart of self-determination is deciding to participate in any process and not have the state determine participation by defining a qualified Native Hawaiian.
The U.S. Department Of Interiors Proposed Rules
The U.S. Department of Interior has issued proposed rules to create an administrative procedure for re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. These proposed rules follow the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last year where the vast majority of those who testified at public hearings expressed opposition to the DOIs proposal.
Nevertheless, thousands of identical postcards submitted as part of a concerted effort of political insiders intent on securing federal recognition was used to justify the DOIs proposed rules. Interestingly, portions of the proposed rule would allow a roll of Native Hawaiians certified by a state of Hawaii commission like Kanaiolowalu that is being used by Nai Aupuni to determine participation when the large majority of the names on the roll came from different OHA lists and registries without the free prior and informed consent of those who signed on to those prior lists and registries, including one registry that was used to qualify for OHA programs such as loans, grants and scholarships.
The record reflects that none of these initiatives came from the Hawaiian "Peoples" and all were in fact created by state and federal bodies. SAC/HSAC/HSEC and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission/Kanaiolowalu are all state bodies, created by state procedures. The Akaka Bill and the DOIs proposed rules were drafted in Washington, D.C., without any input from our broader community. None of these groups represents the Hawaiian Peoples. Consequently, these efforts cannot be viewed as legitimate reflections of the Hawaiian peoples desire for nationhood or a valid expression of our peoples right of self-determination.
The record further indicates that for years the state and federal government have tried unsuccessfully to manipulate Hawaiians into approving a governmental structure that would limit political power or authority. As a result of this limited power, our peoples vast trust lands and resources would continue to be controlled by the state and federal bodies that control them now.
As Ka Lāhui Hawaii did in 1996, we are once again calling upon the Hawaiian community and all citizens to boycott state/federal efforts to manipulate Hawaiian self-determination. We urge you to oppose Nai Aupuni, by refusing to cast a ballot in this election. We also recommend you submit testimony against the proposed DOI Rules for the following reasons:
As explained in the two US DOI memos released in late September 2015 (read them here, and here), the Recognized Hawaiian Nation will not have any share of our peoples ceded lands trust or Hawaiian Homelands but will be only given Kahoolawe Island. (Kahoolawe was used by the U.S. as a bombing target for years and is still littered with bombs. No one lives there.)
The "recognized" Hawaiian nation will not have any of the powers the "recognized" Indian nations have. It will not have taxing authority, the ability to zone or develop our trust lands for housing, education or health etc. This means that some "recognized" native nations in the U.S. will have rights other "recognized" native nations are not allowed to have -- a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
The "recognized" nation will not be able to access federal laws appropriating federal funds for other classes of Native Americans. For example, Hawaiian children removed from Hawaiian families will not have the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (the right to be placed with Hawaiian foster homes), etc.
Hawaiian trust lands under control of the U.S. and state will continue to be under federal and state control. Wardship will be maintained. Hawaiians will be "beneficiary-wards" of state and federal government and these entities will continue to control our trust resources.
The vast majority of Hawaiian people are being disenfranchised by the process. There are approximately 577,000 Hawaiians in the U.S., less than 19,000 have been registered by Kanaiolowalu and thousands have been added to a list without their free prior informed consent and approval. These numbers confirm that the overwhelming majority of Hawaiians are not included in this process.
Hawaiians will forever be denied their right of self-governance and self-determination. The DOI memos verify that once the U.S. confers "recognition" on the Nai Aupuni nation, the US will never again "recognize" a Hawaiian nation.
What Can Hawaiians Do?
* Inform/educate yourselves by reading the DOI memos and exercise your best judgment for yourself and ohana ;
* Get involved by submitting testimony to the DOI opposing the Recognition Rules and limitations. Go here to submit testimony;
* Demand that the DOI respect our peoples right to "consultation" under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.S. should be in Hawaii meeting with indigenous Hawaiians on these issues. Previous "hearings" were held for the public and Indian nations with gambling casinos on the continent but no "consultation" has been held specifically for Hawaiians in and throughout Hawaii;
* Support and Sign on to the Kūē Nai Aupuni Petition. Go here to sign on.
Remember the words of our beloved queen, Liliuokalani, "Onipaa Kākou."
About the Authors
Mililani Bernardette Trask is the first elected Kiaāina of Ka Lāhui Hawaii, who served from 1990-1998. A longtime leader in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, Mililani has advocated both in Hawaii and abroad to advance rights on behalf of indigenous peoples and is considered an indigenous expert to the United Nations in international and human rights law.
Josiah "Black" Hoohuli is the second elected Kiaāina of Ka Lāhui Hawaii, who served from 1998-2002. A Nanakuli homesteader, Black is a longtime advocate of homestead beneficiaries to enforce the trust responsibilities owed to beneficiaries under state and federal law.
Lehua Kinilau-Cano is the third elected Kiaāina of Ka Lāhui Hawaii, who has served since 2002. A graduate of Kamehameha Schools, she obtained her B.A. in Hawaiian Studies and J.D. from the University of Hawaii.
----------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/na-i-aupuni-defends-election/article_8ff20493-a643-5223-a4b8-09b377d131bb.html
The Garden Island [Kauai], November 14, 2015
Nai Aupuni defends election
Says protesters have not proposed alternative plan to form an effective government
by Brittany Lyte - The Garden Island
LIHUE -- In response to protests against the Nai Aupuni election for Native Hawaiian self-governance, the nonprofit organizing the voting process is emphasizing that the end result is not predetermined.
Protesters are concerned that the planned constitutional convention in Honolulu this winter will result in federal recognition. However, according to Nai Aupuni, decisions about pathways to sovereignty will be made by the elected delegates, of which there are 200 candidates vying for 40 seats.
"Leadership is about bringing your voice to the table and advocating your views to other leaders -- not walking away from the table," states a Nai Aupuni email. "Nai Aupuni has set up a process whereby elected leaders can discuss various options and issues to find a consensus so that the Native Hawaiian community may proceed forward in unity."
The candidates perspectives are broad-based and most of them say that they are open-minded and look forward to debating the issues with the other delegates, according to Nai Aupuni.
"Proceed, just as did those who came before with strength and determination -- and vote -- even though others have attempted to discourage you or discredit a diverse group of 200 leaders who have bravely risen to the call as committed, caring and conscientious candidates who are asking for your vote," the email states.
In response to assertions by protesters that the list of voters is flawed and does not represent a sufficient percentage of Hawaiians, Nai Aupuni leadership said that the voter roll includes 89,000 Hawaiians, which includes a significant portion of adult Hawaiians who reside in Hawaii.
"It is unrealistic to believe that a significantly larger list will ever be developed," the release states. "No group, including the protesters, has offered an alternative plan to achieve Hawaiian self-determination or form an effective government."
The 30-day voting period ends Nov. 30. Election results are expected to be announced Dec. 1.
"This is an historic election for Hawaiians to determine if a reorganized Hawaiian government will be formed," said Kuhio Asam, president of the private nonprofit Nai Aupuni.
Mauna Kea Trask, a Native Hawaiian who is also the Kauai County attorney, said the Nai Aupuni election, in his opinion, marks the most pragmatic approach to sovereignty so far, and has the potential to protect and strengthen Native Hawaiian cultural and education programs already in place.
"Theyre afraid to lose what they dont have," Trask said of those who oppose the process, "and they dont understand that with failure to act we will lose what we do have."
Kauais eligible voters -- those who are Native Hawaiian, at least 18 years of age and certified by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission -- have a chance to elect two candidates to seats on the 40-member delegation.
Kauais candidates include Samuel Aea, a 56-year-old business owner; Kanani Kagawa Fu, Kauai Countys 34-year-old assistant to the housing director; Mai Ling Haumea, 24; Linda Kaauwai-Iwamoto, a 72-year-old former homestead assistant for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; and Kuuleialoha Santos, a 40-year-old descendent of salt makers in Hanapepe.
--------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/guest/the-hawaiians-are-awake-and-have-concerns-about-election/article_9d535e0d-06bb-5f17-920c-c879f10a1b9d.html
The Garden Island (Kauai), November 16, 2015, Guest Commentary
The Hawaiians are awake – and have concerns about election
Timoty Oga - Other Voices
Submitted on behalf of 50 Hawaiians and their supporters by Timothy Oga.
There is a big fanfare about the self-determination of Hawaiians. The preliminaries are that an American-managed election is being held this month and an aha (constitutional convention) will be organized in the first two months of 2016. And this is where our concerns mount.
While all the legalities concerning the laws and requirements of United States and of the de facto State of Hawaii pretending to represent us might have been met by the organizers, their obligations for transparency to us, Hawaiians have not been. Here are the reasons:
1. The organizer Nai Aupuni, a Hawaii corporation, in its election notice dated July 31, 2015, claims to have been formed in December 2014, and their bylaws was created with a date of Feb. 23, 2015, allegedly with non-profit character. Still as of today the corporation is still not registered as a 501(c) non-profit corporation.
2. Nai Aupuni advertises 209 total delegate candidates registered, but still lists only 202 of them on its website. We wonder who the missing mysterious seven are.
3. On their website, Nai Aupuni lists most delegate candidates with a statement, but does not reveal any contact information for any of them other than the e-mail address
naiaupuni@election-america.com
which belongs to a for-profit U.S. corporation registered with a Washington, D.C., headquarters. This means that the Hawaiian people who are the constituents are able to contact their alleged representatives only through the Washington office of the for-profit organization responsible for the integrity of the elections. This means that all inquiries to the candidates are controlled and we have no assurances that if answers are provided for our inquiries they will come from the selected delegate candidate and not fabricated centrally. In any fair election the constituents must be able to communicate directly with the candidates.
4. While many delegate candidates state that they would act in the interest and for the benefit of the Hawaiian people, there is not one of them who states that he or she would follow what the constituents prefer if elected. We do not want an American-style representation where there is an alleged democracy, but the representative acts on his/her own in issues selected by him/her instead of serving his/her constituents and dealing with the issues selected by them.
5. The elections are conducted by online voting instead of in-person voting, thus international observers are excluded, which is international protocol in national elections. Many of us do not use computers, but we still should count and we are eager to be part of any fair solution. It appears that here the organizers and their selected vendors convenience has been chosen over transparency.
6. Nai Aupuni selected an American for-profit organization in the capital city of the foreign power illegally occupying our land instead of trusting the Hawaiians and entrusting them with the organization of local elections. Since March 19, 1999, we have our Lawful Hawaiian Government. It has already proved several times (last in September 2015) that it is capable of organizing and conducting such national elections.
7. As per Nai Aupuni some delegate candidates are still listed as valid candidates even if they did not satisfy the registration requirements of their selected vendor (http://naiaupuni.org/faq.html#faq1). How can we trust the integrity of the election if the selected vendor organization, Election- America Inc., messes up even the initial registration phase? In a current full-page ad Nai Aupuni has published the statement of some delegate candidates and one of the candidates endorsed herself 10 times instead of finding 10 people to endorse her. First, it is an insult to us to presume that we do not notice such a blatant irregularity. Second, the organizer with the lofty goal of organizing the self-determination of a nation is unable to screen out candidates who can at least follow instructions and comply with them? How can we trust them?
8. The lists Nai Aupuni uses contain names of people signed up for Kanaiolowalu and Kau Inoa collected for more than 10 years for a different purpose. These old lists are being used and contain some people who have never registered and others who have already died.
9. As stated by Nai Aupuni they are conducting this election in accordance with the federal rules regarding Self-Determination of the Hawaiians to gain recognition by the federal government. There is no rule established by the federal government for the self-determinations of nations. It is the international law that regulates it and the international law includes also the option for full independence and secession. And since the United States officially recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1849, and never withdrew its recognition, why would we need another recognition? We dont want to be recognized as an Indian tribe and we dont want to end up in a reservation like them. We want our aina back for our nation, which will include all people of Hawaiian ancestry, not only those who meet the requirements of the blood quantum established for Hawaiians by the white people of the Committee of Indian Affairs. And our nation will also include those who meet our naturalization requirements and are willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Hawaiian nation and prove to be trustworthy to work and live with.
10. And finally we will pray for our brothers and sisters who believe the deception that only the United States is able to provide a path for them to a progressive nation-building and decide to go along with this election and the aha. We pray for them because we know that the day of rude awakening will come. We rather wait for the right moment, because we are determined to restore our countrys full independence relying on our resources, strength, faith and perseverance, and if we need foreign assistance during the transition, we will get enough from other nations that are more peaceful and more honest than the United States.
-------
Timothy Oga is a resident of Hanapepe.
----------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/election-critics-host-forum/article_cd1a27ea-2133-57b0-9fb4-7fb9acff9be8.html
The Garden Island [Kauai], November 18, 2015
Election critics host forum
Public meeting to discuss Native Hawaiian self-governance slated Friday at Wilcox school
Brittany Lyte - The Garden Island
LIHUE -- Critics of the ongoing Nai Aupuni election for Native Hawaiian self-governance will gather at Wilcox Elementary School Friday for a public panel discussion.
Speakers include Native Hawaiian advocates Walter Ritte, Trisha Kehaulani Watson-Sproat, Donovan Preza and Kaiulani Mahuka.
The event, set to begin at 6 p.m. in the school cafeteria, is sponsored by Aloha Aina Kauai.
Ritte, a former candidate, publicly withdrew his name from the election last month and urged Hawaiians to boycott the election, which he described as a "fake pathway to nationhood."
Flanked by members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha, Ritte stood in front of Hawaii Hall at the University of Hawaii at Manoa just days before the start of the election and said he wont participate in a process thats not pono.
Specifically, Ritte said he believes the process is geared toward reorganizing a native government that will seek federal recognition rather than total independence.
"We need to be steadfast and remain on the path that our kupuna have laid because we are still a sovereign and independent state," said Ritte, who has been active in the anti-GMO movement and lives on Molokai.
Nai Aupuni is a private election among Native Hawaiians who can vote for delegates who will gather in Honolulu this winter at a constitutional convention. The governing document these delegates write will form the foundation of a new government by and for Native Hawaiians.
In a letter defending the election, Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit group organizing the election, said last week that decisions about pathways to sovereignty will be made by the elected delegates, of which there are 200 representing a range of views.
"Nai Aupuni has set up a process whereby elected leaders can discuss various options and issues to find a consensus so that the Native Hawaiian community may proceed forward in unity," the letter said. "No group, including the protesters, has offered an alternative plan to achieve Hawaiian self-determination or form an effective government."
Anahola resident Shane Cobb-Adams, who will moderate Fridays event in Lihue, said he hopes the community discussion will help to identify some viable alternatives.
"What were trying to do with the event is make an open call to everyone on Kauai to learn more about Nai Aupuni," Cobb-Adams said. "Theres a lot of confusion about what Nai Aupuni is and isnt and were trying to bring some transparency.
"Basically, a lot of people are not happy with the lack of transparency and were not happy with the level of disengagement from the community in this process. A lack of transparency really suppresses the native voice.
"Were also trying to answer the question, If we dont want to be a part of it, what are the alternatives? We want to be able to come away with some real actionable items that we can work on."
Kauais candidates for delegate seats at the planned constitutional convention include Samuel Aea, a 56-year-old business owner; Kanani Kagawa Fu, Kauai Countys 34-year-old assistant to the housing director; Mai Ling Haumea, 24; Linda Kaauwai-Iwamoto, a 72-year-old former homestead assistant for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; and Kuuleialoha Santos, a 40-year-old descendant of salt makers in Hanapepe.
-----------------
http://www.ilind.net/2015/11/18/deciding-who-to-support-in-hawaiian-election-isnt-easy/
Ian Lind blog, November 18, 2015
Deciding who to support in Hawaiian election isnt easy
Ive said for years that Im an agnostic on the question of Hawaiian sovereignty.
Look up "agnostic" in the dictionary and youll find a definition something like this:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Apply that outside of religion, and you get a related definition like this (Dictionary.com):
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: "Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality."
And thats how I feel about sovereignty. I dont think enough is known, or agreed on, to be able to figure out whether any form of sovereignty would advance or hurt the interests of the broader Hawaiian community, so at this point Im not opposing or supporting the sovereignty idea in general.
But I am supporting the Nai Aupuni election process because it is a concrete and organized step to both broadening and focusing the discussion of sovereignty, as contradictory as that sounds.
It broadens the discussion by opening it up to all eligible Hawaiians, but focuses it by limiting the number of delegates and imposing a time period for reaching at least tentative conclusions and recommendations. It has the potential to move the whole process forward. But if it fails, it could slam the door on real progress for another generation or more.
While I intend to vote, I havent yet done so. And that worries me, because Im guessing that many others may be having similar problems sifting through the candidates and selecting those to support. And low participation will endanger the whole effort.
Some candidate choices are easy, people I have known over the years, and Im confident that they have the experience, vision, and good sense to sort out the many competing issues, interests, and personalities. But after that, choices are difficult.
Many candidates appear to be primarily supported by their extended families, judging by those who signed their nomination forms. The descriptions candidates have provided of themselves are heavy on broad generalities, and dont always provide information on educational and employment backgrounds, or political views and affiliations, economic perspectives, etc.
Over the past 40 years, new Hawaiian institutions have developed, with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs likely at the top of the food chain. Older institutions, like the Hawaiian Homes Commission and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, have give greater emphasis to having Hawaiians in management positions.
I am interested candidates views on how a new Hawaiian governing entity can transform these institutions, or their essential functions, for the better, but there are few clues in the candidate statements.
Many candidates stress the importance of land.
Well, DHHL has land. So does OHA, on a smaller scale. What do they think a new Hawaiian governing entity can do to make better use of this land? How will any available land be allocated to address issues of homelessness and community economic development? How will the land controlled by the alii trusts be treated if a new governing entity is approved? I doubt the trusts are prepared to turn over their portfolios any time soon.
These, and a host of other questions, buzz through my head every time I sit down and try to systematically evaluate the candidates. And so far, I havent made it through the list or come close to casing my vote.
I will made decisions before the deadline for voting. But the process of getting there has me worried about whether the election, and the resulting convention, will be a success
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20151119_Appeals_court_rejects_bid_to_stop_Native_Hawaiian_election.html?id=351891891
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 19, 2015, BREAKING NEWS at 12:12 PM HST
Appeals court rejects bid to stop Native Hawaiian election
By Star Advertiser staff
The organization supporting the Native Hawaiian election said today a challenge to the seating of delegates to a constitutional convention has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nai Aupuni, formed as an organization independent from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state, issued a press release this morning saying the appeals court decision means the election can go forward.
"The federal appeals court ruling means that the voting that currently is underway by about 89,000 certified Native Hawaiians can continue," Nai Aupuni said in a press release.
The election concludes on Nov. 30 and will seat 40 delegates to the constitutional convention, or Aha, in February. Election results will be announced Dec. 1.
A group of both Native and non-Native Hawaiians had sued to prevent the election, saying its unconstitutional to restrict voting to only Native Hawaiians, and U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled in October that the election could go forward.
"The Ninth Circuit has correctly rejected the Grassroots Institutes second legal attempt to stop the election of delegates, said Nai Aupuni attorney William Meheula.
"This process will empower 40 Hawaiian delegates to make recommendations on self-governance and any such recommendation will go back to the voters for ratification. For those who have expressed concern about the Nai Aupuni process, Nai Aupuni directors understand that these are important and sensitive issues, and they ask the voters to consider that the courts have rejected those concerns and to believe in the collective wisdom of the voters and candidates," Meheula said.
--------------------
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/b6f5727180e0455d942a9b90ac88f12a/US--Native-Hawaiian-Election-Lawsuit
The Daily Journal, November 19, 2015
Federal appeals court allows vote count to proceed for ongoing Native Hawaiian election
By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER
HONOLULU -- A federal appeals court is allowing a vote count to proceed in an ongoing Native Hawaiian election.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected an emergency request to stop the votes from being counted once voting ends on Nov. 30.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention to come up with a self-governance document. Native Hawaiians are the last remaining indigenous group in the U.S. that hasnt been allowed to establish its own government.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians are challenging the election. One of their arguments is that its unconstitutional for the state to be involved in a race-based election.
A federal judge in Honolulu ruled last month that the election may proceed. The challengers appealed and filed the emergency motion.
-------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=d2a023cf10&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii press release, November 19, 2015
Plaintiffs Plan to Appeal 9th Circuit Ruling to Supreme Court
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- Nov. 19, 2015 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute reassured those concerned about the impropriety of the state-sponsored Hawaiians-only election that the legal battle is far from over. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs request for an injunction to stop the election, Grassroot Institute President Dr. Kelii Akina promised that they would continue to press the case and shine a light on the issues important to Native Hawaiians.
"The 9th Circuit Ruling is still at an early stage in the legal fight, and we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail on the merits of the case," stated Dr. Akina, who is also a plaintiff in the case. "We are currently looking at all of our options, and plan to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."
"Everyday, more and more Native Hawaiians make it clear that they are dissatisfied with the Nai Aupuni and the election process. We have a duty to them and all the people of Hawaii to put a halt to this unconstitutional and racially divisive scheme. We must ensure that Native Hawaiian monies are used for the betterment of Native Hawaiians and not for an unconstitutional election," Dr. Akina concluded.
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20151120_bid_to_block_election_rejected.html?id=352104941
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 20, 2015
Bid to block election rejected
The plaintiffs insist the planned Native Hawaiian convention is illegal and say they will appeal
By Timothy Hurley
A move to block a Native Hawaiian convention was rejected Thursday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting a pledge to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kelii Akina, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said that while he was disappointed in the ruling, the case is far from over.
"We remain confident that we are legally correct in calling this a race-based election through proxy and that ultimately we will prevail," Akina said.
With Thursdays court ruling, voting by about 89,000 certified Native Hawaiians continues uninterrupted in an election featuring more than 200 candidates vying to become delegates in a convention scheduled to commence in February.
The 40 Nai Aupuni delegates will consider proposals for Hawaiian self-governance, with any recommendation going back to the voters for ratification.
Voting ends Nov. 30.
Four Native Hawaiians, including Akina, and two non-Hawaiians filed a suit in August claiming the state is illegally running a race- and view-based election.
The group also filed for an injunction to stop the election, but U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright disagreed Oct. 23, prompting the appeal.
"The Ninth Circuit has correctly rejected the Grassroot Institutes second legal attempt to stop the election of delegates," Nai Aupuni attorney William Meheula said in a statement.
Meheula added, "For those who have expressed concern about the Nai Aupuni process, Nai Aupuni directors understand that these are important and sensitive issues, and they ask the voters to consider that the courts have rejected those concerns and to believe in the collective wisdom of the voters and candidates."
Delegates to the convention, or aha, will meet on Oahu between February and April over the course of eight consecutive weeks.
Akina continues to maintain the process is discriminatory.
"We remain committed to defending the aloha spirit and fighting racial divisiveness in the Aloha State," he said Thursday.
The lawsuit argues that the election violates the First, 14th and 15th Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. It further argues that to allow the election to move forward would cause both the plaintiffs and the citizens of the state irreparable harm.
In addition to Akina, the plaintiffs are Kealii Makekau, Joseph Kent, Yoshimasa Sean Mitsui, Pedro Kanae Gapero and Melissa Leinaala Moniz.
A court hearing has yet to be scheduled for the lawsuit, but Akina said he is hopeful the case will be decided in the plaintiffs favor before the convention starts.
"Every day, more and more Native Hawaiians make it clear that they are dissatisfied with the Nai Aupuni and the election process," Akina said in a statement. "We have a duty to them and all the people of Hawaii to put a halt to this unconstitutional and racially divisive scheme. We must ensure that Native Hawaiian monies are used for the betterment of Native Hawaiians and not for an unconstitutional election."
---------------------
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/11/20/manufacturing-consent-living-and-dead-hawaii
Indian Country Today, November 20, 2015
Manufacturing Consent for the Living AND the Dead in Hawaii
by Noelani Arista & Randall Akee
As you read this, Nai Aupuni (Seizure of Government), the new non-profit agency created and funded by the State of Hawaii, is launching a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention. In order to understand the process it has never been more timely to have a public discussion about the ethics and credibility of the creation of the Native Hawaiian Roll that will be used during upcoming elections. The goal of Nai Aupuni is to elect 40 candidates to write a "Hawaiian" constitution in 40 days. Of the five commissioners on the Kanaiolowalu roll commission, three, Naalehu Anthony, Mahealani Wendt and Lei Kihoi, along with the roll commissions executive director, Clyde Namuo, have chosen to run as candidates for the Nai Aupuni convention.
But theres more to the dialog than having people who certified and created the roll run for election themselves. Unfortunately, the Native Hawaiian roll does not reflect the will of the people, and because the State of Hawaii has backed the institutions and provided the funding that manufactured this roll - the voice of unregistered Native Hawaiians, the majority, remains unheard and uncounted. We must examine how this roll was created, and question the culturally insensitive inclusion of deceased Native Hawaiians on the roll as well.
In 2012, the Hawaii State Legislature formally approved a process to create a roll of "qualified" Native Hawaiians by forming Kanaiolowalu, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. Only Native Hawaiians certified by the roll commission would form the electorate to participate in the creation of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. Under Act 195, Hawaii State Governor Neil Abercrombie appointed 5 commissioners who were charged with overseeing the creation of this Native Hawaiian roll. Their self-proclaimed objective was to wage "... a campaign to reunify Native Hawaiians in the self-recognition of our unrelinquished sovereignty..."
Enrollees would be qualified on the basis of three criteria: They must be 18 years of age or older; they must satisfy ancestry requirements; and they must consent to participating in the organization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Funded with approximately $2.6 million, the commission began the process of building the Native Hawaiian roll on July 20, 2012 and ultimately collected somewhere between 9,300 and 40,000 names (depending upon the news source), which is between 2 and 8 percent of the roughly 500,000 Native Hawaiians currently living in Hawaii and abroad. The outcome fell far short of Kanaiolowalus objective to enroll 200,000 Hawaiians.
The states next move was to pass Act 77 (2013) an amendment that allowed the commission to take names from three other State of Hawaii-controlled lists of Native Hawaiians: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Operation Ohana (1990s), Office of Hawaiian Affairs Native Hawaiian registry (2002) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Kau Inoa list (2004). The inclusion of these additional lists increased the total number of names on the roll to over 100,000, though the roll commission has not disclosed how many names came from each list.
Of the three lists, only the most recent, Kau Inoa, launched 11 years ago, explicitly promoted itself as having political aims: It consists of Native Hawaiians who signed up to be part of a Native Hawaiian nation. The purpose of Operation Ohana, however was to identify Native Hawaiians worldwide, while the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Native Hawaiian Registry was created to supply Native Hawaiians with an I.D. card that would, "allow the applicant to access Native Hawaiian programs without providing birth certificates and other paperwork to prove they are Hawaiian."
There is no mention of nation-building in the purpose of either Operation Ohana or the Native Hawaiian Registry lists. Regarding the people who signed on to the Native Hawaiian Registry in 2002, then OHA Administrator, Clyde Namuo claimed "It is not the boards intent to use the list as a political tool. The law doesnt allow for it to be anything but confidential." The question arises, how can the passage of a recent State of Hawaii legislative amendment manufacture consent to move names from other registries to the Native Hawaiian roll? How does expressing interest in registering as a "Hawaiian" automatically make you a supporter of the State of Hawaii process to build a Native Hawaiian governing entity? (While there was an option to opt out for Native Hawaiians who were added to the Native Hawaiian roll from these other lists, relatively few individuals did so, as an opt out is a standard marketing ploy to suppress action.)
As troubling as this fabrication of consent may be for the living, the Kanaiolowalu Native Hawaiian roll includes the names of the dead. The commissioners failed to remove the names of deceased Native Hawaiians from the various lists that they incorporated into the new Native Hawaiian roll. As a result, there are deceased individuals on the list – at least 604 by our count. We expect this is probably an undercount of the true amount as we could only search back to 2010 because the online obituaries do not extend further back than that. While all voter rolls may contain at least some names of the deceased, the difference here is that those individuals gave their express consent to be included on those lists while alive. We found almost a hundred names of people who died prior to the start of the Kanaiolowalu legislation in 2012.
It is extremely distasteful, embarrassing and frustrating that a commission with millions of dollars of resources was unable to remove the names of deceased Native Hawaiians. It is not clear whether the commission was unable or uninterested in determining who was deceased. However, it was not an onerous task as we completed this analysis in a few days time. It is unconscionable that a commission of Native Hawaiians would include the names of deceased kūpuna (grandparents) and other deceased Native Hawaiians on a certified roll without the individuals consent or that of their families. It is an embarrassment to them and for the rest of us as well.
The process of organizing a government needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. This process should not manufacture consent for the living or the dead. Our process and path to nationhood, whether via Federal recognition or Independence, is ours alone. A critical mass of Native Hawaiians given the opportunity can come together and make a fully-informed decision about self-determination. We believe that free and informed governance is a human right.
Mai kaulai ka iwi ma ka la.
Do not display the bones (the dead) in the sun.
Noelani Arista (Native Hawaiian) is assistant professor of Hawaiian and American History at University of Hawaii-Mānoa. Her areas of expertise include translation and research in Hawaiian language archives, governance, colonial and indigenous history and historiography. Her dissertation, "Histories of Unequal Measure: Euro-American Encounters With Hawaiian Governance and Law, 1793-1827," won the Allan Nevins Prize from the Society of American Historians for the best dissertation written on an American subject in 2010. In 2013-14, Professor Arista was a post doctoral fellow in English at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research has been supported by fellowships from the Mellon Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, and the Native American Studies at Dartmouth College.
Randall Akee (Native Hawaiian) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Policy and American Indian Studies at UCLA. Prior to that, Dr. Akee was an Assistant Professor of Economics at Tufts University. Dr. Akee completed his doctorate at Harvard University. He also spent several years working for the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs Economic Development Division. He is a research fellow at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. He has conducted research on several American Indian reservations, Canadian First Nations, and Pacific Island nations in addition to working in various Native Hawaiian communities.
--------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/questions-rise-over-nai-aupuni-election/article_0cd53e36-a4ba-5606-931b-c28eeb8936f2.html
The Garden Island [Kauai], November 22, 2015
Questions rise over Nai Aupuni election
Critics hold a meeting to get on the same page
Jessica Else - The Garden Island
LIHUE -- Skeptics of the upcoming Nai Aupuni elections sought clarity at Wilcox Elementary School Friday night.
"Were here to learn about this process and then engage in a conversation about what we want," said Shane Cobb-Adams of Anahola, who was moderating the meeting. "Were here to put a rudder on this canoe."
Native Hawaiian advocates Walter Ritte, Trish Kehaulani Watson-Sproat and Donovan Preza all had about 15 minutes each to educate their audience about aspects of the process.
Watson-Sproat kicked off the panel discussion with a quote from King Kamehameha III, "He aupuni palapala kou," which means "Mine is an educated kingdom."
"King Kamehameha III took pride in his kingdom," Watson-Sproat said. "He was proud that the whole kingdom was literate."
Watson-Sproat transitioned into an explanation of the private election among Native Hawaiians who can vote for 200 delegates who will write a new constitution at a convention scheduled in Honolulu this winter. This constitution will provide a recipe for a new Hawaiian government. Voting for these delegates closes Nov. 30.
"Theres a lot to learn," said Ritte, a former candidate who withdrew his name from the election last month. "Come hell or high water, they want to push this thing through and we need to do something."
Preza, who teaches geography and Hawaiian history at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, outlined three different avenues to sovereignty and explained the history of the legislation to date.
"America has shackles on Hawaii and decolonization is the way to break those shackles," Preza said. "They want you to focus on becoming recognized as indigenous peoples, but (focus on) decolonization."
Just before the election opened, Ritte said he believes the process is leading toward a native government that is seeking federal recognition rather than independence.
"As long as you participate, youre stuck in it," Ritte said. "Dont vote."
Chief Delbert Black Fox Pomani, full-blooded Hunkpapa Lakota from the Crow Creek Reservation, and Kaplan Bunce, a full-blooded Apache from Washington currently living in Kauai, both attended the meeting to lend support for their native brothers and sisters.
"My ancestors fought this battle and we are here to add our blessings," Pomani said.
After the panel discussion, the audience broke up into groups of 15 or 20 people and discussed their thoughts on how Native Hawaiians should go about finding sovereignty.
----------------
http://mauinow.com/2015/11/23/naʻi-aupuni-8-days-left-to-vote-in-native-hawaiian-election/
Maui Now, November 23, 2015
Naʻi Aupuni: 8 Days Left to Vote in Native Hawaiian Election
By Maui Now
There are eight days left for certified Native Hawaiians to cast their votes for delegates to the 'Aha, or constitutional convention. The deadline for votes to be received by traditional mail or online is Nov. 30, 2015.
Those intending to use paper ballots should mail them as soon as possible so they arrive at the Election-America offices in New York City by midnight HST on Nov. 30, 2015.
Because the deadline to vote is rapidly approaching, Na'i Aupuni suggests that those intending to vote by traditional mail should consider casting their ballots online.
All voters, including those with paper ballots, can vote online by going to the the Na'i Aupuni site
http://naiaupuni.org/contact.html
or the Election-America website,
https://vote.election-america.com/naiaupuni/
and clicking on the "Vote Now" button. Voters will be asked to enter the election code and voting PIN number, found at the top right of their paper ballot. Only votes cast before the Nov. 30 deadline will be counted.
For questions or assistance with the voting process, voters can contact Election-America at naiaupuni@election-america.com or call Election-America toll-free at (844) 413-2929. Information about the election process also can be found at Na'i Aupuni's website
http://www.naiaupuni.org/
or by emailing
naiaupuni@election-america.com.
About 200 candidates are vying for 40 delegate spots. Those elected will take part in the 'Aha which will be held on O'ahu and run between February and April in 2016 over 40 business days. It will be up to the delegates to choose a method of Hawaiian self-determination or not. If the delegates create a governing document, a ratification vote by registered Hawaiians may take place.
The results of the election of 'Aha delegates will be announced publicly on Dec. 1, 2015.
Na'i Aupuni is an independent organization made up of a volunteer board of directors from the Hawaiian community. It was established solely to help establish a path for Hawaiian self-determination and is guiding an election, convention and ratification process where all Hawaiians who wish to participate can be heard.
----------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/imua-hawaii-native-hawaiians-must-speak-out-on-self-governance/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 23, 2015
Imua Hawaii: Native Hawaiians Must Speak Out On Self Governance
Barely five weeks remain for public comment on a federal rule to govern relations between the United States and a Native Hawaiian government.
By Todd Simmons, Opinion Editor for Civil Beat
With less than 18 months [later corrected to 5 weeks] left before the deadline for public comments on a proposed rule that would govern relations between the U.S. government and a potential Native Hawaiian government, leaders of multiple Hawaiian organizations and the larger Hawaiian community are urging people to make their voices heard.
Members of Imua Hawaii said in an editorial board discussion at Civil Beat on Thursday that its critical to take part in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leverage a formal government-to-government relationship.
While Native Hawaiians have been recognized in various ways in federal law since 1920, there hasnt been an independent Native Hawaiian government since 1893. Thats when Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani and her government were overthrown by a cabal of U.S. businessmen supported by the federal government.
Various movements to create a Native Hawaiian government have mobilized over the years, without ultimate success. But an election is now underway to select delegates for a convention next year that could create the framework for a Native Hawaiian government. Voting ends Nov. 30, and delegates for an eight-week convention are scheduled to be announced the following day.
The rule proposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior outlines procedures that the federal government would follow in establishing a relationship with whatever government might emerge from that process. At stake, say Imua Hawaii members, is achieving equal standing to other indigenous peoples with governments that have formal relationships with the U.S.
"A Native Hawaii government could attend to the health, education, housing, general welfare and self governance interests of our community," said Jade Danner Jones, an Imua Hawaii member and former majority policy director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs under Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii.
Until such a government exists, Native Hawaiians are in a sort of legal limbo, the say -- recognized in some parts of federal law, but at risk for race-based lawsuits, and lacking the practical abilities that a Native Hawaiian government would have to tend to the needs of its people.
Plaintiffs associated with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, in fact, sued to stop the delegate election, calling it "racially exclusive."
The group lost that suit in October, and lost an emergency appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday in its effort to prevent the election ballots from being counted.
The Grassroot Institute and its allies arent the only ones who disapprove of the delegate election process.
Longtime Native Hawaiian activists and community leaders such as Walter Ritte and Mililani Trask have denounced the elections as exclusionary and the Interior rule as one that would lock in a Native Hawaiian government lacking in authority and political power. Despite publicly announcing his withdrawal as a delegate candidate, Ritte did not formally withdraw; his name remains on the ballot for a delegate seat representing Molokai.
An Opportunity To Move Forward
Others, such as a group of millennial Native Hawaiians known as Nā Makalehua, have come out in strong support of the election, calling it "the first opportunity for our generation to participate in a convention empowered by so many Native Hawaiians to move our community forward."
That group includes up-and-coming notables such as state Rep. Kaniela Ing and Catelin Aiwohi of the Office of Hawaiian Affairss Washington, D.C., office.
The election, being overseen by the nonprofit Nai Aupuni organization, have enrolled about 95,000 registered voters against a Native Hawaiian population across the U.S. estimated at 577,000. Ballots went to registered voters at the end of October.
Some Native Hawaiians have said another critical element to take into account for this election and a potential government-to-government relationship is the 14 months remaining in President Barrack Obamas second term. A native of Hawaii, the president is thought to understand and see as a priority the idea of Native Hawaiian governance -- qualities that might not exist in his successor.
That makes weighing in on the Interior rule and taking part in the delegate elections critical, said Imua Hawaii Executive Director Kealii Lopez, who formerly served as director of the state Office of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
"This is an opportunity that we may not see (again) in our lifetime," she said.
To take part in the Department of Interiors public comment process for its proposed rule, click here.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOI-2015-0005-2438
Information on delegates election is available here.
http://naiaupuni.org/
-------------------
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/11/23/attempt-congress-steal-native-sovereignty-unconstitutional
Indian Country Today, November 23, 2015
Attempt by Congress to Steal Native Sovereignty Unconstitutional
by John Yellow Bird Steele
To the Editor of Indian Country Today Media Network:
On April 22, 2015, Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) declared at a hearing Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs of the House Natural Resources Committee that Congress was the only body with authority to Federally acknowledge Indian nations and tribes. On October 20, 2015, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop declared that he will pursue HR 3764 to make that the law. With all due respect, HR 3764 is wrong on the law and history: the President of the United States, his Secretaries and Executive Branch officials have always had a leading role in treating with Indian nations and tribes.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that Indian sovereignty long pre-dates" the United States. From the first days of the American Republic, Indian nations and tribes were recognized diplomatically through treaty-making by the President, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior and U.S. treaty commissions.
Prior to the Constitutions ratification, the United States entered into more Indian treaties than International treaties, the Constitution affirms the early treaties, and after the Constitutions ratification, President George Washington established the protocol for future treaty-making with the ratification of the 1790 Creek Nation Treaty.
Through Indian treaties, the United States acknowledged Indian nations as sovereigns, with a right of self-government, and defined territory, reserved for our absolute and undisturbed use and occupation, which excluded non-Indians and the U.S. military. In the earliest legislation, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and 1791, the United States pledged that the utmost good faith" would always be observed towards our native peoples, and that our liberty and property would never be invaded. In the 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty, the United States promised to abide by International treaties with Indian nations, until such time as the United States entered its own treaties with Indian nations based upon mutual consent." The Treaty with France clearly meant that the United States agreed that it would then adhere to the United Statess Indian treaties made through mutal consent" with Indian nations.
In 1871, Congress ended treaty-making since the House of Representatives was left out of that law-making process. Our existing treaties were affirmed, and later Indian agreements were enacted by Congress as statutes. Yet, for many Indian nations that were swept aside by the rush of European immigration and colonial expansion, the United States often ignored their status as native communities and states dealt with Indian nations and tribes.
The Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, Public Law finds that Indian nations and tribes may presently be recognized by Act of Congress, Administrative procedures in Part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or Federal court decision. Under this Act, the traditional means of Executive action in treating with Indian nations and tribes is available along with the possibility of congressional action.
For many years, Indian nations and tribes have complained that the Secretary of the Interior has relegated the Federal acknowledgement process to anthropologists who want to delve back into history at the dawn of the Republic, with no time limits for decision-making. Over the past two years, the Department of the Interior has sought to update the regulations, place a reasonable time frame on review, and provide for an Administrative Law Judge hearing before a final review by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. This is a reasonable process, which ends with a final agency decision subject to judicial review.
Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior explains that the final rule is intended to: This new process remains rigorous, but it promotes timely decision-making through expedited processes and increases transparency by posting all publically available petition materials online so that stakeholders are well-informed at each stage of the process."
Chairman Bishop rejects the Interior Regulations and introduced his bill HR 3764, entitled the Federal Recognition Act of 2015." HR 3764 posits that the Indian Commerce Clause is the only font of authority in the field of Indian affairs, and that the Secretary of the Interior must follow an exhaustive process to report on Federal Acknowledgment petitions and Congress must pass legislation to acknowledge each Indian tribe from this day forward.
Yet, Chairman Bishops bill is based upon a mistaken premise -- there are many constitutional fonts of authority in the field of Indian affairs: in addition to the Commerce Clause, the Treaty-Making Power, the War Powers (including the power to make peace), the Property Clause, and the 14th Amendment are all recognized sources of Federal authority in the field of Indian affairs.
Moreover, since 1832, Congress has authorized the Executive Branch in the field of Indian affairs as follows under Title 25 United States Code Sec. 2:
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations.
Similarly, the President has long been authorized as follows under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 9:
The President may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs.
In the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act, Congress affirmed the Secretarys authority over the Federal Acknowledgement Process, expressly recognizing 25 C.F.R. Part 83. HR 3764 misreads the Constitution, overturns longstanding historical precedent, increases the bureaucracy and legislative burden on Indian tribes and politicizes the Federal Acknowledgement Process. The bill is not well considered.
--------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=476c544e84&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii press release November 24, 2015
Plaintiffs File Appeal with Supreme Court
Grassroot Institute makes case against "unprecedented" District Court decision
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- Nov. 24, 2015 -- The Plaintiffs in the case of Akina v. Hawaii have filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking for an injunction that would halt the Nai Apuni election while the case is being determined.
In an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review, the plaintiffs stressed the timing of the Native Hawaiian election and the fact that in one week, on November 30, the election for delegates will be completed and the votes would be counted, forever closing off the plaintiffs' rights to participate in the process.
"We are glad to bring this issue to the Supreme Court," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the Plaintiffs in the case. "As more and more people hear about this case, we have seen tremendous public support for our effort to stop this divisive and unconstitutional election."
"Native Hawaiians have been vocal in denying that they have ever been -- or should be -- a tribe" continued Dr. Akina. "They would, however, prefer to see the money being wasted on this election spent instead on education, health care, job training, and other efforts to make a real and tangible difference in their community. The election process has been a farce and have only served to alienate and divide Native Hawaiians. It is time for the state to get out of the nation-building process and focus on the issues that really matter."
The emergency filing reiterated the point that the impetus and funding for the election came from the State of Hawaii, disputing the Defendant's contention that this is a private election.
"This ruling is literally unprecedented," the appeal states in reference to the District Court's initial denial of an injunction. "It is the first decision in American history (not subsequently vacated) to find a compelling justification for a State to prohibit individuals of a certain race from voting in an election."
To see the filings and documents associated with this case, go to:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
** Ken Conklin's note: The emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is clearly written, easy to read, highly persuasive. Of great IMPORTANCE to the internal politics of the Court -- Justice Anthony Kennedy was the Justice who wrote the Rice v Cayetano decision, and it is also Justice Kennedy who has the authority to act ALONE on behalf of the court to grant any emergency injunction concerning the States that are under the authority of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (including Hawaii) -- this is the same sort of special prerogative used in death penalty cases when there's one day left before somebody gets executed for murder and his attorney files an emergency appeal for a stay of execution until the issues can be litigated. The appeal document correctly portrays the Na'i Aupuni election as a slap in the face to the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano nearly 16 years ago (and therefore a slap in the face to Justice Kennedy, who has the authority to act alone to grant this emergency injunction).
Read it at
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151108-Emergency-Application-for-filing.pdf
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20151124_Justices_asked_to_block_Native_Hawaiian_election_vote_count.html?id=353180801
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 24, 2015, Breaking News posted at 10:15 AM HST
Justices asked to block Native Hawaiian election vote count
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON >> Opponents of an election designed to be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block votes from being counted in what they argue is an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
"This court's intervention is urgently needed," said the request filed Tuesday with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who can act on his own or get his colleagues involved.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
Native Hawaiians are the last remaining indigenous group in the United States that hasn't been allowed to establish its own government.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
"Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake," the application to the Supreme Court said. "The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state, as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals identified as Native Hawaiians."
It's urgent for the Supreme Court to intervene because there "will be no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified," the application said. "This election cannot be undone."
Racial exclusivity goes against Hawaiian values, said one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs, Kelii Akina, who is also president of public policy think-tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
"The Hawaiian Kingdom consisted of citizens of multiples races including Native Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, Caucasians and others," he said. "This racial inclusiveness is at the heart of the aloha spirit."
Election supporters argue it's crucial that the vote move forward because it presents a unique opportunity that has evaded Native Hawaiians for more than 100 years.
Clyde Namuo, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission and a delegate candidate, has said self-determination is a way for Native Hawaiians to address longstanding concerns in the community in areas such as income, education and health.
"The western way of life has not necessarily been good to us," he said last month. "We will be able to control our destiny in a better way if we form our government."
-------------------
http://hpr2.org/post/rough-waters-na-i-aupuni-elections#stream/0
Hawaii Public Radio, November 25, 2015
Rough Waters for Na'i Aupuni Elections
By NOE TANIGAWA
Last month, HPR profiled Na'i Aupuni, an organization founded to help establish a path toward Hawaiian self-determination. An election for delegates to a proposed convention is set to conclude November 30th, though concerns about the process persist among members of the Hawaiian community. HPR's Noe Tanigawa spoke with a community member about her concerns.
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/khpr/audio/2015/11/NONA1125.mp3
A conversation with Trisha Kehaulani Watson about her concerns regarding the Na'i Aupuni process.
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/khpr/audio/2015/11/kehauc3__2_.mp3
In this extended interview, Dr. Watson expands on her concerns about the current Na'I Aupuni election process, and mentions ways she feels it could have been more culturally appropriate. Dr. Watson advocates a two year education process for both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians leading to a Hawaiian referendum on whether a constitutional convention or some other process should ensue. She expands on her point of view in this Civil Beat article.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/10/roll-of-thunder-lifting-the-veil-on-nai-aupuni/
Listen to HPR's conversation about the Na'i Aupuni elections with their attorney, William Meheula.
http://hpr2.org/post/na-i-aupuni-voyage-nationhood#stream/0
In a recent email exchange, Mr. Meheula responded to some of Dr. Watson's concerns:
NT: Were the email addresses, street addresses, phone numbers, or names of those on the roll of names Na'i Aupuni is using as its voter base ever released? To whom?
WM: The district voter names and addresses and any email were made available to candidates from the same district on the condition that the candidate commits to useof the information only for purposes of this election and no other purposes. They were not made public.
NT: What's your response to the contention that people were unknowingly and unwillingly added to the roll, then faced an onerous process to opt out?
WM: This claim was rejected by Judge Seabright because both before and after OHA transferred lists to the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, the OHA registrants were repeatedly notified that if they did not want their name transferred, OHA would not do so and after the transfer, they have the right to opt out through a simple form that is on the Commission's website. Out of about 90,000 OHA registrants about 600 have opted out.
NT: Are there any rules in the constitutional convention process that bind the action of Na'I Aupuni's principals to the decisions of the delegates?
WM: On the Na'I Aupuni website, it states the delegates are free to decide what they want without restriction and they are free to make whatever recommendation they want for the voters to decide on or not.
NT: Is it true that only people registered among the 89 thousand in the current list will be eligible for native Hawaiian benefits and programs from the federal government in the future?
WM: No not true -- if the delegates draft a constitution, that constitution will define membership. Na'i Aupuni has no relationship with the Department of the Interior and any rules it may adopt will not limit the delegates' political options at the 'Aha.
NT: How is voting going?
WM: We will all find out on December 1st.
NT: Will there be any election oversight?
WM: Yes, by CW Associates.
Voting in the Na'i Aupuni election ends November 30th.
On November 24th, 2015, the Grassroot Institute announced they had filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court asking for an injunction that would halt the Na'i Apuni election while the case is being determined.
The Federal Department of the Interior's Office of Hawaiian Relations states:
"In 1993, Congress enacted the Apology Resolution, which offered an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for its role in the overthrow and committed the Federal government to a process of reconciliation. As part of that reconciliation process, in 2000 the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice jointly issued a report identifying as its lead recommendation the need to foster self-determination for Native Hawaiians under Federal law. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments in writing by email to part50@doi.gov, onwww.regulations.gov (docket no. DOI-2015-0005), or by U.S. mail/hand delivery to the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7228, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240. Comments will be accepted through December 30th, 2015.
Here is the federal Department of the Interior's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Dr. Watson recommends reading Section 50-44F, Page 59132, which she says makes clear the establishment of an official government to government relationship between the U.S. and a Hawaiian nation does not affect current state and federal land agreements.
Members of the public can provide comments in writing by email to part50@doi.gov, onwww.regulations.gov (docket no. DOI-2015-0005), or by U.S. mail/hand delivery to the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7228, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240. Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2015.
Here's the link for commenting on the federal rule.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOI-2015-0005-2438
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
Article says "Dr. Watson recommends reading Section 50-44F, Page 59132, which she says makes clear the establishment of an official government to government relationship between the U.S. and a Hawaiian nation does not affect current state and federal land agreements."
But Dr. Conklin says: "Promises or predictions made in the NPRM that the rights of people will be protected cannot be delivered. Whatever requirements the DOI imposes upon a tribe's initial governing document in order to grant recognition can later be changed by the tribe unilaterally -- according to a Final Rule in Federal Register October 19. Any tribe can amend its governing document without DOI approval." That's item #5 in Conklin's testimony against the proposed regulation that would create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe. Please read Conklin's testimony on this webpage:
http://tinyurl.com/o58qdhs
Note also that because of that inability of DOI to deliver on its promises in the NPRM:
6. There is no protection for special rights of HHCA-eligible native Hawaiians (50% blood quantum);
7. Hawaiian tribe can ignore DOI prohibition on gambling casinos in Hawaii or mainland;
8. Hawaiian tribe cannot be prohibited from participating automatically in all the benefit programs intended for the mainland tribes;
9. Hawaiian tribe would threaten sovereign immunity of federal and State lands, and also threaten private land titles, due to Indian Non-Intercourse Act;
10. Hawaiian tribe has jurisdiction over citizens with no native blood, and also over ethnic Hawaiians who choose not to join the tribe -- Indian Child Welfare Act; Violence Against Women Act.
--------------------
https://themolokaidispatch.com/hawaiian-election-continues-amid-concerns/
The Molokai Dispatch, Wednesday, November 25th, 2015
Hawaiian Election Continues Amid Concerns
by Catherine Cluett
A Native Hawaiian election due to close Nov. 30 is heating up as kanaka ma'oli debate the direction of self-determination and the future of over half a million Hawaiians nationwide.
Starting Nov. 1 for 30 days, nearly 90,000 Hawaiians registered with the Kana'iolowalu Native Hawaiian Roll Commission can cast their ballot for candidates in their district who would represent them at an upcoming constitutional convention of 40 delegates. The Molokai ballot has three candidates who are among more than 200 candidates statewide: Noa Emmett Aluli, Lori Buchanan and Walter Ritte. One of them will represent both Molokai and Lanai at the convention, to be held between February and April of 2016.
The goal of the convention, according to Na'i Aupuni, a nonprofit whose mission is to establish a path for Hawaiian self-determination, is to form a platform for discussion that could lead to the ratification of a constitution or recommendations for future actions.
Yet as the election nears its deadline, concerns are being raised statewide about the legitimacy and wisdom of the process. Though Ritte's name officially remains on the ballot, he announced his withdrawal from the race three weeks ago, and joins others in urging a boycott of the election.
"It's rigged, it's not pono, it's divisive as hell," said Ritte of the process. He questions both the validity of Na'i Aupuni to be leading the effort as well as what he calls a "set up" convention and a "continuation of the political powers."
Yet others remain hopeful this process is the first step toward unity for Native Hawaiians.
"This is an opportunity for Hawaiians to organize themselves," said Bill Meheula, Na'i Aupuni attorney. "Hawaiians haven't had a government for 120 years… Hawaiians are such a large group, it's hard without an organized government… to move forward in unity."
A Harried History
Two years after Queen Liliuokalani took the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1891, a group of European and American businessmen illegally overthrew the queen and, according to the history books, sought U.S. annexation for Hawaii. Then-President Grover Cleveland denied annexation, urging restoration of the monarchy. However, when William McKinley was elected shortly after, he moved forward with unlawfully annexing the islands.
In the years since Hawaii became a state in 1959, many efforts toward federal recognition of Native Hawaiians have surfaced, most notably through the Akaka Bill, also known as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009.
In 2011, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission was formed through Hawaii state law Act 195 with the goal of enrolling 200,000 Native Hawaiians for the organization of a sovereign entity. However, they were only able to register less than a quarter of that, through $4 million in funding from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). In 2013, Act 77 allowed the Roll Commission to transfer names from other lists, including OHA's registry.
That's where things get sticky for those who question the legitimacy of the election.
Shane Pale is one of the organizers of a movement called Protest Na'i Aupuni. Born and raised on Molokai and now living on Oahu, Pale said a lack of community awareness and education about the process is only one of his concerns, according to a press release from the Protest Na'i Aupuni organization.
Protestnaiaupuni.com claims that the consent of individuals who were added to the Roll from other lists following Act 77 was not obtained before inclusion in the Roll, and many of them were not aware their named had been added to the list.
"...Act 77 allowed them to use names from other Hawaiian lists to validate Na'i Aupuni, and that's very disrespectful of Hawaiians, especially our kupuna," said Pale in the release. "A lot of the people on that list have passed away."
Others on the list who have been mailed election ballots have no knowledge of the election, he explained. In addition, the Roll itself represents just a small portion of the more than half a million Native Hawaiians nationwide, meaning the process is excluding over 80 percent of the population, according to Pale.
A representative of the Roll Commission acknowledged that some of the information from the Roll may be outdated, and some registered voters may not have received ballots at all if their address has changed over the decade the list has been collected.
According to the Roll Commission, just under 3,000 Molokai residents are registered to vote.
Belief in the Process
Aluli, a family health practitioner who was involved in the original movement to stop the bombing of Kaho'olawe, is one of the Molokai candidates. He said he was encouraged to run for a delegate seat by fellow Molokai residents.
"In my work for the health and well-being of our Native Hawaiian communities, keeping 'Molokai, Molokai,' healing Kaho'olawe, and living on Hawaiian Homestead land, I realize that we need the standing of a Native Hawaiian government to protect our lands, resources and benefits," he said, via email. "As long as we are not organized as a Native Hawaiian government, all of these could be legally challenged as race-based programs -- like Kamehameha Schools, OHA and Hawaiian Homelands."
In September, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) laid out a procedure for establishing government-to-government relations with the U.S. if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government. While some Native Hawaiians view this as an opportunity for self-determination through federal recognition, others urge steering clear of any ties to the U.S. government and instead, reinstating the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign nation.
Aluli said he supports the DOI procedure because it gives Hawaiians an option to protect their resources up front.
"Having such a pathway for Native Hawaiians will in no way take away the right of Native Hawaiians to exercise our self-determination together with the non-Hawaiian citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii and choose to be independent of the U.S.," he said. "We can do both."
He added he believes such a status will also protect land trusts, Hawaiian programs and benefits from race-based litigations in the future. As an activist and one of the founders of the Protest Kaho'olawe Ohana with George Helm, Aluli said he also wants to see this process move forward for the formerly bombed island.
"The federal pathway for sovereignty is important to open and to fulfill the terms of State law and have Kanaloa Kaho'olawe transferred to a Hawaiian governing entity recognized by the State and Federal governments – 'the first lands for our nation,'" he said.
Despite what protesters call a growing movement of concern across the state about the process, Aluli said he supports the efforts of the Roll Commission and Na'i Aupuni, and urges Hawaiians remain open to what could come of this process.
"I ask them to keep an open mind and open heart as the convention conducts its work and to be fair in evaluating the outcome," he said.
Meheula seconded the sentiment.
"I think to discourage voting discredits the candidates," he said. "To deny them the opportunity to lead and help bring Hawaiians together would be a big mistake."
Emerging Concerns
Na'i Aupuni, founded in December 2014, was funded through a $3 million OHA grant with the sole purpose of carrying forward the election. Five individuals serve as volunteer directors of the nonprofit, and, according to Na'i Aupuni, are all associated with "three respected Hawaiian alii-founded organizations."
Ritte said "these four ladies and a guy ... go into a room and make all the rules and set up this convention." When he originally signed up as a candidate, he planned to try to make a change from within the delegation, but thought he would be a minority in his hope for independence from the federal government.
"I didn't see the value in going inside to stop this thing ... So I decided to fight it from the outside," he said. He announced he was withdrawing his candidacy, though according to a Na'i Aupuni statement, he never officially provided notification of his decision. Thus, his name remains on the ballot and votes cast for him will count toward his candidacy, stated the organization.
Ritte, however, is joined by others around the state who oppose the election. The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii filed a legal attempt to stop the election, though the request was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week.
Ritte and Protest Na'i Aupuni are advocating a boycott of the election. But Ritte said even if the elections do move forward, Hawaiians will have to vote on any constitution resulting from the convention. He hopes by then, there will be "enough momentum where we can hopefully stop the end product if it's saying we should become federally recognized."
"I'm against [the election] for a number of reasons," stated Pale in the Protest Na'i Aupuni release. "First, it's a clear violation of our rights to self-determination, both as an indigenous people and as descendants of our kupuna whose country was illegally overthrown by the United States. Also, this process is being forced on the Hawaiian people by the state. Self-determination initiatives need to come from the people, not the government."
Ritte echoed his concerns, adding he thinks the process is predetermined.
"I saw it was a done deal, it was rigged for a certain outcome, because the Department of the Interior comes to Hawaii and says 'we're ready to recognize you guys, here are the rules,'" said Ritte. "So it's like, this whole thing is set up. Follow these rules and you'll be recognized. It was set to go, and I said, 'this is not right.'"
Meheula said based on the 200 candidates on the ballot, he doesn't see how anyone could think the outcome of the convention has already been decided.
"If you look at their bios, they're a pretty broad base and they haven't made up their mind on the type of government and look forward to debating and deciding with other candidates," he said. "Our belief is we're in favor of what the majority of Hawaiians want… You've got a number of steps ahead before we can tell what's going to happen. To say this is predetermined is not understanding of this process."
Issues of Contention
Both sides point to the issue of ceded lands as a support for their argument. With no clear title to the 1.8 million acres of land that belonged to the Hawaiian monarchy before the overthrow, federal law requires the land be held in trust.
"Without a movement, Hawaiians don't have entity with standing, and without standing you can't advocate for things like recovery of ceded lands and other type of governmental benefits and rights," said Meheula.
However, Ritte warned that federal recognition could mean the end of ceded lands for Native Hawaiians.
"The only things that's missing for [the U.S. government] to grab all those ceded lands is a governing entity," he said. "We're going to create the mechanism to allow the U.S. to get clear title, they're going to strike a deal over the ceded land, and this entity can strike that deal."
Regardless of differences of opinion, Meheula said Na'i Aupuni officials understand that first-time elections can be challenging, but said part of the goal of this process is to familiarize both the candidates and the voters with the voting process.
Na'i Aupuni has contracted Elections America to process the ballots, an independent election management and consulting company that Meheula said has a lot of experience managing elections nation-wide.
He said with 89,000 ballots mailed out, organizers are not sure how many of those will be returned as votes. But he said the convention will move forward no matter how many votes come in, and while the convention might only result in recommendations from delegates about how to move forward, "at least you have a group to make decisions."
In the meantime, Ritte said the facts of history are coming to light and he believes the answer to the question of Hawaiian self-determination will be found in international law.
"If we go back to who are we and what happened, there's a solution," said Ritte. "The fact is that we were overthrown, the fact is that we were never annexed ... International law says if that's what happened, then you're occupied. The law says you have to de-occupy. It's not based on what everybody wants, it's not about your mana'o, it's law."
Voting Process
Any Native Hawaiian who has registered through Kana'iolowalu Native Hawaiian Roll Commission and received a ballot can vote. If you registered but have not received a ballot, election officials ask that you call Kana'iolowalu at (808) 973-0099, Na'i Aupuni (808) 543-3554 or Elections America toll-free at (844) 413-2929. If you did not notify the Roll Commission of an address change, your ballot may have been mailed to the incorrect address.
Voters on each island will vote for one or more candidates from their district. Molokai and Lanai combined will be represented by one delegate. The voting deadline is Nov. 30. Mail-in ballots must be received at Elections America in New York by that date. Any ballots received after Nov. 30 will not count.
If you received a mail-in ballot, return it through the mail in time to be received in New York by the deadline (election officials suggest postmarking one week in advance.) Those who signed up for electronic ballots can vote online. Alternatively, those who received a mail-in ballot can vote online instead by entering the election number and voter pin number found on their ballot by clicking the "vote now" link on naiaupuni.org.
--------------------
http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii blog
Testimony submitted to U.S. Department of Interior on Thanksgiving Day 2015 in opposition to proposed regulation for granting federal recognition to a phony Hawaiian tribe
Testimony opposing RIN 1090–AB05
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
November 26, 2015, Thanksgiving Day
Giving thanks there is no Hawaiian tribe
Website: "Hawaiian Sovereignty"
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk
Book: "Hawaiian Apartheid"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
Full text of testimony in attached file, and at
http://tinyurl.com/o58qdhs
Summary
1. Aloha from Ken Conklin, civil rights activist supporting unity and equality
2. Why quorum in NPRM for credible participation in election and ratification is too low
3. Don't abandon question 8 from ANPRM "What should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community?"
4. A unique rule for recognizing a Hawaiian tribe should acknowledge the uniquely high percentage of Native Hawaiians as 22% of the total population of Hawaii, making it uniquely traumatic to partition the State along racial lines. Therefore, a unique Hawaiian rule should require a vote by all Hawaii's people to approve federal recognition.
5. Promises or predictions made in the NPRM that the rights of people will be protected cannot be delivered. Whatever requirements the DOI imposes upon a tribe's initial governing document in order to grant recognition can later be changed by the tribe unilaterally — according to a Final Rule in Federal Register October 19. Any tribe can amend its governing document without DOI approval.
Because of #5:
6. There is no protection for special rights of HHCA-eligible native Hawaiians (50% blood quantum);
7. Hawaiian tribe can ignore DOI prohibition on gambling casinos in Hawaii or mainland;
8. Hawaiian tribe cannot be prohibited from participating automatically in all the benefit programs intended for the mainland tribes;
9. Hawaiian tribe would threaten sovereign immunity of federal and State lands, and also threaten private land titles, due to Indian Non-Intercourse Act;
10. Hawaiian tribe has jurisdiction over citizens with no native blood, and also over ethnic Hawaiians who choose not to join the tribe -- Indian Child Welfare Act; Violence Against Women Act.
11. Remove the terms "reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community" or "reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government" because there was never a Native Hawaiian government. All governments of a unified Hawaii had massive Caucasian participation in executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
12. The "special political and trust relationship" that Congress has allegedly established with Native Hawaiians does not exist -- asserting it has been a political football punted between Republicans and Democrats.
13. Authoritative sources since 2001 warn that creating a race-based government for ethnic Hawaiians would be both unconstitutional and bad public policy: U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and others.
14. Authoritative sources confirm the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was legitimate and the U.S. owes nothing to ethnic Hawaiians beyond what is owed to all the citizens of the United States: 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (1894); Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (jointly authorized by Senate and House, 1983); more
15. Evidence that "Native Hawaiians" and also the general citizenry of Hawaii do not want federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. Zogby survey; two Grassroot Institute surveys; newspaper and OHA scientific surveys show ethnic Hawaiians and the general population place "nationbuilding" at bottom of priorities; more.
16. People of all races jointly own Hawaii as full partners. President Obama himself opposes tribalism and erecting walls between natives and immigrants. History of Black civil rights movement is instructive — Martin Luther King's model of full integration won the hearts and minds of African Americans and of all Americans, defeating the racial separatism of the "Nation of Islam."
17. Administrative rule-making should not be used to enact legislation explicitly rejected by Congress during 13 years when megabucks were spent pushing it. The executive branch can only implement laws Congress passed, not create laws Congress rejected. Two federal courts have now overruled Obama's rule-making that tried to enact immigration laws rejected by Congress.
18. Federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe would herd into demographic and geographic racial ghettos people and lands that have long been fully assimilated, widely scattered, and governed by a multiracial society. Map shows public lands likely to be demanded by a Hawaiian tribe; Census 2010 table shows number of Native Hawaiians in every state; Census 2010 table showing number of Native Hawaiians in every census tract in Hawaii.
19. Six cartoons by Daryl Cagle illustrating the social divisiveness of racial entitlement programs, as seen in Midweek newspaper, Honolulu, probably late 1990s to mid 2000s.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20151127_US_Supreme_Court_justice_blocks_vote_count_in_Native_Hawaiian_election.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 27, 2015 Breaking News at 8:00 AM HST, Updated 9:10 AM
U.S. Supreme Court justice blocks vote count in Native Hawaiian election
By Associated Press
A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit organization guiding the election process, is encouraging voters to continue casting votes, said Bill Meheula, an attorney representing the group.
"Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step to unify Hawaiians," he said in a statement. "Help them by voting now."
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote. They argue it's an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
"Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake," the application to the Supreme Court said. "The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state, as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals identified as Native Hawaiians."
They argued without Supreme Court intervention, there would be "no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified," the application said. "This election cannot be undone."
** Ken Conklin's note:
1. The Grassroot Institute / JudicialWatch 36-page application for injunction filed with the Supreme Court on November 23 can be seen at
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Akina-Application.pdf
2. An appendix of 427 pages filed with item #1, containing full text of many of the documents in the case, in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is at
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/15A551-Akina-Appendix.pdf
3. The State of Hawaii 31-page response to the GRIH/JudicialWatch application for injunction filed on Wednesday November 25 can be seen at
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/15A551-Hawaii-Response.pdf
4. Grassroot Institute / JudicialWatch Reply to State response and in Support of Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Akina-Reply-11-27-2015-FINAL.pdf
5. The official 1-page ORDER on official stationery, signed by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on November 27 can be seen at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112715zr_8m58.pdf
-------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=47c55834eb&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute news release, November 27, 2015
Justice Kennedy Halts Native Hawaiian Election - Enjoins Counting of Ballots
Grassroot Institute applauds victory for equality and the Aloha Spirit
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- Nov. 27, 2015 -- Today, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order enjoining the counting of ballots cast in, and certifying the winners in the Native Hawaiian election. Though the injunction is indefinite pending further action from Justice Kennedy or the full Court, it will prevent the Na'i Apuni election from proceeding with the scheduled ballot count on November 30th.
"This is a significant victory for us," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the Plaintiffs in the case brought by Judicial Watch. "After a full briefing, Justice Kennedy decided that the issue was worthy of further examination, and issued the injunction we requested. We are confident in our position, and excited at the possibility that it could go before the full Court."
Dr. Akina continued: "We are very grateful for the wisdom of the Court in upholding the Constitution. Today's ruling from Justice Kennedy is not just a victory for us, but a victory for the many Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented and overridden by government and special interests determined to create a government-recognized tribe. It's a victory for all Hawaiians--and all Americans--in its affirmation of racial equality. Finally, it is a victory for the Aloha Spirit which enables people of all backgrounds to live and work together in harmony."
Justice Kennedy's order can be viewed at:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/112715.zr_.pdf
To see all the filings and documents associated with this case, go to:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
-----------------
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/kennedy-temporarily-blocks-hawaii-vote-count/#more-235163
Scotus Blog, November 27, 2015
Kennedy temporarily blocks Hawaii vote count
Showing some skepticism that an election now taking place in Hawaii is a purely private matter, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Friday temporarily blocked the ballot-counting after all the votes are in on Monday. The order was not a final action, hinting that there could be other orders within coming days.
The balloting on a proposal to begin the process toward setting up a new nation of "native Hawaiians" within the state of Hawaii actually began on November 1, and concludes on November 30. Only "native Hawaiians" can vote. The challengers, contending that the election is an official election that is race-based and thus violates the Constitution, had not asked that the balloting be stopped, and Kennedy's order does not do so.
The state of Hawaii, with strong support from the federal Department of the Interior, favors a plan to create a new entity, something like an Indian tribe, that would give those who can show Hawaiian ancestry the right of self-determination, leading to the status of a sovereign nation.
Residents of the islands who do not meet that category argued in their plea to Justice Kennedy and the Court that the election, to be followed by a constitutional convention, was not a private matter left to those with the ancestral claim but was a government-sponsored and financed election that must conform to both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The outcome of the election, they asserted, will have a major public policy impact.
The state of Hawaii and the non-profit corporation that was set up to actually run the election both told the Court that the election was entirely a private affair, and that those who do not have the ancestral connection have no role to play in the process. That is also the view of the Department of the Interior, which has started a process toward recognizing a new nation as an equal government.
The challengers' application asked the Court to do two things: first, to prohibit the counting of the ballots and the certification of the winners of the convention delegate seats "during the pendency of this appeal"; and, second, as an alternative, to temporarily block the counting and certifying "to allow full consideration" of the application by the Supreme Court.
Kennedy's order was worded as if it were approval of the second option. It blocked the counting and certifying action "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court."
The case is now under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, after a federal trial judge ruled that the election was a private matter that did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment. Both the trial judge and the Ninth Circuit denied requests to block the post-balloting part of the election process.
The challengers then moved on to the Supreme Court, beginning with Justice Kennedy, who handles emergency matters for the geographic region that is the Ninth Circuit -- which includes Hawaii. Kennedy had the option of acting at this point on his own or sharing the issue with his colleagues.
Because of the holiday weekend, it may be that the full Court will consider the matter further when the Court returns to public sessions next Monday. In the meantime, the cast ballots may not be opened for counting and the outcome cannot be certified officially.
The challengers are relying heavily upon a 2000 decision by the Court, Rice v. Cayetano, striking down an election for directors of a state agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, because it was limited to "native Hawaiians."
More than sixty percent of those who registered to vote in the current balloting were qualified because their names were already on a list compiled by state officials.
------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-justice-intervenes-in-native-hawaiian-election.html?_r=0
New York Times, November 27, 2015
Supreme Court Justice Intervenes in Native Hawaiian Election
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON -- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Friday ordered officials in Hawaii not to count ballots or name the winners of an election there in which only people of native Hawaiian ancestry could vote.
The justice's order was a response to an emergency application from Hawaii residents who said the election violated the 15th Amendment, which bars race discrimination in voting.
The election is to end on Monday, and Justice Kennedy's order did not stop the voting. He apparently acted on his own, and his order may mean only that he wanted to preserve the status quo over a holiday weekend until the full court could consider the matter.
The election is for delegates to a convention that would prepare a document on self-governance by Native Hawaiians. Under a definition in a 2011 law, only descendants of "the aboriginal peoples who, before 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands" are eligible to vote.
The state said the election was a private matter, and a federal judge in Honolulu agreed, refusing to issue a preliminary injunction blocking it.
"No public official will be elected or nominated; no matters of federal, state or local law will be determined," the judge, J. Michael Seabright, wrote last month. "A Native Hawaiian governing entity may recommend change, but cannot alter the legal landscape on its own."
After the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, refused to intercede, the challengers urged Justice Kennedy to step in. "Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake," they wrote. "The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state."
"Applicants will have no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified," they added. "This election cannot be undone."
In 2000, in Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of Hawaii's Constitution under which only descendants of the original Hawaiians could vote for the leadership of a state agency that administered programs on their behalf.
"Ancestry can be a proxy for race," Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in 2000. The state was represented by John G. Roberts Jr., who was then in private practice and is now chief justice of the United States.
In the new case, Akina v. Hawaii, No. 15A551, the state said the challengers "are seeking nothing less than to halt the private political activity of a group of Native Hawaiians to decide how and whether to move forward with forming a potentially self-governing entity."
Richard L. Hasen, an election law specialist at the University of California, Irvine, said Justice Kennedy's order was reminiscent of the stay issued by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore that halted the counting of ballots in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.
"Here, too," he wrote on his blog, "the argument for not announcing the results must be one concerned about the legitimacy of the election: Announcing the results, only to have the election declared illegal later, could potentially undermine the voters' faith in the process."
-----------------
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/27/us/ap-us-native-hawaiian-election-the-latest.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
The New York Times, NOV. 27, 2015, 7:09 P.M. E.S.T.
The Latest: Attorney General Speaks on Hawaiian Voting Order
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HONOLULU -- The Latest on a Supreme Court stay blocking the counting of votes in Native Hawaiian elections (all times local):
2 p.m.
Hawaii's attorney general is expressing the state's support for Native Hawaiian self-governance after a U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily blocked votes from being counted in an election for Native Hawaiians.
State Attorney General Doug Chin says Friday's order doesn't prevent people from voting in the election, which he describes as a private process that may help chart a path toward a Native Hawaiian government.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of constitutional rights.
They appealed to the high court after lower courts allowed the election to proceed as planned.
___
9 a.m.
One of the Native Hawaiians who sued to stop an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance says he's pleased a Supreme Court justice is blocking votes from being counted.
Kelii Akina is part of a group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians challenging the election. They say it's racially exclusive and unconstitutional.
The ruling is a victory for Native Hawaiians who don't want to be turned into a "government-recognized tribe," Akina said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
___
8:30 a.m.
An attorney representing the organization leading a Native Hawaiian election says the group is disappointed a U.S. Supreme Court justice is blocking votes from being counted.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Nai Aupuni attorney Bill Meheula encourages voters to continue voting. He's confident that lower courts' rulings allowing the election and vote count to proceed are correct.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
___
8 a.m.
A U.S. Supreme Court justice has issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights. They argue it's an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
--------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/27/supreme-court-halts-ballot-counting-in-controversial-native-hawaiian-vote.html
Fox News, November 27, 2015
Supreme Court halts ballot-counting in controversial Native Hawaiian vote
The Supreme Court on Friday blocked votes from being counted in a controversial Hawaii election designed to be a major step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Critics of the election, who had asked the Supreme Court to intervene, argue the vote is an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a brief order on Friday barring ballots from being counted or certified in the race, "pending further order."
Native Hawaiians have been voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting was set to end Monday.
But a group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians challenged the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
Defendants include the state and Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit organization guiding the election process.
Native Hawaiians are the last remaining indigenous group in the United States that hasn't been allowed to establish its own government.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
Racial exclusivity goes against Hawaiian values, said one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs, Kelii Akina, who is also president of public policy think-tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
"The Hawaiian Kingdom consisted of citizens of multiples races including Native Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, Caucasians and others," he said. "This racial inclusiveness is at the heart of the aloha spirit."
Election supporters argue it's crucial that the vote move forward because it presents a unique opportunity that has evaded Native Hawaiians for more than 100 years.
"The western way of life has not necessarily been good to us," Clyde Namuo, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission and a delegate candidate, said last month. "We will be able to control our destiny in a better way if we form our government."
Fox News' Shannon Bream and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
------------------
http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-justice-blocks-native-hawaiian-vote-1448661102
Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2015
Supreme Court Justice Blocks Native Hawaiian Vote
Temporary stay ordered on counting votes in self-governance-related election
Associated Press
HONOLULU -- A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote. It's unconstitutional for the state to be involved in a racially exclusive election, they say.
The ruling is a victory on many fronts, said Keli'i Akina, one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs and president of public policy think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
"First, it's a victory for Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented by government leaders trying to turn us into a government-recognized tribe," he said in a statement. "Secondly, it is a victory for all people of Hawaii and the United States as it affirms racial equality."
Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit organization guiding the election process, is encouraging voters to continue casting votes, said Bill Meheula, an attorney representing the group.
"Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step to unify Hawaiians," he said in a statement. "Help them by voting now."
Attorneys representing the state have argued that the state isn't involved in the election.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka spent about a dozen years trying to get a bill passed that would give Native Hawaiians the same rights already extended to many Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
When it became clear that wouldn't happen, the state passed a law recognizing Hawaiians as the first people of Hawaii and laid the foundation for Native Hawaiians to establish their own government. The governor appointed a commission to produce a roll of qualified Native Hawaiians interested in participating in their own government.
Some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit say their names appear on the roll without their consent. The non-Hawaiians in the lawsuit say they're being denied participation in an election that will have a big impact on the state.
The lawsuit points to nearly $2.6 million from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a public agency tasked with improving the well-being of Native Hawaiians, as evidence of the state's involvement.
Na'i Aupuni is a private, nonprofit corporation whose grant agreement specifies the Office of Hawaiian Affairs won't have any control, Mr. Meheula said.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
-------------------
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/27/breaking-supreme-court-blocks-racially-discriminatory-hawaii-election
PJ Media, November 27, 2015
Breaking: Supreme Court Blocks Racially Discriminatory Hawaii Election
BY J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS
The Supreme Court has just issued an order (read it here) blocking the racially discriminatory separatist election in Hawaii. The order enjoins (stops) the counting of ballots and certification of results pending further order of the Supreme Court. I covered the election here
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/10/22/obama-administration-defends-hawaiian-separtism-in-federal-court
and here
https://pjmedia.com/blog/racially-exclusionary-election-in-hawaii-green-lighted-by-federal-court
at PJ Media.
Only one race is permitted to register to vote with Hawaiian government officials for the separatist election. Hawaii has given a private organization millions of dollars to run the election. They believe these actions are constitutional. Judicial Watch has sued Hawaii, and the Public Interest Legal Foundation has filed an emergency brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union asking the court to stop the election process. (I was on the brief.)
This morning Justice Kennedy, writing for the court, did so and issued an injunction.
Interests on Hawaii are attempting to set up a new government representing the "colonized" native Hawaiians. They do not view American sovereignty as legitimate. Naturally, the Obama administration took their side and filed a brief supporting the racially discriminatory election. They argued that even though Congress has never authorized a new government on Hawaii comprised of the native race, the state should be allowed to establish one.
In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down similar schemes but did not directly have a racially discriminatory election before it because the election had already occurred.
--------------------
http://khon2.com/2015/11/27/supreme-court-justice-blocks-native-hawaiian-vote-count-certification-of-winners/
KHON TV, November 27, 2015
Supreme Court justice blocks Native Hawaiian vote count, certification of winners
JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER and KHON2 Web Staff
HONOLULU (AP) -- A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote. They argue it's an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, the responses filed thereto, and the reply,
IT IS ORDERED that the respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
– Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
The ruling is a victory on many fronts, said Kelii Akina, one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs and president of public policy think-tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
"First, it's a victory for Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented by government leaders trying to turn us into a government-recognized tribe," he said in a statement. "Secondly, it is a victory for all people of Hawaii and the United States as it affirms racial equality."
Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit organization guiding the election process, is encouraging voters to continue casting votes, said Bill Meheula, an attorney representing the group.
"Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step to unify Hawaiians," he said in a statement. "Help them by voting now."
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
"Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake," the application to the Supreme Court said. "The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state, as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals identified as Native Hawaiians."
They argued without Supreme Court intervention, there would be "no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified," the application said. "This election cannot be undone."
Na'i Aupuni, the Native Hawaiian organization holding the election, issued a statement on Justice Kennedy's ruling.
The volunteer organization notes that the temporary stay blocks the counting and certifying of winners of the election. The order does not bar voting, which ends on Monday.
"Na'i Aupuni did not expect that creating a path for Native Hawaiians to formally discuss self-governance and create a proposed constitution would be unimpeded. Native Hawaiian self-governance has been discussed for over 120 years without tangible results."
------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-halts-hawaiian-election_5658c6e8e4b08e945feb3ecc
Huffington Post, November 27, 2015
Supreme Court Halts Historic Hawaiian Election
Opponents of the election say the process is unconstitutional and racially exclusive.
Chris D'Angelo
Associate Editor, HuffPost Hawaii
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a historic and controversial election from moving forward in Hawaii.
Native Hawaiians are currently nearing the end of a month-long election to select delegates for a constitutional convention, but on Friday, Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order blocking both the counting of votes and the certification of any winners "pending further order" by the court.
The election is seen by many as a first step for Native Hawaiian self-determination. The elected delegates would attend a constitutional convention and recommend a form of self-government, deciding what -- if any -- relationship that government should have with the United States.
But opponents of the election say the process is unconstitutional and racially exclusive.
A group of native and non-native residents is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from a vote that affects the state. They also argue that the election is racially exclusive and therefore unconstitutional.
Attorneys representing Hawaii have argued that the state isn't involved in the election -- an argument that a federal judge agreed with last month. In October, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright said the election was legal since it was a private poll being conducted by the private nonprofit Nai Aupuni.
Nai Aupuni said in a statement Friday that Native Hawaiian self-governance has been discussed for over two hundred years without tangible results. And despite the recent ruling, the group remains confident that the election will ultimately be ruled legal.
"Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step in this historic process," Nai Aupuni said.
State Attorney General Doug Chin pointed out that Friday's order doesn't prevent people from voting in the election, which he described as a private process.
Opponents of the election, however, called order a "victory."
"First, it's a victory for Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented by government leaders trying to turn us into a government-recognized tribe," Kelii Akina, one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs and president of public policy think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said in a statement. "Secondly, it is a victory for all people of Hawaii and the United States as it affirms racial equality."
While Native Hawaiians make up one of the nation's largest indigenous communities, they are the only one without an independent political structure. In September, the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed a framework that it would use if "the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States."
The 30-day election for constitutional delegates kicked off on Nov. 1 with more than 100,000 Native Hawaiians eligible to vote. Election results were due Dec. 1, with the convention set to be held on Oahu between February and April.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20151128_nai_aupuni_election_halted.html?id=356731291
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 28, 2015
Na'i Aupuni election halted
By Timothy Hurley
Is the Native Hawaiian election known as Na'i Aupuni in trouble?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order Friday blocking the counting and certification of election votes pending a further order by Kennedy or the court.
The setback comes just three days before the scheduled end of the monthlong election and the announcement of winning convention delegates expected to consider proposals for Native Hawaiian governance.
"It ends my campaign as a delegate, but I kind of knew this was going to happen," said University of Hawaii law professor Williamson Chang, a candidate for an Oahu seat.
Chang said Kennedy's order sends a strong signal about what judicial fate awaits the Native Hawaiian election, if not at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, certainly at the high court.
"In my view it's pretty much dead," he said.
But Na'i Aupuni officials said they remain confident the election will ultimately be affirmed. They urged voters to continue casting votes through Monday.
A statement issued by the nonprofit Friday said, in part, "Na'i Aupuni did not expect that creating a path for Native Hawaiians to formally discuss self-governance and create a proposed constitution would be unimpeded. Native Hawaiian self-governance has been discussed for over 120 years without tangible results.
"Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step in this historic process. It is every voter's kuleana to help them by voting now."
More than 89,000 certified Native Hawaiians are eligible to vote in the election, in which 200 candidates are vying to become delegates in a convention scheduled to commence in February.
If the process goes forward, 40 delegates will consider proposals for Hawaiian self-governance, with any recommendation going back to the voters for ratification.
Voting, which started Nov. 1, was scheduled to end Monday, with election results to be revealed Tuesday.
The Native Hawaiian election has been under attack both inside the court and out. There are those who claim the process has been rigged and rushed to meet the nation-within-a-nation proposal supported by the Obama administration. They also condemn the effort as a scheme to undercut the independence movement and take away Hawaiian lands.
In court, four Native Hawaiians and two non-Hawaiians filed a lawsuit in August accusing the state of running an election that is racially exclusive and unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu last month allowed the election to go forward, saying it is a private affair and not subject to constitutional restrictions on public elections.
The plaintiffs -- led by Grassroot Institute of Hawaii President Keli'i Akina -- appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the election. Last week the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kennedy is the justice assigned to oversee cases from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chang, a Na'i Aupuni candidate who planned to work against federal recognition within the convention, said Kennedy wouldn't have issued his temporary order unless the challengers had met an extremely high standard of persuasiveness.
"It's over," he said of the election. "I'm confident it is the death knell for Na'i Aupuni."
But Robert Klein, Office of Hawaiian Affairs attorney and a former state Supreme Court associate justice, said Kennedy's order probably only represents "a temporary, sort of taking a breather during the holiday" to allow the court time to take a closer look at the issues before it offers its next order.
William Meheula, the attorney for Na'i Aupuni, agreed. He said it's only been a few days since he received the application for the stay, and there was a lot of information to absorb.
"It's a lot to take in in three days," he said.
Honolulu attorney Michael Lilly, a former state attorney general who represents the plaintiffs locally, said Kennedy's move is significant because emergency motions from the U.S. Supreme Court are rare.
"I personally anticipated the ruling despite the lower court decisions because I believed so strongly in the correctness of our position and the overwhelming case law against unconstitutional race-based elections," he said in an email.
Kennedy, he said, "has generally been known to be the swing vote in tight cases before the Supreme Court, so it seems significant to me that it was Justice Kennedy who issued the order."
Judicial Watch attorney Robert Popper said Kennedy's order -- and the fact that he asked for briefings from all sides before ruling -- offers some hope to the challengers.
Popper said it shows Kennedy is interested, that he acknowledges the problem and that he believes the arguments in the case have merit.
"We're pleased how this case is developing," he said.
Akina called the Friday's ruling a significant victory.
"The court would not have issued a temporary restraining order unless there was a potential for ultimate victory," he said. "We are confident in our position, and excited at the possibility that it could go before the full court."
In a statement, Akina said, "Today's ruling from Justice Kennedy is not just a victory for us, but a victory for the many Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented and overridden by government and special interests determined to create a government-recognized tribe. It's a victory for all Hawaiians -- and all Americans -- in its affirmation of racial equality. Finally, it is a victory for the aloha spirit which enables people of all backgrounds to live and work together in harmony."
According to the application for Supreme Court intervention, "Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake. The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state, as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals identified as Native Hawaiians."
The plaintiffs added that there will be "no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified. This election cannot be undone."
It was Kennedy who wrote the court opinion in Rice v. Cayetano in 2000, ruling that the state could not restrict voting eligibility in OHA elections to Native Hawaiians.
Coincidentally, current Chief Justice John Roberts argued for the state in that case.
Lilly said he didn't think Robert's involvement in Rice v. Cayetano will have a bearing if the entire court gets involved in the current case.
"Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts have both expressed themselves generally against race-based classifications," he said. "I don't see a conflict here because although the constitutional principles are the same, the facts are entirely different."
-------------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/us-supreme-court-justice-temporarily-halts-native-hawaiian-election
West Hawaii Today [Kona], November 28, 2015
U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily halts Native Hawaiian election
By Nancy Cook Lauer
West Hawaii Today
[Same story also published in Hawaii Tribune-Herald [Hilo]
KAILUA-KONA -- Supporters of a Native Hawaiian election of delegates to a February convention are urging voters to submit their ballots by the Monday deadline, despite an order Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily halting the counting of ballots or certification of winners.
Kennedy's one-sentence order was terse, saying only "respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court."
It's not uncommon for a single justice, the one assigned to a specific circuit, to unilaterally issue an order, Todd Belt, a political science professor at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, said Friday.
It's much less common for the court to act so quickly, Belt said. He said a notable example was the case of Bush v. Gore, during the contested 2000 presidential election.
"They've been known to take cases very quickly," Belt said. "It's happened in the past and generally it's done if there's some sort of inherent harm."
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians challenged the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won't be able to alter state or local laws, he said.
The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.
"This is a significant victory for us," Kelii Akina, president of the Honolulu-based Grassroot Institute and one of the plaintiffs in the case brought by Judicial Watch, said in a statement. "After a full briefing, Justice Kennedy decided that the issue was worthy of further examination, and issued the injunction we requested. We are confident in our position, and excited at the possibility that it could go before the full Court."
Akina said the ruling from Justice Kennedy was not just a victory for the plaintiffs, but "a victory for the many Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented and overridden by government and special interests determined to create a government-recognized tribe."
"It's a victory for all Hawaiians -- and all Americans -- in its affirmation of racial equality," Akina added.
Monday is the deadline for ballots to be received by email or U.S. Mail from voters who had registered for the election. Nai Aupuni, an independent group, was set up to oversee the election, convention and ratification process.
A statement issued by Nai Aupuni on Friday said the group didn't expect that creating a path for Native Hawaiians to formally discuss self-governance and create a proposed constitution would be unimpeded. Native Hawaiian self-governance has been discussed for over 120 years without tangible results, the statement said.
"Nai Aupuni encourages all voters to continue voting for the delegate candidates who will participate in the aha or constitutional convention with the goal of making self-governance recommendations for ratification by voters," the statement said. "Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and will of the candidates to take the first step in this historic process. It is every voter's kuleana to help them by voting now."
The 95,000-plus Native Hawaiian voters will help choose 40 delegates to an aha, or constitutional convention. The voters are picking from more than 200 listed candidates representing various geographical districts. Big Island voters are choosing from 32 candidates running for seven seats.
Local delegate candidates' opinions were mixed.
"I am disappointed that the Supreme Court order temporarily stops the counting ballots for aha delegates effective today," said Kailua-Kona resident Lei Kihoi in an email response.
"I encourage all voters to continue voting for your respective aha delegate. This order does not affect your right to vote in this election," said Kihoi, an attorney and Big Island representative on the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
Another delegate candidate, Moanikeala Akaka of Hilo, saw a silver lining to Kennedy's order. Akaka, a vocal proponent of Native Hawaiian rights who served 12 years on the board of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said Nai Aupuni did not take into account recommendations developed over several years by community representatives.
"There are very many flaws in this current process. It was rushed," Akaka said. "This gives us the opportunity to do this right."
----------------------
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261411-supreme-court-halts-controversial-native-hawaiian-election
The Hill [Washington D.C. newspaper devoted to Congressional activity, with nationwide readership]
November 28, 2015 online and probably for Sunday November 29 hardcopy
Supreme Court halts controversial Native Hawaiian election
By Katie Bo Williams
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted a controversial election of Native Hawaiian leadership, The Huffington Post is reporting.
The month-long selection of delegates for a constitutional convention is seen by some as a key step forward for Native Hawaiian self-determination, and by others as a racially exclusive and unconstitutional exercise.
The elected delegates would recommend a form of self-government for Native Hawaiians and determine what relationship that government should have with the United States.
Election results were due Dec. 1, with more than 100,000 Native Hawaiians eligible to vote.
A federal judge in October ruled that the election could go forward because it is a private poll conducted by a nonprofit, not one held by the state. A lawsuit filed by native and non-native residents in August argued that it is unconstitutional for the state to be involved in a race-based election.
While supporters of the election have expressed confidence that it will ultimately be declared legal, opponents called the Supreme Court order a "victory."
"First, it's a victory for Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented by government leaders trying to turn us into a government-recognized tribe," Kelii Akina, one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs and president of think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said in a statement. "Secondly, it is a victory for all people of Hawaii and the United States as it affirms racial equality."
According to the Supreme Court order, the nonprofit holding the election is prohibited from "counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending further order" from the Court.
Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous American group in the U.S. that has not yet been allowed to establish its own government, according to The Associated Press.
The U.S. Department of the Interior in September announced a framework under which the Native Hawaiian community could form a unified government and establish a formal relationship with the United States government.
Under that proposal, the Native Hawaiian community rather than the U.S. government would determine "whether to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, what form that government would take, and whether it would seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States," according to an agency release.
----------------
http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Attorney-general-speaks-on-Hawaiian-voting-order-357051671.html
WEAU 13 News [Eau Claire Wisconsin], Saturday November 28, 2015
** Ken Conklin's note: The news report on their webpage appears to actually consist of 4 separate news reports, each lasting perhaps 15 seconds of on-air time.
----
HONOLULU (AP) -- Hawaii's attorney general is expressing the state's support for Native Hawaiian self-governance after a U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily blocked votes from being counted in an election for Native Hawaiians.
State Attorney General Doug Chin says Friday's order doesn't prevent people from voting in the election, which he describes as a private process that may help chart a path toward a Native Hawaiian government.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of constitutional rights.
They appealed to the high court after lower courts allowed the election to proceed as planned.
----
One of the Native Hawaiians who sued to stop an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance says he's pleased a Supreme Court justice is blocking votes from being counted.
Kelii Akina is part of a group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians challenging the election. They say it's racially exclusive and unconstitutional.
The ruling is a victory for Native Hawaiians who don't want to be turned into a "government-recognized tribe," Akina said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
----
An attorney representing the organization leading a Native Hawaiian election says the group is disappointed a U.S. Supreme Court justice is blocking votes from being counted.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Nai Aupuni attorney Bill Meheula encourages voters to continue voting. He's confident that lower courts' rulings allowing the election and vote count to proceed are correct.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
----
A U.S. Supreme Court justice has issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights. They argue it's an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/11/todd-simmons-lift-the-stay-count-the-votes-in-hawaiian-election/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 30, 2015, EDITORIAL
Lift The Stay, Count The Votes In Hawaiian Election
Justice Kennedy's 11th-hour stay of the Nai Aupuni delegate election process allows for a full review that ought to yield a decisive victory for Native Hawaiian self-governance.
By Todd Simmons, OPINION EDITOR
If the election to select delegates for a Native Hawaiian government convention were a football game, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and its allies would be penalized for improper celebration.
The institute won a stay from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Friday in its effort to prevent the election from being certified or its votes even counted. The group argues that because only Native Hawaiians are allowed to participate in the vote, the election is unconstitutional, violating the 15th Amendment.
"We are very grateful for the wisdom of the Court in upholding the Constitution," said Kelii Akina, the Grassroot Institute president, in a press release. "(The) ruling from Justice Kennedy is not just a victory for us, but a victory for the many Native Hawaiians who have been misrepresented and overridden by government and special interests determined to create a government-recognized tribe."
Akina gushed that the ruling represented a victory for all Hawaiians, all Americans, for the principal of racial equality -- even for "the Aloha Spirit."
In truth, Kennedy's one-sentence order doesn't speak to the merits of Grassroots' case, but to the fact that significant constitutional issues are being raised and that reasonable time is needed to review them before final action.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Seabright only ruled late last month that the election is a private matter, not subject to laws governing government elections in the United States. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, rejecting the institute's emergency appeal just 11 days ago. The organization filed its second emergency appeal last Tuesday, just before Thanksgiving.
So even to imply that the order is anything other than a routine matter of the judicial branch performing a duty of review that ought to be expected of it in our system of governmental checks and balances -- much less proclaiming it a victory for all Americans -- borders on the comical. As the New York Times reported, "his order may mean only that (Kennedy) wanted to preserve the status quo over a holiday weekend until the full court could consider the matter."
Nai Aupuni Seems To Have Upper Hand
Predicting how Kennedy on his own as circuit justice for the 9th Circuit or the full court might rule in this case is a matter for legal minds. But a number of indicators point to the Nai Aupuni process as having a distinct upper hand.
First, the fact that the matter has already lost at trial and in a U.S. Court of Appeals shouldn't be underestimated. Those courts ruled on exactly the same arguments that Grassroot Institute is asking the Supreme Court to consider.
Second and more substantially, the Nai Aupuni process was created, in part, as a response to the deficiencies the Supreme Court found 15 years ago in Rice v. Cayetano. In that case, the court ruled 7-2 that the State of Hawaii couldn't restrict voting in Board of Trustees elections for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to Native Hawaiians because such a restriction violated the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Created in the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War, the 15th Amendment bans federal and state governments from using race, color or "previous condition of servitude" to deny a citizen the right to vote.
But unlike the OHA elections 15 years ago, the delegate elections aren't being conducted by the State of Hawaii (or the federal government, for that matter). Instead, they're being administered by a nonprofit created "solely to help establish a path for Hawaiian self-determination," as the Nai Aupuni website makes clear.
To prevent the formation of a Native Hawaiian government through efforts of the state or efforts of an independent, nonprofit, using voter criteria drawn from a well-known definition in federal law nearly 100 years old, is to deny Native Hawaiians any reasonable route to self governance. Justice Ted Stevens spoke eloquently to the injustice of continuing to block the path to self-governance in his dissent in Rice.
"It is a painful irony indeed to conclude that native Hawaiians are not entitled to special benefits designed to restore a measure of native self-governance because they currently lack any vestigial native government — a possibility of which history and the actions of this Nation have deprived them," he wrote.
Third, though the Supreme Court has changed significantly over the past 15 years, at least two of the players here are familiar: The majority opinion in Rice was written by Kennedy, and the attorney representing the State of Hawaii in Rice was John G. Roberts. Also known today as Chief Justice Roberts.
It would be surprising, indeed, if Kennedy were to stake out a position that the 15th Amendment protections he recognized years ago for state-run elections now also are operative for private, independent elections to a non-government entity. Roberts has a deeper familiarity with the issues at hand than likely any other member of the court, and one might reasonably expect he would be inclined to support the Nai Aupuni process going forward.
Thanks to the federal government, Native Hawaiians have had no government for 122 years, and numerous efforts to allow one to be formed have been thwarted by the U.S. government or have otherwise failed. The delegate voting that ends today represents the most significant and promising effort to date toward making it possible to address that injustice.
Rather than overly celebrating the temporary roadblock placed in that path, Grassroot Institute and its rabidly right wing allies at Judicial Watch ought to take a critical look at whether their legal actions are living up to the claim articulated by the institute on its website – that it is "deeply committed to the advancement of Native Hawaiians." Opposing the election of delegates to a convention where matters of advancement can be formally discussed makes Grassroot's commitment seem pretty hollow.
The Supreme Court ought to dispense with that opposition quickly, and preserve the integrity of the delegate selection process that has been underway for nearly a month by simply getting out of the way of a private election. Voting will conclude today, and under the timeline that has been on the table for months now, the results are scheduled to be announced tomorrow.
Count the votes.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/offthenewspremium/Supreme_Court_takes_notice_of_Hawaiis_aha.html?id=358502631
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 30, 2015
OFF THE NEWS [MINI-EDITORIAL]
The order from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to temporarily halt the processing of the Native Hawaiian self-governance election came as a post-Thanksgiving shock to its supporters and a bit of holiday cheer to the opponents.
Up to that point, the court rulings had cleared the way for the election of delegates to an 'aha, or constitutional convention.
Today is when voting for delegates is scheduled to end, but Kennedy's stay means votes can't be counted or certified. It's unclear how this ultimately will end, but it surely will delay the 'aha, if it is to be held at all.
------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30630752/native-hawaiian-voting-deadline-extended-after-us-supreme-court-justice-issues-temporary-stay-blocking-vote-counts
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), November 30, 2015, Breaking news at 8:20 AM HST
Native Hawaiian voting deadline extended after US Supreme Court justice halts vote coun
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - Days after a U.S. Supreme Court justice issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election for Native Hawaiians, the deadline will be extended to December 21, Na'i Aupuni announced in a news release Monday.
"Because voters may not have cast their ballots over concerns and questions on the recent U.S. Supreme Court's – SCOTUS -- decision to temporarily stop the vote count, we are extending the voting deadline to December 21, midnight Hawaii time," said Bill Meheula, legal counsel for Na'i Aupuni, in the statement.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday stopped the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court. But Na'i Aupuni said the SCOTUS decision temporarily stayed the vote count and certification and not the voting process.
Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting was supposed to end Monday.
"While we can immediately notify those who provided their email addresses to Election-America that the voting period is extended, it will take longer to effectively provide notice to mail-only voters, so we are extending the deadline by three weeks to provide time for voters to receive our notice and to vote," Meheula said. "As we await a decision by SCOTUS, we strongly encourage those who have not yet voted to cast their ballots."
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights. They argue it's an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.
-----------------
http://khon2.com/2015/11/30/native-hawaiian-organization-extends-voting-deadline-by-three-weeks/
KHON2 TV news, November 30, 2015, Breaking news at 8:47 AM HST
Native Hawaiian organization extends voting deadline by three weeks
By Web Staff
Na'i Aupuni, the Native Hawaiian organization with a mission to establish a path to Native Hawaiian self-determination, announced Monday it is extending the deadline to vote to midnight Monday, December 21.
The decision by U.S. Supreme court associate justice Anthony Kennedy on Friday, Nov. 27, temporarily stayed the vote count and certification of the elected delegates, but did not stop voting.
"While we can immediately notify those who provided their email addresses to Election-America that the voting period is extended, it will take longer to effectively provide notice to mail-only voters, so we are extending the deadline by three weeks to provide time for voters to receive our notice and to vote," said Bill Meheula, legal counsel for Na'i Aupuni. "As we await a decision by SCOTUS, we strongly encourage those who have not yet voted to cast their ballots."
Na'i Aupuni is confident the court will find in their favor. "We feel strongly that the Supreme Court will agree with Judge Seabright that the plaintiffs are not entitled to enjoin our election. We urge voters to use this extension to participate in this opportunity to unify Hawaiians," Meheula added.
Na'i Aupuni also wanted to remind voters the protest by some against the 'Aha process are based on unfounded fears of loss of the ceded land and any chance of independence. "Nothing is predetermined about the 'Aha. This is an opportunity to talk about all forms of government, including independence and any recommendation will be taken back to the voters," said Meheula.
For more information, visit naiaupuni.org.
---------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20151130_Hawaiian_election_voting_extended_pending_court_decision.html?id=359009131
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 30, 2015, Breaking news at 11:18 AM
Hawaiian election voting extended, pending court decision
By Associated Press
The organization guiding a Native Hawaiian election is extending voting by three weeks after a U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily blocked vote counting.
Nai Aupuni says voting is extended to Dec. 21 because voters may not have cast ballots over concerns and questions about Justice Anthony Kennedy's order.
His order on Friday also stopped the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.
The election to select delegates who will meet at a convention next year is considered a major step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance. Voting was scheduled to end Monday.
A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election. They argue Hawaii residents who don't have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights.
------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=1e0e491d77&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, news release, November 30, 2015
Extension of Race-Based Hawaiian Election Reveals Inherent Flaws
Grassroot Institute criticizes Nai Apuni for breaking trust with Hawaiians
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- Nov. 30, 2015 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute raised significant concerns about Nai Aupuni's decision to continue wasting public funds on a race-based Native Hawaiian election in light of a US Supreme Court injunction related to the case of Akina v. Hawaii which prevents the counting of ballots. In comments that highlighted the problems that have dogged the election process from its inception, Grassroot President Keli'i Akina, Ph.D. questioned whether the nation-building effort truly has the best interests of Native Hawaiians as its top priority.
"The decision to extend the election -- despite an injunction from the country's highest court preventing the counting of ballots -- continues to divert public funds from meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, education, job opportunities, and health care," stated Dr. Akina. "The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Nai Aupuni have refused to listen to the clear message that a majority of the Hawaiian people do not support this racially exclusive effort. They have now chosen to ignore a further indication from a Supreme Court justice that their process needs review. In the wake of low participation by Native Hawaiians and likely low voter turn-out, they are taking advantage of a delay they earlier claimed they could not afford."
"OHA and Nai Aupuni have broken faith with Native Hawaiians," continued Dr. Akina, who is also one of four Native Hawaiian plaintiffs in the suit filed by Judicial Watch and former Hawaii Attorney General Michael Lilly.
Dr. Akina concluded, "It is a mistake to underestimate the significance of Justice Kennedy's injunction and the compelling rationale for his intervention. Fortunately, we are confident that our position will prevail, and the state's wasteful and divisive nation-building process will come to an end."
To see all the filings and documents associated with this case, go to:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
-------------------
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-on-supreme-court-order-temporarily-halting-hawaii-from-conducting-race-based-election/
Judicial Watch press release, November 30, 2015
Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Order Temporarily Halting Hawaii from Conducting Race-based Election
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today responded to a Supreme Court order temporarily preventing the State of Hawaii "from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of" a race-based election restricted to those with Native Hawaiian blood. The order was issued on Friday, November 27 by Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The election, which is being conducted by mail-in ballots, ends today, and ballots were initially scheduled to be counted and winners certified by tomorrow, December 1, 2015. The election was conducted using a voter roll developed by Hawaii state agencies. The roll contained the names of individuals confirmed by the State to have Native Hawaiian ancestry. The election itself was made possible by a grant by the State of Hawaii of $2.6 million in public funds.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated: "We are thankful the Supreme Court put a stop to the racially-discriminatory election in Hawaii at least temporarily. The Supreme Court's action Friday halted a race-based, state-sponsored, Hawaiians-only election that violates the 'fundamental constitutional rights' of American citizens. Judicial Watch's clients beat both the State of Hawaii and the Obama administration in persuading the Supreme Court that we were likely to show that it would be in violation of civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution to conduct an election that was limited to voters of one particular race (Native Hawaiians). It is remarkable and historic that a state election has been stopped on civil rights grounds by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch's Election Integrity Project, is Judicial Watch's lead attorney on the lawsuit. Mr. Popper was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones is serving as Judicial Watch’s local counsel for the plaintiffs. H. Christopher Coates is also an attorney for the plaintiffs. Coates is an expert voting rights attorney who most recently served as Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Barack Obama. William S. Consovoy and J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC just joined as counsel as the litigation went before the Supreme Court.
Judicial Watch's attorneys filed an Urgent Motion for an Injunction Pending Appellate Review on October 29 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A panel for the Ninth Circuit denied the urgent motion on November 19. Judicial Watch immediately filed an emergency application on November 23 to the Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who oversees the Ninth Circuit. On November 27, Judicial Watch replied to Hawaii’s opposition. The day after Thanksgiving, Justice Kennedy issued the following order:
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, the responses filed thereto, and the reply,
IT IS ORDERED that the respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
On August 13 Judicial Watch filed the initial lawsuit on behalf of the five Hawaiian residents who joined with a Texas resident of Hawaiian descent to oppose voter registration requirements instituted under Act 195, which became a Hawaiian state law in 2011. Judicial Watch sought a preliminary injunction on August 28 to stop the vote that had been scheduled for November 2015, arguing that its clients would be denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Act 195 authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) to create a list of "Native Hawaiians" who would be eligible to elect delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare "governance documents" for a separate Native Hawaiian entity. After the injunction was denied by the lower court, Judicial Watch unsuccessfully sought an Urgent Motion for Injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the Ninth Circuit’s rejection on November 19, Judicial Watch sought relief from the High Court.
-------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/justice-kennedy-temporarily-blocks-vote-create-tribal-nation-hawaii/
Breitbart.com blog, November 30, 2015
Justice Kennedy Temporarily Blocks Vote To Create Tribal Nation in Hawaii
by KEN KLUKOWSKI, legal editor for Breitbart News
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is temporarily halting a month-long statewide vote in Hawaii that could eventually lead to a separate sovereign nation within America's fiftieth state.
The court's emergency action was provoked by arguments that the vote violates the U.S. Constitution.
Hawaii's state government favors allowing Hawaiians who can show they are descended from original Hawaiian natives to be able to form a sovereign self-governing system similar to a Native American tribe. President Obama's U.S. Department of the Interior also supports the idea.
A statewide vote is being held in Hawaii throughout the entire month of November. The problem arises from the fact that only people belonging to a single racial group -- indigenous Hawaiians -- are allowed to vote.
Long ago, America had a dark history of disallowing certain racial groups to vote. As a result, after the Civil War Congress proposed, and in 1870 the states ratified, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
An election that allows only people of a native Hawaiian racial group to vote could easily violate the Fifteenth Amendment. Such a restriction is also suspect under the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that all persons enjoy equal protection of the laws.
Hawaii and the election's organizers attempt to evade these constitutional requirements by claiming that this is a "private" election, thus that any race-based denial of voter participation cannot be attributed to a "State," and therefore such an election doesn't violate the exact wording of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Some Hawaiians disagreed and brought a federal lawsuit. Any statewide measure financially sponsored and publicly supported by the state's government, and which could forever change the form of government in the state, is a public and official election, not some private poll, the plaintiffs argue.
Chief Judge Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled against the plaintiffs, and allowed the election to take place. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is taking the matter on appeal, but declined to grant any sort of immediate relief in the meantime, such as ordering the state not to recognize the results once balloting is complete and all the votes have been tabulated.
The plaintiffs applied for emergency relief to the Supreme Court, with such requests going to Kennedy as the circuit justice who supervises the Ninth Circuit. On Nov. 27, Justice Kennedy ordered an immediate halt to the counting of ballots, though he did not order that the casting of ballots had to stop during the month-long process.
Instead, his two-paragraph order reads in part, "It is ordered that the respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application," pending further orders from him or from the entire Supreme Court.
This is a temporary measure, one that will allow the judiciary to determine whether or not this election is unconstitutional before it allows a certified result that may seem to carry the appearance of legitimacy. The precise wording of the order suggests that it may be for only a short duration, and that the Court may alter the order after additional consideration.
---------------
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=77879
Election Law Blog, November 30, 2015
SCOTUS: What’s Next in the Hawaii Election Case Whose Vote Counting Justice Kennedy Enjoined Friday?
by Rick Hasen
As I reported on Friday, Justice Kennedy, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, has enjoined the counting of ballots in an upcoming election in which only those with Native Hawaiian ancestry may vote. Adam Liptak reported for the NY Times on the case, and I pondered whether the order itself might affect voting, which concludes today. (After all, a person should be less likely to vote if he or she believes it is fairly likely the votes will never be counted.)
As I noted in an update to my original post, and as Lyle Denniston noted in his post at SCOTUSBlog, Justice Kennedy’s order hinted at further action. It reads: "IT IS ORDERED that the respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." Lyle writes: "Because of the holiday weekend, it may be that the full Court will consider the matter further when the Court returns to public sessions next Monday. In the meantime, the cast ballots may not be opened for counting and the outcome cannot be certified officially."
The Court's docket shows the briefing on the emergency application is complete, but Justice Kennedy's order contemplates a further order. I expect within a few days we will get another order from the entire Court, with the holiday weekend over. Justice Kennedy's order seemed intended to keep the status quo (but I think it actually could be affecting voting). It would not surprise me to see Justice Kennedy's order extended, and perhaps even the case set for full briefing and argument, although the Court may keep the stay in place and give the Ninth Circuit the first crack at a full decision in this case. Sooner or later, though, I expect the Court will address the merits in this fascinating and important case.
================
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
RETURN TO VIEW THE ENTIRE HISTORY FOR 2015 AND 2016
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2015 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
