Here is a table of contents of the articles in the order they appear lower on this webpage. To see the actual articles, scroll down.
"A Bright Line on Race" editorial in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL of October 2, 2000
Commentary in THE NATIONAL REVIEW, September 6, 2001, by Roger Clegg, Vice President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. A former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Clegg held the second highest positions in both the Civil Rights Division (1987-91) and in the Environment and Natural Resources Division (1991-93). Another article he wrote opposing the bill was published on January 7, 2004 (see below, in chronological order).
"Hawaiian Apartheid" was published in many venues by nationally syndicated conservative writer Michelle Malkin. Below is that article as it appeared in the July 27, 2001 edition of the JEWISH WORLD REVIEW:
"Hawaiian Sovereighty: 3 Alternatives, No Choice" by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., The Honolulu Advertiser, July 20, 2001
"Akaka Bill unlikely to survive challenge" by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan, The Honolulu Advertiser, June 11, 2001
"A Race to Racism? Ascribe It To Tribe" by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan, published in "Hawaii Reporter on March 21, 2003 and also published in the March 2003 issue of "In Pursuit" -- the newsletter of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
"Activists must not dictate state's future." by Ken Conklin. Published in The Honolulu Sunday Advertiser, August 10, 2003. Both independence and the Akaka bill are bad ideas. The best option is unity under a single sovereignty, equality under the law, and aloha for all. Propaganda falsehoods are corrected.
An article by nationally syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell regarding reparations for slavery is directly relevant to the Hawaiian sovereignty debates. The questions he addresses include whether it is a good idea for a racial or ethnic group to demand political power based on historical grievances, and whether it is a good idea to establish a race-based government. The article is copied in full below, as taken from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040213-082035-6812r.htm
"Bad Bill for Hawaii and All States" HUMAN EVENTS online, Jan 7, 2004 by Roger Clegg, Vice President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. A former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Clegg held the second highest positions in both the Civil Rights Division (1987-91) and in the Environment and Natural Resources Division (1991-93). This article was sent to the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, and to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources on March 4, 2004 with a cover letter from Linda Chavez, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. In 2000, Chavez was honored by the Library of Congress as a "Living Legend" for her contributions to America's cultural and historical legacy. In January 2001, Chavez was President George W. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Labor. Chavez previously served as Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1983-1985); and in 1992 she was elected by the United Nations' Human Rights Commission to serve a four-year term as U.S. Expert to the U.N. Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The article is copied in full below. In addition, it can be downloaded in its original format as a pdf file at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/AkakaClegg010704.pdf
Richard Engle is the President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. On January 29, 2004 he circulated a parody of support for the Akaka bill. He says he will support the bill if it is amended to add recognition for his own highly persecuted and under-privileged tribe of Native Slavo-Gaelics.
In October and November, 2004 the nationally circulated Washington D.C. newspaper "The Washington Times" published a series of three articles about the Hawaiian recognition bill. One of the articles was by constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, and another article was by attorneys representing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The full text of all three articles can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaWashingtonTimesOctNov2004.html
Earl Arakaki is lead plaintiff in Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit to abolish government agencies of the State of Hawai'i that provide racially exclusionary benefits to ethnic Hawaiians; namely, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. For extensive information about that lawsuit, including major legal documents and news coverage, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/arakaki2ohadhhl.html
Mr. Arakaki's complete letter to editor of October 14, 2004 is provided below. Its URL is:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/14/op/op10pletters.html
Barb Lindsay is the National Director & Spokesperson for One Nation & United Property Owners based in Redmond, Washington D.C. See more about her organization at http://www.onenationok.com and http://www.unitedpropertyowners.org or call her at (206)-660-3085 or e-mail to barb.onenationca@earthlink.net
Barb Lindsay's complete article of October 13, 2004 on the Akaka bill is provided below. It can also be found where originally published on Hawaii Reporter on-line newspaper where her article has URL:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b0c37b09-b68b-4c24-b737-9432436299c7
From December 17, 2004 through January 19, 2005 a series of four articles were published in Hawaii Reporter on-line newspaper. This series is notable because the second article was by the Attorney General of the State of Hawai'i, Mark J. Bennett, claiming that the Akaka bill would be constitutional and would be a good thing to do. The third and fourth articles were direct replies to his claims. All four articles are gathered together at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaBennett2004.html
=================
"A Bright Line on Race" editorial in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL of October 2, 2000
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB970438947863036642.htm
(Link is valid, but only works for paying subscribers)
A BRIGHT LINE ON RACE
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 this year that
non-native Hawaiians couldn't be barred from voting
for trustees overseeing the state's Office of Hawaiian
Affairs. The Constitution plainly states the right to
vote cannot be "denied or abridged" on the basis of
race. But the U.S. House of Representatives has more
politically correct ideas and last week passed a law
that would restore Hawaii's racial spoils system.
Let's hope the Senate sits on the idea.
The high court, including liberals David Souter
and Stephen Breyer, ruled that Hawaii's requirement
that the trustees be native Hawaiians and elected only
by native Hawaiians was obvious racial discrimination.
"There can be no such thing as either a creditor or a
debtor race," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "In the
eyes of government, we are just one race, it is
American."
But Hawaii's all-Democratic Congressional
delegation didn't take the court's no for an answer,
and Rep. Patsy Mink has pushed a bill that would allow
the Aloha state to, in her words, "sustain an election
process that is restrictive to only native Hawaiian
people." She and her colleagues compare their approach
to the self-governing councils that American Indians
and Eskimos have.
The comparison falls flat. The Founders
considered Indian tribes to be separate sovereigns
worthy of separate treatment. To this day, a group of
people must pass strict criteria to qualify as an
Indian tribe. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
passed a measure Thursday that would create a
framework for a "government-to-government"
relationship with a Native Hawaiian governing body,
though it doesn't go so far as to deem Hawaiians an
Indian tribe. And indeed, the 200,000 native Hawaiians
have never asked to be recognized as an Indian tribe;
they not only lack their own system of laws, but are
dispersed throughout Hawaii. If they can be accorded
special status, so too could African-Americans or
Bosnian-Americans, a path fraught with peril and
partiality.
Harold Rice, the Hawaiian cattle rancher who
challenged the state law all the way to the Supreme
Court, notes that his entire family is Hawaiian-born
going back to his great-grandparents. He says all
Hawaiians have legitimate concerns about the running
of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which has $300
million in assets and owns 200,000 acres. "But because
Mr. Rice has the wrong ancestry, he was no longer
Hawaiian and he
couldn't vote," says his attorney Ted Olson.
Race-based laws are viewed as increasingly
anachronistic in many quarters. In South Africa, a new
poll by the Helen Suzman Foundation finds that 52% of
blacks there want job decisions made strictly on merit
"even if some people don't make progress as a result,"
up from 41% in 1996.
Similarly, in the U.S. the system of racial
set-asides used by many American cities is under
attack from many blacks worried about their inherent
corruption and political favoritism. "Whatever public
good has been accomplished by government set-asides
and
joint-venture programs has been outweighed by their
propensity for scandal," writes
Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta
Constitution in a brave column last
week.
Ms. Tucker recounts the corruption of set-aside
programs in Atlanta and in other cities and argues
that they undermine support for legitimate outreach
efforts. "Even the set-aside programs that are free of
corruption are still open to criticism because they
are unfair, closed to those without political
connections," she writes. "The only way to fix
set-asides is to get rid of them."
We hope the U.S. Senate summons up even a smidgen
of Ms. Tucker's courage and rejects the House's
attempt to re-entrench racial voting in America.
After all, a great deal of effort has been expended to
try to put that behind us.
----------------------------------------
The following is taken from a September 6, 2001 article in the National Review Online by Roger Clegg, Contributing Editor. Mr. Clegg is general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity. Mr. Clegg analyzed two bills; what follows is the portion of his article devoted to the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill.
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/clegg090601.shtml
Congress is back, and it will have to deal
with two bad bills on civil-rights issues that
are making their way through the
legislature.
[One of those] bad "civil rights" bill[s] before Congress is docketed as S. 746 in the
Senate and H.R. 617 in the House. It provides for special, favored treatment
of "Native Hawaiians" among all other racial and ethnic groups in Hawaii
(and in the rest of the country, for that matter). It even awards them
quasi-sovereign status, giving them the authority to create a "governing
entity" and the right to "self-determination and self-governance," as well as
allowing them to receive "the transfer of lands, resources, and assets."
"Native Hawaiians" are defined as the "lineal descendants" of the "aboriginal,
indigenous, native people" of Hawaii. This is, therefore, clearly a racial
classification. Indeed, the Supreme Court declared an identical preference
scheme (in the voting context) to be unconstitutional last year in Rice v.
Cayetano, reasoning that "Ancestry can be a proxy for race. It is that proxy
here." The bill uses a "one-drop" rule: Anyone with any Native Hawaiian
blood is deemed a Native Hawaiian.
So why do the sponsors of S. 746/H.R. 617 think they can get away with
this blatant attempt to overturn a Supreme Court constitutional decision by
simply passing a statute? The theory behind this legislation is that Congress
can declare Native Hawaiians to be an Indian tribe, and then the special
treatment given to them will no longer be illegally racial. But the problem is
that, as a matter of historical fact and social reality, Native Hawaiians aren't
an Indian tribe, any more than Mexican Americans and Irish Americans are.
And it makes no sense for Congress to want to push an ethnic group into
being separate and semi-autonomous the way that Indian tribes have been.
The latest Census numbers also show that, on top of the historical and social
differences between Native Hawaiians and American Indians, the former
ethnic group is too mixed and too far-flung to be considered a "tribe." The
vast majority of Hawaiians with Native Hawaiian blood are of mixed
ethnicity. By contrast, the vast majority of those living on Indian
reservations consider themselves to be "pure" Indians. On the Navajo Nation
Reservation in Arizona, for instance, almost all (99 percent) of the Navajos
said they were "tribe alone" versus tribe in combination with any other racial
or ethnic group.
The latest Census figures also show that approximately four out of ten
individuals that the bill would consider "Native Hawaiians" do not even live
in Hawaii. Further, the percentage of them who are considered Native
Hawaiians only because of the bill's one-drop rule is likely much higher than
for those on the island — yet all of them are awarded privileged status by
the bill, too.
S. 756/H.R. 617 is just another racial pander, another attempt to play
identity politics, and more encouragement for some Americans to think of
themselves as something other than Americans first.
Unfortunately, it has passed out of committee in both houses — bad enough
for the Senate, and simply inexcusable in the House. It, and the racial
profiling bill, need to be watched closely.
----------------------------------------
An article entitled "Hawaiian Apartheid" was published in many venues by nationally syndicated conservative writer Michelle Malkin. Here is that article as it appeared in the July 27, 2001 edition of the JEWISH WORLD REVIEW:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin072701.asp
Jewish World Review July 27, 2001 / 7 Menachem-Av, 5761
Michelle Malkin
Apartheid for Native Hawaiians
SOME people will do anything to get their hands on federal wampum. Across the country, scam artists claiming to be oppressed "indigenous peoples" have used dubious family histories, altered documents, or shady land claims to win government recognition as Indian tribes.
Now, there's a new group that wants in on all the special rights, free benefits, and racial preferences that accompany sovereign tribal status: Native Hawaiians.
This week, the Democrat-controlled Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved a bill to give Native Hawaiians the right to create their own "governing entity" that would negotiate lucrative land deals with the U.S. - just as many cash-hungry, casino-owning Indian tribes do.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), would set up a Native Hawaiian fiefdom in Washington similar to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A "United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations" would direct federal policy. To enforce this racial separatism bureaucracy, a "Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group" would oversee a plethora of public health, welfare, and education programs for Native Hawaiians only.
What is a "Native Hawaiian" anyway? It's not a Filipino-American whose family has lived in Maui for three generations. Or a Japanese-American whose family migrated to Honolulu before World War II. Or a white American from Kealakekua Bay whose ancestors include 18th-century explorer James Cook. Natives of Hawaii are defined not by state citizenship and residency, but by blood relation to the islands' original Polynesian inhabitants.
Local government forms ask residents of the Aloha State to calculate and document the amount of Native Hawaiian blood they and their children possess. Those with the proper "blood quantum" receive special housing privileges, employment consideration, retail discounts, and exclusive schooling. The "right" kind of Hawaiians proudly carry racial passports that recall apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, and the antebellum South. Under Sen. Akaka's bill, members of the bogus Native Hawaiian "tribe" would be allowed to create a race-based voting registry of citizens and to investigate individuals' backgrounds to verify their blood purity.
Giving Native Hawaiians Indian tribal-like status and immunity from federal civil rights laws is historically absurd and legally treacherous. At no time in their history have Native Hawaiians organized, acted, or existed as a tribe. When the U.S. annexed Hawaii, all of its citizens - native and non-native -- became Americans. Unlike legitimate Indian tribes that retained quasi-sovereign powers after ceding their lands to the U.S., no group of Native Hawaiians ever established a treaty right to self-governance and exemption from our federal Constitution.
Only last year did a legal challenge to one of Hawaii's patently unconstitutional race-based programs finally reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In Rice v. Cayetano, the high court struck down the state's Hawaiian-only restriction for voting in elections for a state agency that administers hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked exclusively for natives. The court ruled that the racial restriction clearly violated the Fifteenth Amendment and noted that "it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities."
But the restless natives in Hawaii are not about to let the U.S. Constitution get in the way of their racial spoils racket. Sen. Akaka's bill is on its way to the Senate floor. And though it would perpetuate the same illegal race-based voting scheme just nullified by the Supreme Court, the legislation's prospects of passing are considerably greater than a snowball's chance in a flaming luau pit. Hawaii Republicans (an endangered species) refuse to oppose the bill publicly; timid Republican leaders in Washington (an overabundant species) don't have the stomach to challenge these zealous minority Balkanizers.
Moreover, the full Senate has already approved $35 million for Native Hawaiian-only education programs, including money for construction of Native Hawaiian-only public schools, and there is unquestioning bipartisan support for reauthorizing several Native Hawaiian-only health programs.
If the Akaka bill becomes law, you can bet that every other aggreived racial and ethnic group will be running to claim tribal-like "sovereignty" and cash in on their manufactured status as separate foreign governments.
United States of America?
Aloha.
----------------------------------------
Unedited article as submitted to the Honolulu Advertiser; shortened article as published comes after.
Title: Hawaiian Sovereighty: 3 Alternatives, No Choice
Hawai'i stands at a crossroads. Sovereignty is for ALL Hawai'i's people collectively to decide. There are three alternatives, but no choice is offered.
Ethnic nationalism is the path to make all Hawai'i an independent nation. Only those with Hawaiian blood get full voting and property rights. 80% of our people become second-class citizens. The Native Hawaiian Convention, and the Nation of Hawai'i, give racially-defined Hawaiians exclusive voting and property rights in important areas, and guaranteed supremacy overall. This path would make Hawai'i look like Zimbabwe or Fiji. Many independence activists hide their proposals, knowing the public would not approve. Some say people of Asian and European ancestry have no true homeland here unless they get "naturalized," even though many generations were born here.
Racial separatism is the path currently followed by powerful Hawaiian institutions -- OHA ($400 Million), Bishop Estate (perhaps $10 Billion), DHHL (203,000 acres with plantation-style control of families on land they can never own). They keep out the 80% of people with no Hawaiian blood. Service providers, banks, law firms, and the media must kow-tow to their power or lose lucrative contracts in over 160 federal and state racial entitlement programs. That's why both political parties and the legislature endorse Hawaiian sovereignty. The Akaka bill would protect all those racially separatist programs by creating an Indian tribe where there never were tribes. It is unconstitutional. It mocks both Hawaiians and real Indians. But our Hawaiian establishment, whose wealth and power depend on claiming to speak for poor Hawaiians, have millions to spend on advertising and political lobbying.
The third sovereignty alternative is the path of equality and unity, with aloha for all. We are equal in the eyes of God(s), and entitled to equality under law. We are a rainbow of diverse cultures and ethnicities unified by the Aloha Spirit. We maintain a unified sovereignty as a single State of Hawai'i within the United States of America. We appreciate, respect, and celebrate our racial and cultural differences, encouraging all to flourish under the umbrella of equal rights. Needy people get government help based solely on need, not race. This dream of civil rights activists is closer to reality in Hawai'i than anywhere else on earth -- unless we allow ethnic nationalists and racial separatists to ruin it.
There is no historical, legal, or moral justification for race-based political sovereignty in Hawai'i. See https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty
But setting aside historical grievances and claims of victimhood; beginning from where we are today, which alternative will we choose?
No choice is offered. Ethnic nationalists work internationally portraying Hawai'i as a non-self-governing colony of the U.S. under military occupation. They want the U.N. to supervise an election where only ethnic Hawaiians could vote, to rip the 50th star off the flag. Racial separatists lobby Congress, trying to ram the Akaka bill down our throats. Imagine having a patchwork of racial enclaves scattered everywhere, constant battles over jurisdiction, businesses exempt from taxes and regulations (under the phony Akaka Kanaka tribe) forcing nearby tax-paying competitors out of business. People using race as the basis for getting government help. Our society ripped apart. Hawai'i's path to Bosnia.
We the people of Hawai'i should assert our collective right to choose the Aloha alternative of equality and unity. We must send a barrage of letters, faxes, and phone calls to Senators and Representatives from other States (forget the Dans!). Tell them the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill S.746/H.R.617 is extremely controversial. Tell them it is unconstitutional. Beg them to rescue us from our own pork-obsessed delegation. Tell them that if Congress supports racial separatism for Hawai'i, it will set a precedent for rewarding ethnic strife in their own States. The surest way for evil to triumph is for good people to stay silent and do nothing.
-------------------------------
The above article as published in the Honolulu Advertiser
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jul/20/op/op04a.html
Posted on: Friday, July 20, 2001
Island Voices
No real sovereignty choice offered
By Kenneth Conklin
Writer and researcher
Hawai'i stands at a crossroads. Sovereignty is for all of Hawai'i's people collectively to decide. There are three alternatives, but no choice is
offered.
• Ethnic nationalism is the path to make Hawai'i an independent nation. Under this alternative, only those with Hawaiian blood would get
full voting and property rights. Eighty percent of our people would become second-class citizens. The Native Hawaiian Convention and the
Nation of Hawai'i give racially defined Hawaiians exclusive voting and property rights in important areas and guaranteed supremacy
overall.
This path would make Hawai'i look like Zimbabwe or Fiji. Many independence activists hide their proposals, knowing the public would
not approve. Some say people of Asian and European ancestry have no true homeland here unless they get "naturalized," even though many
generations were born here.
• Racial separatism is the path followed by powerful Hawaiian institutions — the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Bishop Estate, Department
of Hawaiian Homelands. They keep out the 80 percent of people with no Hawaiian blood.
Service providers, banks, law firms and the media must kowtow to their power or lose lucrative contracts in more than 160 federal and
state racial entitlement programs. That's why both political parties and the Legislature endorse Hawaiian sovereignty. Indeed, the Akaka
bill would protect all those racially separatist programs by creating an Indian tribe where there never were tribes.
It is unconstitutional. It mocks both Hawaiians and real Indians. But our Hawaiian establishment, whose wealth and power depend on
claiming to speak for poor Hawaiians, have millions of dollars to spend on advertising and political lobbying.
• The third sovereignty alternative is the path of equality and unity, with aloha for all.
We are equal in the eyes of God(s) and entitled to equality under law. We are a rainbow of diverse cultures and ethnicities unified by the
aloha spirit. We maintain a unified sovereignty as a single state of Hawai'i within the United States of America. We appreciate, respect and
celebrate our racial and cultural differences, encouraging all to flourish under the umbrella of equal rights.
Needy people get government help based solely on need, not race. This dream of civil rights activists is closer to reality in Hawai'i than
anywhere else on earth — unless we allow ethnic nationalists and racial separatists to ruin it.
There is no historical, legal, or moral justification for race-based political sovereignty in Hawai'i. (See https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/)
But setting aside historical grievances and claims of victimhood, which alternative will we choose?
Ethnic nationalists work to portray Hawai'i as a nonself-governing colony of the United States under military occupation. They want the
United Nations to supervise an election where only ethnic Hawaiians could vote, to rip the 50th star off the flag. Racial separatists lobby
Congress, trying to ram the Akaka bill down our throats.
Imagine having a patchwork of racial enclaves scattered everywhere, constant battles over jurisdiction and businesses exempt from taxes
and regulations, forcing nearby tax-paying competitors out of business.
We, the people of Hawai'i, should assert our collective right to choose the aloha alternative of equality and unity. We must send a barrage
of letters, faxes and phone calls to senators and representatives from other states (forget the Dans). We must tell them that the Native
Hawaiian Recognition Bill is extremely controversial, that it is unconstitutional. We must beg them to rescue us from our own
pork-obsessed delegation.
We must tell them that, if Congress supports racial separatism for Hawai'i, it will set a precedent for rewarding ethnic strife in their own
states.
The surest way for evil to triumph is for good people to stay silent and do nothing.
Kenneth Conklin ran unsuccessfully for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs board of trustees in the 2000 elections.
-------------------
On April 25, 2004 the Honolulu Advertiser did its usual thing, publishing side-by-side "opposing" viewpoints: one favoring the Akaka bill, and the other opposing the Akaka bill on the grounds it would interfere with Hawaiian independence. But it is not necessary to choose between these two evils, because there is a third choice -- the aloha alternative of unity and equality. The following article was published on April 26, 2004 in Hawaii Reporter, and can nowe be found on this website:
"Three Choices For Hawai'i's Future: Akaka Bill vs. Independence vs. Unity and Equality"
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/akakavsindepvsunityequality.html
--------------------------------
Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan, The Honolulu Advertiser, June 11, 2001
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jun/11/op/op05a.html
Island Voices
Akaka Bill unlikely to survive challenge
By Paul Sullivan
An O‘ahu attorney
In his Island Voices commentary of June 1, attorney H.K. Bruss Keppeler disagrees with those who say that the Akaka Bill will be found
to be unconstitutional. He predicts that "the Hawaiians' cherished trusts and benefits will be protected," and he encourages those who
believe otherwise to "hit the books," including the U.S. Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision.
Everyone should read the Rice decision. It's not written just for lawyers or in legal jargon. It's written in straight-forward language and it's
intended for all the people of Hawai'i as a guide to future political decisions. It's available on the Web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZS.html
But a careful reading of the Rice decision does not support Keppeler's optimistic views. Instead, it indicates that the Akaka Bill will not
survive a constitutional challenge.
At the heart of the issue is the question of race. The Rice decision focused on the definitions of "Hawaiian" and "native Hawaiian" in
OHA's governing statutes.It held that the definition of "Hawaiian" (a person with at least one pre-1778 Hawaiian ancestor) created a "racial"
classification. It said that "the State, in enacting the legislation before us, has used ancestry as a racial definition and for a racial purpose."
The Supreme Court is not favorably disposed toward race-conscious legislation. It has accepted it only reluctantly and only in
circumstances of grave necessity.The court has ruled that racial distinctions in state or federal law must pass "strict scrutiny;" that is, they
must be justified by a "compelling interest" and be "narrowly tailored" in duration and effect to achieve their purpose.
The court in Rice made no secret of its attitude toward racially discriminatory laws. Quoting from one of the Japanese internment cases, it
said that "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions
are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
It pointed out that "one of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a
person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities." It said: "Ancestral tracing of this sort achieves
its purpose by creating a legal category which employs the same mechanisms, and causes the same injuries, as laws or statutes that use race
by name."
By holding that the definition of "Hawaiian" was racial, the court gave clear warning that other laws giving special privileges to persons of
Hawaiian ancestry would be tested by the demanding standards applicable to race-conscious legislation.
Perhaps anticipating this, proponents of these laws have always asserted, as Keppeler does in his commentary, that the preferences are like
those for Indian tribes and their members, which the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Morton vs. Mancari upheld as "political" rather
than racial because they are grounded in the historical government-to-government "special relationship" between the United States and the
Indian tribes. Indeed, the State of Hawai'i relied heavily on this argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice.
But the Supreme Court found the argument unpersuasive. It did not reject it outright, but it called it "difficult territory" and expressed
serious reservations about its merits.
The fact that the court said anything at all about the argument is significant. The court could have expressed no opinion on it. It reached its
decision on other grounds. The court usually keeps its discussions as narrow as possible. But in Rice, the court went out of its way to
highlight the problems with the argument that Native Hawaiians share the special constitutional status of Indian tribes and their members.
The court's discussion of this argument is hardly a helpful guide toward a "safe harbor," as Keppeler suggests. Instead, it's a warning. In
essence, the court said "Don't go there."
But the Akaka Bill goes directly there. It carves out a segment of Hawai'i's population by a classification already determined to be "racial"
and proposes to give that racially defined group a "political relationship" with the United States as if it were an Indian tribe.
Does Congress have the constitutional power to do that? As Keppeler points out, the Constitution gives the federal government authority
to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. That power is extensive, but it is not unlimited. In U.S. vs. Sandoval, the court said that while
Congress has broad power to deal with Indian tribes and to determine what entities are in fact tribes, "it is not meant by this that Congress
may bring a community or body of people within the range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe[.]"Yet the Akaka Bill
proposes to do exactly that.
Anyone who has lived in Hawai'i knows there is no "Native Hawaiian tribe" here, or anything resembling a tribe. For generations,
Hawaiians have intermarried and intermingled with all the state's other ethnic groups. They are fully integrated into the state's social,
economic and political life.
Contrary to the findings of the Akaka Bill, people of Hawaiian ancestry do not live separately and apart from the rest of the state's people.
They are not defined or identified by a territory, a common language or a religion different from that of the rest of the state's population,
and they have no governing entity other than Hawai'i's state and municipal governments. In fact, the word "they" really doesn't apply
except in the context of racial definitions such as those in the OHA governing statutes and in S. 746. In every way that matters to the
Constitution, "they" are "us," fellow citizens whose only political relationship with the United States is our shared U.S. citizenship.
We must assume these facts will be made known during any constitutional challenge to the bill. Would the court nonetheless feel
compelled to abide by a congressional declaration that Native Hawaiians are like Indians and can be recognized as a tribe? Consider how
the Court in Rice dealt with the so-called the Apology Resolution, P.L. 103-150. That resolution offered an extensive (and debatable)
summary of Hawaiian history, including the overthrow of the monarchy. The Rice decision, too, began with a summary of Hawai'i's
history, including the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy. But the court obviously did not feel bound by the Apology Resolution and its
lurid version of Hawai'i's history. It made its own study and came to far more moderate and balanced conclusions. Although it referred to
numerous historical sources, it never once cited the Apology Resolution as historical authority.
So if the court were asked to render an opinion on the Akaka Bill, it would likely reach its own conclusions about the factual findings in
that bill as well as the bill's interpretation of the Constitution. If it does that, it is also likely to decide that by enacting the Akaka Bill,
Congress had embarked on an unconstitutional venture into racial politics.
--------------------------------
On March 21, 2003 an important article by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan was published in "Hawai'i Reporter," an on-line newspaper produced by Malia Zimmerman. The article was also published in the March 2003 issue of "In Pursuit" -- the newsletter of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. The article is entitled: "A Race to Racism? Ascribe It To Tribe" For the text of the article, and links to both published versions, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sullivanracetoracism.html
--------------------------------
On August 10, 2003 Ken Conklin published a 1400 word op-ed article in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser, entitled "Activists must not dictate state's future." The article notes that Hawai'i's TV, radio, and newspapers highlight a choice between independence vs. the Akaka bill, implying Hawai'i must have one or the other. But the best option is unity under a single sovereignty, equality under the law, and aloha for all. Propaganda falsehoods are corrected. The article is at:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Aug/10/op/op11a.html
--------------------------------
The following article is directly relevant to the Hawaiian sovereignty debates. The question is whether it is a good idea for a racial or ethnic group to demand political power based on historical grievances, and whether it is a good idea to establish a race-based government. The author, Thomas Sowell, is African-American (his picture accompanied his article in the newspaper) and is very strongly opposed to reparations for slavery (the idea that the U.S. should pay money and land to African-Americans because of slavery in the United States 140 years ago). Mr. Sowell's analysis is directly relevant to the claim that the United States should pass the Akaka bill as a form of reparations to ethnic Hawaiians for the small U.S. role in the overthrow of the multiracial Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1893
This article by Thomas Sowell was published in the Washington Times newspaper of February 14, 2004.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040213-082035-6812r.htm
The brotherhood of man
By Thomas Sowell
Those of us who believe in the brotherhood of man have to be able to accept the negative, as well as the positive, aspects of that belief.
For example, a stupid and counterproductive idea that catches the fancy of one part of the human race in one part of the w
One such dangerous notion is the idea of being able to undo the wrongs of history. History is so full of wrongs that there are almost unlimited ways to go wrong trying to correct them.
Back in the 17th century, when Czech nobles revolted against the Hapsburg Empire, the crushing of their rebellion was followed by a confiscation of their lands, which were then transferred to German nobles. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that episode, the Czechs thought it was wrong.
Fast forward now to the 20th century. After the First World War, the Hapsburg Empire was dismembered and the new state of Czechoslovakia created. One of its national aspirations was expressed by one historian as being "to correct social injustice" and to "put right the historic wrongs of the 17th century."
Czechs were now to get preferential treatment, at the expense of the country's German minority. The Germans, of course, objected. Their outraged protests were suppressed by force, and some of them were shot and killed in the process.
The net result was a polarized country with an embittered minority in the 20th century — all because of trying to right the wrongs of the 17th century.
No matter who was right and who was wrong in the 17th century, they were all dead and nothing within the power of man could bring them justice in this world. Symbolic restitution could only create new problems among the living.
The German minority, living in the region of Czechoslovakia adjacent to Germany, became so alienated they eventually demanded their region be transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany.
By this time, the Nazis had come to power in Germany and Adolf Hitler backed this demand. This provoked an international crisis resolved in 1938 when Britain and France caved in to Hitler and backed the German demands, leaving the Czechs with no choice but to trade land for an illusory peace.
Within months of getting part of Czechoslovakia, Hitler took all the rest. Within the conquered country, the shoe was now on the other foot and the German minority lorded it over the Czechs, backed by the power and the racial ideology of the Nazi conquerors. Past injustices again led to present injustices.
When Germany lost the war, the German minority within Czechoslovakia paid the price. They were expelled en masse, suddenly and brutally, with thousands of German men, women and children dying in the process.
Winston Churchill protested in vain against these expulsions "on a scale grievous and undreamed-of" and said, "we must banish revenge against an entire race from our minds."
Now, in the 21st century, those Germans and their descendants are still trying to get the right to return to the Czech Republic and reclaim homes and property they had been forced to abandon during the mass expulsions.
Relations between today's Germany and today's Czech Republic — both consisting mostly of people not even born when any of these events happened — are strained because of unresolved problems growing out of attempts to right the wrongs of the 17th century.
The brotherhood of man means these were not just the special peculiarities of Czechs and Germans. Halfway around the world, Hindu extremists in India are trying to undo part of their history under Muslim conquerors in centuries past.
Bombay has been renamed Mumbai as part of a symbolic restitution. Far uglier things have also been done, including bloody riots and hideous atrocities costing many innocent lives among both Hindus and Muslims, whether men, women or children.
Americans hearing the siren song of collective restitution today might well look at what such attempts at restitution have produced in other places and times, especially if they believe in the brotherhood of man.
Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
--------------------------------
"Bad Bill for Hawaii and All States" HUMAN EVENTS online, Jan 7, 2004 by Roger Clegg, Vice President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. A former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Clegg held the second highest positions in both the Civil Rights Division (1987-91) and in the Environment and Natural Resources Division (1991-93). This article was sent to the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, and to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources on March 4, 2004 with a cover letter from Linda Chavez, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. In 2000, Chavez was honored by the Library of Congress as a "Living Legend" for her contributions to America's cultural and historical legacy. In January 2001, Chavez was President George W. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Labor. Chavez previously served as Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1983-1985); and in 1992 she was elected by the United Nations' Human Rights Commission to serve a four-year term as U.S. Expert to the U.N. Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The article is copied in full below. In addition, it can be downloaded in its original format as a pdf file at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/AkakaClegg010704.pdf
** Here is the short cover-letter by Linda Chavez: **
March 4, 2004
Dear Representative:
We are writing to you because you are a member of the House Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over H.R. 665. Enclosed is an article that recently appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, explaining why this bill is bad legislation. Hawaii should not be divided into two different racial jurisdictions; the federal government should not be singling some racial groups out for special treatment.
Sincerely,
Linda Chavez
cc: The Honorable John Ashcroft
The Honorable Gale Norton
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Enclosure
** Here is the article by Roger Clegg **
"Bad Bill for Hawaii and All States"
by Roger Clegg
HUMAN EVENTS online, Jan 7, 2004
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2755
** internet availability only for paid subscribers **
Pending in both houses of Congress is legislation proposed by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) that would recognize Native Hawaiians — those descended from the islands' aboriginal inhabitants — as an Indian tribe. What's behind this?
Politicians in Hawaii would like to be able to single out Native Hawaiians for
special favors and programs. This appears to be true for both parties, with the Republican governor of the state, Linda Lingle, currently leading the lobbying efforts, along with some high-powered and high-priced D.C. lobbying firms.
As Ken Conklin, a Hawaiian opposing the bill, recently wrote: "Our governor, Legislature and congressional delegation aggressively push the Akaka bill….They say it's righteous; but mostly it's pork-barrel politics. More than 160 racially exclusionary programs funnel big bucks from Washington to Hawaii, giving wealth and power to ‘connected' individuals and corporations. Unconstitutional? Racial balkanization? Don't worry. Our friends will be rich."
The problem confronting these politicians is that the Supreme Court made clear three years ago in Rice v. Cayetano that "Native Hawaiians" is an ethnic classification, and ethnic classifications are presumptively unconstitutional. If challenged, they will be struck down unless a judge finds that they pass "strict scrutiny" — the toughest constitutional standard — and so giveaway programs that use this classification are very vulnerable.
Preferences for Indian tribes, on the other hand, are treated more deferentially by the courts, because of another Supreme Court decision, Morton v. Mancari, which held in 1974 that such classifications may be viewed as not racial, but political. This is plausible, at least in some circumstances: If the government has been making treaties with a group
of people then it is true that that group has a political identity (even if it also has a racial and ethnic one), and perhaps the courts would be justified in declining to assume that a preference for the group was just racially motivated.
The way out of the box into which Rice v. Cayetano placed the Hawaiian
politicians is, therefore, obvious: Let's just get Congress to pass a law that magically turns Native Hawaiians into an Indian tribe. If we turn them into a political entity, then when we give them preferential treatment, it will no longer trigger "strict scrutiny." And that is what the Akaka bill does.
The Akaka bill (S. 344 and H.R. 665) asserts that the federal government "has a special political and legal responsibility to promote the welfare of Native Hawaiians" (as opposed to everyone else in Hawaii). It recognizes for Native Hawaiians alone "an inherent right to autonomy in their internal affairs," "an inherent right to self-determination and self-governance," "the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing entity," and "the right to become economically self-sufficient." In short, it allows them to organize themselves as and to become an Indian tribe.
There are two problems with this approach, both of them obvious and
insurmountable.
In the first place, Congress can't just turn a racial group into a political
group by saying so. One recalls Lincoln's famous joke, "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Just four— calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." Could Congress turn African Americans in the District of Columbia, or the Irish in Massachusetts, or Latinos in Texas, into political rather than racial entities — into Indian tribes — simply by so decreeing? Of course not.
The U.S. Department of Interior has a well-developed set of regulations for
determining whether an "Indian group" is an "Indi an tribe." The focus of those regulations is on whether the group is already a distinct political community, not whether it might become one once recognized. Native Hawaiians — which the Akaka bill defines as including anyone who has even one drop of "aboriginal, indigenous" blood — do not come close to passing muster under the DOI regulations.
The second problem is, Why should Congress WANT to facilitate ethnic
discrimination, which is all the Akaka bill is designed to do? Far from simply
recognizing an autonomy that already exists, the Akaka bill aims to ENCOURAGE racial separation and balkanization. It's bad enough that Hawaiian politicians should be so enthusiastic about this poisonous nonsense — at least one in five Hawaiians would be eligible to join this "tribe" — but they have the excuse that they are just playing politics. For the Senators and Representatives from the other 49 states — and for the President —
there is no excuse.
The Senate's committee report on the bill discusses the socioeconomic problems of Native Hawaiians, but ignores the fact that many non–Native Hawaiians have socioeconomic problems, too, and that many Native Hawaiians are perfectly well off. We don't limit mainland poverty programs to certain racial groups that have high rates of
poverty, but allow any poor person, of whatever skin color, to participate; the same approach should be taken in Hawaii.
Yet, astonishingly, in years past the bill has gotten out of both its House and
Senate committees and has been kept from becoming law principally because a few Senators have been willing to put a hold on the bill. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), to his great credit, recently wrote clearly and eloquently against the bill in a detailed letter to a constituent, as reported in the Honolulu Advertiser.
The progress of the bill has also been checked because the Justice Department has pointed out the constitutional problems with this racialist legislation. But the Bush administration has as an uneven record in this area, particularly when political pressure is brought to bear.
It's a scary situation.
No bill is an island, and the principles at stake here are not limited to Hawaii.
• Roger Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Virginia.
--------------------------------
Richard Engle is the President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (a nationwide organization of Republican elected members of state legislatures). He also serves as Oklahoma's Commissioner of Archives and Records and served as Oklahoma's Rules Committeeman to the 2000
Republican National Convention. He can be reached at Engle@MrGOP.com The National Federation of Republican Assemblies website is
http://www.gopwing.com/
http://www.gopwing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=213
On Thursday, January 29, 2004, Mr. Engle circulated the following statement:
Support the Akaka Bill!
One amendment will make it palatable to this conservative leader.
Senator Akaka, the Democrat from Hawaii and Governor
Lingle, the RINO Republican from Hawaii are working
hard to get S344 (HR 665 in the House) passed so that
"Native" Hawaiians can be recognized as what is
effectively an Indian tribe. Many conservatives decry
creating another race based pseudo government for the
purpose of pouring largesse in amounts and in manners
that exceed the current level of wasteful and
unconstitutional largesse. I for one could argue in
its favor.
The bill intends to allow for self-government,
self-determination, and economic self-sufficiency. As
we all know these are virtuous goals and without this
bill the people it addresses do not have and cannot
attain any of those three.
My amendment, which would make it acceptable, would be
to add recognition for my highly persecuted and
under-privileged tribe.
I come from the tribe of Native Slavo-Gaelics. I grew
up in a large Slavo-Gaelic community. My ancestors
were forced to flee from their European homelands and
being drawn together by a common ancient religion
(Roman Catholic) they amalgamated themselves into a
coherent community.
You see, I am Polish and Irish. Slavo-Gaelic people
are not just Polish or Irish, they are Polish and
Irish. We are the brunt of persecution (jokes) about
being stingy and excessive alcohol users. We also
tend to be outcast among some who are only Polish or
Irish Americans. Imagine the big boned, dark haired,
football-playing guy named Sean O'Grady. How about
the slender crimson haired lass with the name of
Orzelska Wiengielewska? My childhood neighborhood in
South Chicago was full of examples like this. Any
people who can spell "corned beef" in the Cyrillic
alphabet deserve to be recognized.
You need to understand that I want self-government,
self-determination, and most of all economic
self-sufficiency no matter how much it costs you to
give it to me!
I think that with enough work a few other "native"
groups could weasel their way into this bill. Who
would deny that African Americans are a coherent group
in need of the aforementioned ‘three self' virtues?
Come to think of it, anyone could tie themselves to
this tree. Once we recognize all these native groups
for special rights and privileges perhaps we should
recognize "Native Non-Americans" (aka. illegal
immigrants) as well.
Or, we could simply recall that the premise of our
Republic is the creed that "all men are created
equal".
================================
In October and November, 2004 the nationally circulated Washington D.C. newspaper "The Washington Times" published a series of three articles about the Hawaiian recognition bill. The full text of all three articles can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaWashingtonTimesOctNov2004.html
(a) October 5, 2004: "A Race-Based Drift?" by columnist Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041004-103825-2598r.htm
(b) November 28, 2004: "Hawaii bill in line with U.S. political tradition" This response to Mr. Fein's article was published by a team of three lawyers after a delay of more than six weeks, although a similar reply by the same three lawyers was published in the Honolulu Advertiser of October 17, 2004. Sherry P. Broder is an attorney in private practice who has litigated many lawsuits for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for about twenty years. Her husband, Jon M. Van Dyke, is a professor of Constitutional and International Law at the University of Hawai'i law school; he has written numerous essays and legal documents for OHA and serves as occasional public spokesman for OHA in the media and the Legislature. Melody McKenzie is an attorney who wrote a handbook on Native Hawaiian rights many years ago, and has served as spokesman for OHA in various public forums.
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041127-095623-2165r.htm
(c) November 30, 2004: "Playing Racial Politics in Hawaii" This reply to the November 28 article by the three OHA attorneys was published two days later by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. Dr. Conklin maintains a large website entitled "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Thinking Carefully About It" and has been vigorously opposing the Hawaiian recognition bill since it was first introduced in summer 2000. His article in the Washington Times is at:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041129-095028-6916r.htm
The full text of all three articles can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaWashingtonTimesOctNov2004.html
-----------------
Earl Arakaki is lead plaintiff in Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit to abolish government agencies of the State of Hawai'i that provide racially exclusionary benefits to ethnic Hawaiians; namely, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. For extensive information about that lawsuit, including major legal documents and news coverage, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/arakaki2ohadhhl.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/14/op/op10pletters.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, October 14, 2004
Letters to the Editor
Preferential laws are wrong
Aloha is for everyone, not just those of one ancestry.
by Earl Arakaki
Thanks to Bruce Fein for his powerful commentary of Oct. 10 opposing the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2004, the so-called Akaka bill. His most important point: While this bill is bad for Hawai'i, it would be disastrous for America.
Fein writes, "Like Adolf Hitler's blood tests for Jews, a minuscule percentage of Native Hawaiian ancestry would establish an entitlement to participate in the new, racially exclusive domain."
In Hawai'i, we have Hawaiian immersion schools paid for with public funds, with all subjects taught exclusively in the Hawaiian language and concentrating on Hawaiian culture, and private schools exclusively for Native Hawaiians.
Goebbels used motion pictures to further propaganda. In Hawai'i, propaganda is spread via the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs newsletter, broadcast via public television, and more recently in prime time on Hawai'i's NBC television affiliate.
Under Hitler and Goebbels, the Nazis created an official registry, excluding Jews, gypsies, handicapped and those not meeting special requirements of Aryan ancestry. In Hawai'i, proponents of the Akaka bill are now signing up those with Native Hawaiian ancestry to establish the citizenry to create a new Hawaiian nation.
Aug. 21 is Hawai'i statehood admission day, a state holiday. In 1959, over 94 percent voted yes for statehood. In recent years, public officials of both major political parties have done little to acknowledge, proclaim or celebrate Statehood Day. It appears they are embarrassed to be American or fear "offending" Native Hawaiians, seen as the "swing vote."
However, there are citizens presently fighting in the courts for equal rights for all of Hawai'i's citizens. Fourteen plaintiffs of various ancestries reflecting a broad cross-section of Hawai'i's residents will be before the Ninth Circuit Court on Nov. 1 (Arakaki v. Lingle) demanding the abolishment of government-run race-based preferential laws that now give those possessing Hawaiian blood homesteads and revenues from public lands, special schools, loans, elderly care and other benefits denied to those not of the favored ancestry.
Because these 14 citizens are demanding equal rights for all, some Native Hawaiians and Hawai'i's congressional delegation are spearheading the Akaka bill, hoping to circumvent not only the U.S. Constitution, but also established Bureau of Indian Affairs procedures and criteria for American Indian tribal recognition. This new "tribe" would have a potential membership of over 400,000, far larger than any existing tribe.
The Akaka bill would be unfair to real Indian tribes, be a recipe for permanent racial conflict in Hawai'i, diminish the territory and sovereignty of the state of Hawai'i, and, as Bruce Fein says, be the beginning of the end for the "indivisible Union composed of indestructible states" envisioned by the U.S. Constitution and secured by so much sacrifice in the Civil War.
Earl Arakaki
'Ewa Beach
(Earl Arakaki is one of the plaintiffs in Arakaki v. Lingle, No. 04-15306 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, scheduled for oral argument Nov. 1, 2004.)
-----------------
Barb Lindsay is the National Director & Spokesperson for One Nation & United Property Owners based in Redmond, Washington D.C. See more about her organization at http://www.onenationok.com and http://www.unitedpropertyowners.org or call her at (206)-660-3085 or e-mail to barb.onenationca@earthlink.net
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b0c37b09-b68b-4c24-b737-9432436299c7
Hawaii Reporter (on-line), October 13, 2004
Say No To Dividing Hawaii With Akaka Bill
By Barb Lindsay
Do people in Hawaii understand what it will mean if a new tribal government is created? That Congress will be giving ONE ethnic group "special privilege by birthright" that will be denied to ALL others? That everyone else's sales taxes and property taxes will have to be increased so that ethnic Hawaiians could become tax-exempt? That ONLY ethnic Hawaiians would have free cradle-to-grave health care, paid for by the taxpayers - - but denied to ALL others? That the State will lose lands from its sovereign land base, never to be returned for use by ALL citizens? That Congress would essentially be creating a new "Royalty" in Hawaii? That trying to supposedly "right an old wrong" will simply be creating a new class of victims - - innocent Hawaiian citizens of all other races who have done NO wrong, but who would foot the costs for this federal government boondoggle?
It's time for you to editorially discuss these important issues, we believe, before it's too late. Small business owners are the ones who will bear the biggest burden because ONLY ethnic Hawaiian businesses will be able to avoid state and local tax collection/remission, thereby being able to offer much lower pricing on their products and services. Time and again we see too many local businesses suffer and close their doors when tribes open nearby. Monopolies are the inevitable result because law-abiding, non-tribal retailers simply cannot compete! Is this the future that would keep Hawaii "in the black" and not facing from the huge state budget deficits so many other states have? ALL the states with the largest number of tax-exempt tribal casinos and tax-evading tribal businesses now have large and growing deficits: New York, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and Oklahoma.
Ours are nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations representing over 300,000 concerned property owners, hundreds of community groups, trade associations, local governments, small businesses, and elected officials in all fifty states across America. Our nationwide membership includes a number of enrolled tribal members who join us in fighting the devastation caused to states, local communities, and small businesses when so-called "indigenous" groups get federal recognition as Indian tribes. We've joined together in a collective effort to seek reform of tragically flawed federal Indian policy for the benefit of Indians and non-Indians alike. Gambling expansion is one of the biggest areas of urgent concern to our members across America. We would truly hate to see Hawaii invaded by the enormously negative impacts of gambling casinos! Tribes in a number of other states repeatedly promised "no casinos" then opened them anyway - - AFTER gaining sovereignty. We urge local citizens to speak out now in opposition to this terribly misguided Akaka bill, currently pending in the U.S. Senate. Don't let politicians steal away the "Aloha" spirit from the Islands by dividing your citizenry up by ethnicity and creating needless divisiveness for generations to come! Equality under the law must prevail, if we are to continue as the nation of E pluribus Unum, "Out of Many, One."
------------
A nearly identical letter to editor, tailored by Barb Lindsay for an audience of university students, was published in the University of Hawaii student newspaper "Ka Leo" on October 26, 2004, with URL:
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/26/417dfcf641f74
-----------------------
From December 17, 2004 through January 19, 2005 a series of four articles were published in Hawaii Reporter on-line newspaper. This series is notable because the second article was by the Attorney General of the State of Hawai'i, Mark J. Bennett, claiming that the Akaka bill would be constitutional and would be a good thing to do. The third and fourth articles were direct replies to his claims.
(1) "Don't Count on the Akaka Bill" by H. William Burgess and Sandra Puanani Burgess, 12/17/2004
(2) "The Akaka Bill Would Be Constitutional" by Mark J. Bennett (Attorney General, State of Hawai'i), 12/20/2004
(3) "Akaka Bill Is Unconstitutional and Bad Public Policy" by Ken Conklin, 12/21/2004
(4) "E Pluribus Unum: Debating the Legality of the Akaka Bill" by constitutional law attorney Bruce Fein, 1/19/05
The four articles are gathered together at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaBennett2004.html
================================
You may now
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE