Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act

I've been working with Rep. Jessica Wooley on HB 1627 the state version of the Akaka Bill which seeks to "provide a process for the reorganization of a first nation government by Native Hawaiians and its subsequent recognition by the State of Hawai'i."

The arguments for such a measure are the same as for the Akaka Bill on the federal level: the Hawaiian monarchy was illegally overthrown, the United States issued a formal Apology Resolution acknowledging that violation of international law, native Americans and Alaskans have that type of relationship already.

The arguments against, based on the testimony submitted, is much more extensive and is summarized as follows:

• Violates constitution of Kingdom of Hawaii
Richard Kinney, Free Hawaii: “Queen Liliuokalani was the Constitutional Soveriegn of all her subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Not only those of the Indigenous Native people of her Kingdom.”
Ken Conklin: “…violates the first sentence of the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1840)… the kokokahi (one blood) sentence: God has made of one blood all rces of people to dwell upon the Earth in unity and blessedness.”
KeAloha Aiu: “The Hawaiian Kingdom was a fully operational, fully recognized, progressive, sovereign, independent, neutral nation. Its body politic consisted of people from many different ethnicities and races, not just ‘native’ Hawaiians.’”
William Burgess: “…there has never been in Hawaii, even during the years of the Kingdom, any ‘tribe’ or government of any kind for Native Hawaiians separate from the government of the rest of Hawaii’s citizens.”
Joseph Heaukulani: “In regard to self-determination, this bill seems to have forgotten those subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom who were not of ‘aboriginal, indigenous, native descent,’ but were instead naturalized alien foreigners that were thereafter considered to be native and who also lost their natural to self-determination with the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893.”
Dennis Ragsdale, Kingdom of Hawai’i: “Neither the written Constitution for the Kingdom of Hawai’i or its statutory laws made any reference to aboriginal status, right or privileges of anyone. The Constitution and statutory laws of the Kingdom of Hawai’i did make provisions for citizens and aliens, and their respective rights within and under the representative government.”

• Violates U.S. Constitution
Ken Conklin: “The clear purpose of the bill is to authorize the creation of an entity with governmental powers, but restricted to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. That racist concept is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
William Burgess: “Congress…does not have the power to create a tribe arbitrarily (U.S. vs. Sandoval)
Charles Zahn: ..restricted to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian blood…is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
Garry P. Smith: “How can the state recognize native Hawaiians as a tribe when they are not and never have been a tribe?”
Kealii Makekau: “Creation of a Nation or Tribe is not authorized in the Constitution.”

• Disenfranchises Hawaiians
Sue Haglund: “HB 1627 does not establish a proper representation of native Hawaiian voice… in creating a ‘commission’ appointed by a governor, and the required criteria in defining ‘qualified Native Hawaiian constituent’ yet fails to establish a required criteria of a commission nine-member appointees.”
Raymond Heaukulani: “…sounds as if the governor can appoint anyone s/he wills regardless of whether they should be qualified to decide who is Hawaiian and who is not…”
David M.K. Inciong, II: “To usurp the Hawaiian Kingdom by creating a tribal governing entity to replace it, is repugnant to the international laws, U.S. Constitutional laws, Hawaiian Kingdom laws and moral rights of its citizens…We Hawaii patriots do not subscribe to the racist WASP Manifest Destiny doctrines that this bill supports. (?)”

• Does not recognize the illegality of annexation
Koani Foundation: “HB 1627 does not address the real issue of the theft of the Hawaiian nation and the injuries that stem from that… joint resolution, (not an official treaty, therefore, no lands were ceded) title to the lands of the Hawaiian Islands, to this day, still reside with the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom government and its people.”
Leon Siu, Free Hawaii: “There was no ‘treaty of annexation.’…the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists…”

• Clarification of “native Hawaiians”
Cheryl Lovell-Obatake: “I am a Kuleana land owner. I request clarification on the definition of native Hawaiians.”

• Unnecessary bureaucracy
KT Yungeirott: “Just creating another department. Hawaii cannot afford this.”


I used to think that it made sense for Hawaiians to have the same government to government relationship with the US that native Americans and Alaskans enjoy. But after reading over the bill and the testimony I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that the government being proposed never actually existed in the history of Hawai'i. None of the constitutions of the Kingdom of Hawai'i required a person to have "aboriginal" blood so I find it hard to conceive of how this bill restores something based on that unprecedented premise. If it remains "race-based" then it's also easy to see how this proposal violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, and therefore won't stand up if brought to trial as it most certainly will by Bill Burgess, Ken Conklin et. al.