Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 1, Number 1, 1 June 1981 — A Point of View: On The Lawsuit Against OHA [ARTICLE]

Help Learn more about this Article Text

A Point of View: On The Lawsuit Against OHA

Recently a lawsuit was filed by Ho'ala Kanawai, ine. and the Taxpayers Union against OHA's Board of Trustees and Administrator alleging that the general funds appropriated to OHA for the benefit of "Hawaiians" are unconstitutionaI. It might be understandable why the Taxpayers Union, headed by libertarian Bud Shasteen would seek to invalidate the legislative appropriations to OHA; however, it is disappointing to see that Ho'ala Kanawai, headed by Josiah L. Hoohuli, is a co-plaintiff to the same suit. Ho'ala Kanawai, (Awakening the Law) is a nonprofit corporation organized in the State of Hawaii solely to provide for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians pursuant to Section 5(F) of the Admissions Act. The 1978 Constitutional Convention and the general public empowered OHA to administer the revenues derived from Section 5(F) of the Admissions Act designated for the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians. Subsequently, in 1980, nine trustees were elected by the Hawaiian community. The statewide voter registration list of Hawaiians totalled 54,083 of whieh 42,848 or 79.2% voted.

Irrespective of what Ho'ala Kanawai hopes to accomplish through its lawsuit, it is evident that they seek to control the administration of the 5(F) revenues by overturning the decision made by the general public and, more importantly, the decision by the Hawaiian electorate that OHA not only be responsible for the disposition of 5(F) revenues, but also be the principal public agency in the state responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to Native Hawaiians and Hawaiians.

However, Ho'ala Kanawai's lawsuit makes public the problem of two definitions describing the same aboriginal people inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands. Under the law governing OHA, "Hawaiian" means any descendant of Hawaii's aboriginal people, and "Native Hawaiian" means any descendant of Hawaii's aboriginal people of not less than one-half the blood. It is important to note that the latter definition of "Native Hawaiian" was enaeted by the U.S. Congress in 1920, and the definition of "Hawaiian" whieh includes all Hawaiians irrespective of blood quantum was enacted by Congress in 1974. It is obvious that the need to reconcile these two definitions was neither articulated nor anticipated by Congress. However, today, OHA, by law, is laden with the responsibility of keepingseparate the revenues whieh are designated for both classes of Hawaiians in order to insure accountability and eomplianee to its beneficiaries.

The problems arising from the restrictions of the blood quantum definition have been considered on numerous occasions by the legislature, but legislators were not able to arrive at a eommon solution because of the highly emotional and complex nature of the problems. It appears timely that the 1981 Legislature has requested that OHA study the problem experienced by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and OHA, and report its recommendations to the 1982 Legislature. Perhaps a thorough investigation on the definition problems including a historical analysis is warranted andcan then lead to a better understanding of the many fears and apprehensions expressed by our people. Ho'ala Kanawai's actions challenge the wisdom of the Hawaiian electorate. The OHA Board of Trustees elected by the Hawaiian people provides the most viable means through whieh the law may be amended or awakened.