Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 15, Number 1, 1 January 1998 — In unity there is strengtn [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

In unity there is strengtn

IN MAY, WE applauded United States District Judge David Ezra's denial of Harold F. Rice's constitutional ehallenge to allowing only Hawaiians to vote in OHA eleetions. Judge Ezra noted OHA was created by the 1978 state constitutional convention to address "the needs of the aboriginal class of people of Hawai'i" and to satisty the state's responsibility to better the conditions of native Hawaiians through the public lands tmst. He concluded the method of electing OHA

trustees met constitutional standards. In his order, the judge drew a

parallel between native Hawaiians and Ameiiean Indians and noted legislation singling out American Indians for special treatment was valid as long as it could be tied rationally to Congress' unique obhgation to the Indians. Tracing Hawaiian history back to the 19th century, he said the Admission Act required Hawai'i to amend its constitution to declare that the lands granted to the state "shall be held by the state as a trust for native Hawaiians and the general public. He found "the restriction on the right to vote is not based upon race, but upon a recognition of the unique status of native Hawaiians." Rice's attomey, John Goe-

mans, appealed the judge's mling to the 9th Circuit. "Because the issues on appeal impact upon all Native Hawaiians and have importance beyond the interest of the parties," OHA was joined by 1 1 other Hawaiian organizations in an amicus curiae brief filed with the 9th Circuit on Nov. 18. "A reversal of the district court's ruling could jeopardize all programs providing benefits or establishing separate programs benefiting other Native Americans as well. Because the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is the real-party-in-interest in this case, and because the other Native Hawaiian organizations have grave concems about the impact

of a reversal, they respectfully request the opportunity to file this brief to demonstrate the errors in appellant's argument and the wisdom of the district court's mling," the brief said. The eleven organizations joining OHA include the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations; Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate; Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs; Nā Pua A Ke Alii Pauahi, ine.; Council of Hawaiian Organizations; Hā Hawai'i; Hui Kālai'āina; Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation; Alu Like, ine.; Native Hawaiian Advisory Council; and the Board of DirecSee DESOTO, on page 12

X

tors of the Native Hawaiian Bar Association. I am thrilled by this show of unity because I believe the gains we Hawaiians have made in recent years will only be maintained through working together to ensure they are not taken away. At the same time, I am shocked at the blatant efforts of the last few years to blame Hawaiians for the state's finaneial woes and to orchestrate removal of native Hawaiian rights and entitlements. An example is the Dec. 1 1 Honolu-

lu Star-Bulletin editorial, "Trouble at OHA," whieh said, "But all residents of the state are affected because OHA is funded with millions of dollars from the State that could otherwise be spent on programs of benefit to all. OHA has a $15 million annual operating budget and an investment portfolio valued at $262 million." The editorial does not mention that most of OHA's operating budget comes from the ceded land trust, not the state's general revenues, nor that our investment portfolio was built from a one-

time payment resulting after 18 months of negotiations whieh determined the State owed native Hawaiians that money for 10 years of unpaid use of ceded lands in the public lands trust. I look forward to the 9th Circuit's determination that the district court was correct in its ruling on OHA and to the coordinated efforts of Hawaiians and Hawaiian organizations in the never-ending quest for native Hawaiian rights and entitlements. A hui hou. ■

DESOTO, from page 10