Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 18, Number 10, 1 ʻOkakopa 2001 — Hawaiians disappointed again by state courts [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Hawaiians disappointed again by state courts

The Hawai'i Supreme Court has recently announced a decision invalidating state law whieh gives 20 percent of the revenues from the airport to the Native Hawaiians as managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in trust. They base their decision on the fact that the state law is in eonflict with a federal law prohibiting the use of airport monies for uses other than those directly connected to the airport. OHA's dispute was never over being paid out of airport funds. This governor knew full well that the federal government would say that we could not be paid from federal funds when he asked the question. The point is, the airport is on ceded lands and the governor should have found other funds to pay the debt to the Hawaiian people. The truth is that the governor

never wanted to pay Hawaiians for any ceded lands. So he used the federal government as an excuse not to pay. Now the Supreme Court of Hawai'i has used the same excuse not to pay the Hawaiians. The court had five years to make a decision. When they ftnally did, they threw the ball back to the legislature. No one asked them to repeal the law. The question was whether or not OHA was entitled to revenues on the airport lands as they are ceded lands. Even the federal government understands paying rent for the use of Iands. This court is abdicating its responsibility in the name of politics. The court ean and should uphold use of ceded land revenues for the betterment of native Hawaiians as it is provided for in the state constitution. It is a constitutional mandate — not one left for

the legislature to decide. The court could have decided that revenues equaling the revenues due from the ceded lands of the airport should eome from another plaee such as the general fund. Instead, the court invalidated the airport revenues and handed the decision as to how best to protect the financial interests of native Hawaiians to the legislature.

This is the second time this court has thrown the ball to someone else when they had to make a difficult decision regarding Hawaiians. The first time was when they were being criticized for the selection process of the Bishop Estate Trustees. Instead of holding their ground, they threw the ball to the Probate Court.

The court is an appointed body — under the Governor and the State Legislature, both of whieh are controlled by a majority party. This is precisely the type of decision that cries out for an elected judiciary. This is a setback for the native Hawaiians who are struggling to turn their situation around against the tide of power and politics in this State. This latest decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court makes my point. ■

The court ean and should uphold use of ceded land revenues for the betterment of native Hawaiians as it is provided for in the state constitution.

■ i : 1 1 M i 4 =■ I t| 1

Rowena Akana I Trustee, At-large