Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 32, Number 6, 1 Iune 2015 — Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission: Funding for DHHL is a matter of law not discretion [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission: Funding for DHHL is a matter of law not discretion

Contributed by Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation n 2007 after several attempts to address the issue informally, six beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust sought the

assistance of Hawai'i's judiciary to ensure that the state of Hawai'i

would carry out its constitutional mandate to provide sufficient funding to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands so that it.

in turn, could carry out its constitutional mandate to rehabilitate the

native Hawaiian people through, among other efforts, a homesteading program. In their complaint, these six beneficiaries, represented by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, pointed to the growing shortage of developed homestead lands and the steadily increasing waiting list as proof of the state's failure to support the department's solemn mission. In 1978 the program's homestead waiting list stood at 5,700. By the end of 2013, it had grown to over 26,000. By the time the Hawai'i Supreme Court was addressing their lawsuit entitledNelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission, two of the original six plaintiffs had died. In May of 2012, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that the question of what constitutes sufficient funding for DHHL's operating

budget need not be left to the discretion of state lawmakers. We agree with the Plaintiffs that, "the State has failed, by any reasonable measure, under the undisputed facts, to

provide sufficientfunding to DHHL[.]" The State's track

record in supporting DHHL's success is poor, as evidenced by the tens oftliousands ofqualified aovlicants on the

waiting lists and the decades-long vaitfor homestead lots.

In 2014, two years after the Hawai'i Supreme Court issued its decision, DHHL received $9.6 million from the state Legislature for fiscal year 2014. In a press release DHHL said it was the "largest general funds appropriation in the department's history." But while this amount of funding was unprecedented, it was mueh less than what DHHL asked for in order to operate in an effective and efficient manner. After issuing its decision, the Hawai'i Supreme Court remanded several issues in the case it declined to address back to the Circuit Court. Trial on those issues is set for the end of June 2015. ■

This is part of a series of case highlights provided by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.

A beneficiaries' complaint pointed to the "growing shortage of developed homestead lands and the steadily increasing waiting list as proof of the state's failure to support the department's solemn mission."

j EA S GOVERNANCE