The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in February 2000 that declared Hawaiians-only elections unconstitutional sent a shock wave through the community. In its aftermath, Hawai'i's congressional delegation sought to create solutions that would protect Hawaiian entitlements.
The ruling in Rice v. Cayetano unleashed emotions among many Hawaiians, but few felt the decision more keenly than the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' nine trustees. Hawaiians had believed the state office was theirs to run and the trustees were their chosen stewards. Few would call it perfect, but OHA was still viewed by Hawaiians as a way to control their destiny.
The challenge began in 1996 when Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice, a fifth-generation kama'aina, sued the state after he was banned from voting in an OHA election. U.S. District Judge David Ezra dismissed the case and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Ezra's decision.
But the U.S. Supreme Court held that such elections violated the 15th Amendment's ban on race-based voting restrictions. Within hours of that decision, then-Gov. Ben Cayetano threatened to remove trustees on the grounds that they were elected in an unconstitutional process.
To circumvent Cayetano's threat, all of them resigned, although not until September 2000. The governor then appointed interim trustees, angering the Hawaiian community, which complained he was moving to control OHA. Protests were held outside Cayetano's Washington Place home.
When Hawai'i voters went to the polls Nov. 7, there were 96 candidates running for OHA seats, including more than a dozen non-Hawaiians. Amid slogans that read "Keep OHA Hawaiian" and "Aloha for All," voters elected the first non-Hawaiian OHA trustee: Maui resident Charles Ota.
Also that year, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka authored a response to the Rice v. Cayetano ruling in the form of a Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill.
The goal was to shield Hawaiian entitlements from legal challenges.
