Posted on: Monday, April 23, 2001
Island Voices
Why Carroll suit goes forward
By John Carroll
Big Island attorney and former Republican state senator
Recently, The Advertiser noted that "the Carroll suit against OHA is designed to eliminate the racially discriminatory practices of OHA."
I was seriously considering dropping my suit against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Your Feb. 18 editorial, citing the benefits of stability and finalization that will result from a ruling by the federal court on the constitutional complaint, has convinced me that I should not.
This suit was filed to allow OHA to continue, not disappear. That was also the thrust of the Rice and Conklin cases.
My motives, as well as the purpose of the suit, have been widely misunderstood, partly because the court consolidated my suit with the Barrett suit. Patrick Barrett, apparently, seeks to eliminate OHA along with the federally enacted Hawaiian Home provisions and Hawaiian benefit programs.
I believe there are cogent arguments to defeat any attempt to disassemble the Hawaiian Homes Act benefits, which are now the responsibility of the State of Hawai'i.
I have been trying to get a U.S. senator to file a bill calling for recognition of the "indigenous people" of Hawai'i, i.e., the kanaka maoli, descendants of all citizens of the kingdom, etc. So far I am assured that the Akaka bill will never pass in anything like its current form.
I believe there have been serious wrongs wrought upon the native Hawaiian community by the colonization of these Islands and takeover of the government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. I am fully aware of the anger and frustration many native Hawaiians are feeling.
The bills introduced by Sen. Dan Akaka and Rep. Neil Abercrombie are patently unconstitutional. While the Clinton administration let that matter go unnoticed, U.S. senators such as Don Nickles, Phil Gramm and others have made public statements acknowledging the unconstitutional provisions of that bill.
In spite of this, the conventional wisdom, shared by some local Republican leaders, is that these bills are, somehow, "good" or the "best" that can be done for native Hawaiians. Those misguided thinkers believe there can be a form of recognition, a quasi-sovereignty, that will flow from the enactment of one of these bills.
They ignore the fact that whatever law emerges from these offerings, affected Hawaiians will be subject to the laws and Constitution of the United States. The promise of sovereignty is a false one.
In spite of the language in the Sancienetti Opinion (under President Bush circa 1990), which states unequivocally that there is no trust relationship, it is my belief a trust relationship exists between the United States and the native Hawaiians.
The Admission Act of 1958, under which Hawai'i became a state, provides that the Hawaiian Homes Commission and most assets and all responsibilities for native Hawaiians were to be transferred to the State of Hawai'i.
All leaders in this community, kanaka maoli as well as those of other backgrounds and ethnicity, should be working together for realistic and legally sound solutions. Many of our problems are economic. Jones Act restrictions should be removed from this state.
Ideally, we could be given a duty-free status similar to that once enjoyed by Hong Kong, at one point the wealthiest city in the world. The entrepot economy of Hong Kong could well be the model for Hawai'i.
Leaders here should know the history of the kingdom, that the descendants of citizens or denizens of the kingdom have the same rights under the kingdom constitutions of 1840 and 1864 as those of aboriginal Hawaiian descent.
They should understand the current plight of the young in this state, Hawaiian as well as others.
Whatever path is to be followed, it should unite and not divide the people of this precious land.
