honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser

Posted at 4:07 p.m., Monday, June 10, 2002

Agreement pushed in Hawaiian programs case

By B.J. Reyes
Associated Press Writer

A federal judge on today asked attorneys on both sides of a lawsuit challenging native Hawaiian programs as unconstitutional to try and reach agreement on certain facts in the case.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway came after she denied a motion by lawyers for a multiethnic group of Hawai'i residents who sued the state in March, charging that the Hawaiian Homes program and Office of Hawaiian Affairs are unconstitutional race discrimination.

Their lawsuit seeks an order shutting down OHA and the Hawaiian homestead programs for more than 200,000 native Hawaiians and part Hawaiians.

Today, the group's attorneys argued that some statements contained in measures passed by Congress that regard Native Hawaiians as an indigenous group should be considered as conclusions of law and not as documented fact.

Mollway denied the motion without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled in the future.

"It means the court is not taking as gospel truth anything that Congress has found" in various statutes and resolutions, plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Hanifin said.

Sherry Broder, an attorney for OHA, said one point of contention is whether Native Hawaiians are considered indigenous people who should have the right to organize a government similar to American Indians.

She disputed the lawsuit's assertion that Native Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawaii, saying Congress has passed 160 resolutions and statutes that recognize their status.

"I think these statutes passed by Congress are determinate of this issue," she said. "What Congress has found is extremely relevant."

Mollway is scheduled to take up the case again on July 24 to hear a motion by plaintiffs seeking to have OHA and the Hawaiian Homes program shut down until the case is decided.

The lawsuit, filed March 4, is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Feb. 23, 2000, Rice v. Cayetano decision, which struck down the Hawaiians-only requirement to vote in an OHA election as racial discrimination.

Within the past year two other challenges to OHA were thrown out after the court determined the plaintiffs lacked standing.

But Mollway in March ruled the 16 multiethnic plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers because both programs receive money from the state's general fund.