By David B. Rosen
Before Congress votes on the Akaka bill, there are some important questions that the citizens of Hawai'i are entitled to have answered by our elected officials:
Shouldn't the citizens of Hawai'i be permitted to vote on whether they support an independent Native Hawaiian governance entity and are willing to fund it before the bill is enacted?
Shouldn't there also be a popular vote of all Hawai'i citizens before any governance entity is officially recognized by the state and any funds are diverted from state programs, such as education, to this new government?
Shouldn't the bill include a requirement that at least a certain minimum number of Native Hawaiians (for example, at least 50 percent of the 400,000-plus) agree to the formation of the new governing entity and agree to subject themselves to it?
How much is it going to cost to create and support this new governing entity?
Is this governing entity going to be funded by just Hawai'i's taxpayers, all of the citizens of the United States, and/or is it going to fund itself by taxing its own members?
Where would a Native Hawaiian governance entity reside? Would it preside over an as-of-yet-unidentified contiguous parcel of land (which could require the ouster of non-Native Hawaiians in that area), or would it exist within noncontiguous pockets of land that would divide existing communities?
What is the resulting social and economic impact going to be in Hawai'i of granting one-fifth of the state's population: (1) special "entitlements" funded out of the state's general revenues, (2) potential relief from having to pay state taxes, and (3) a separate set of laws to govern themselves, and potentially, others? Shouldn't the bill at least require a study of these issues?
The justification for the bill is purportedly the need to redress the United States' role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, which occurred over four generations and 112 years ago.
Why, then, are non-Native Hawaiians who are descendants of citizens of the kingdom of Hawai'i excluded from participating in the governance entity being proposed? What explanation is there for this other than racial discrimination?
If large numbers of Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiian citizens of Hawai'i oppose the bill or do not understand it, how is it going to bring reconciliation? Isn't it just as likely to be a catalyst for continuing litigation, racial and social division, and reliance upon the hope of race-based governmental entitlements?
Native Hawaiians have held virtually every political position in Hawai'i and have achieved the highest levels of success in the private business sectors.
Despite the exclusion of non-Native Hawaiians by Native Hawaiians from various public and private programs, there is no evidence of there having ever been any similar governmental or societal discrimination against Native Hawaiians. Given the level playing field available to them, the success they have achieved as individuals and how well-represented they are in every facet of business, politics and society in general in Hawai'i, what additional political benefit would the creation of another governing entity provide to Native Hawaiians?
David B. Rosen, a Honolulu attorney, formerly was co-counsel representing the defendants in Arakaki v. Lingle, the ongoing federal lawsuit challenging tax-supported programs that benefit only Native Hawaiians. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
