Reconciliation is always a painful process, but rarely do entire states encounter one sure to be as uncomfortable and prolonged as the settlement of Native Hawaiian claims.

But it seems the best course is to press ahead to achieve that settlement, difficult as that may be. If there's any easy detour around that legal burden, the Hawai'i Supreme Court certainly can't recommend one.

That much seems clear from the high court's recent ruling on a 1994 dispute around lands that once belonged to the Hawaiian kingdom later ceded to the U.S. and the state of Hawai'i. In their decision, the justices found that the state is barred from selling or transferring any of the so-called "ceded lands" until the final settlement of all outstanding Native Hawaiian claims on these lands, which total 1.8 million acres.

The case arose because the state was poised to sell private developers about 500 acres for the Leiali'i and La'iopua projects on Maui and the Big Island, respectively. Four individual plaintiffs of Native Hawaiian descent, joined by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, filed suit.

The lower court upheld the state's right to sell the land but on appeal, the high court cited the 1993 Apology Resolution and other state legislation underscoring the state's role as trustee for the ceded lands. Among the beneficiaries of that trust are Native Hawaiians and, according to the ruling, the state should not sell or transfer any of the trust lands until negotiations finally settle how much of that land should belong to Native Hawaiians.

The trouble is, there can be no negotiations until a Native Hawaiian government is organized and recognized by the federal government. And that can't happen until the Akaka bill is passed by Congress and signed into law.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs point out that the state never attempted any land deals before or since the Maui and Big Island instances, so the ruling doesn't complicate any ongoing land development projects or deals with the state.

Regardless, the state can't function indefinitely with such a large bank of land it has no power to control. A situation in which the state holds title but lacks the freedom to sell land will become intolerable before long. The state has needs for housing, agriculture and other uses; land swaps, transfers and sales are ways of consolidating tracts so it can be used effectively.

OHA and others who support federal recognition feel encouraged by the possibility of a change in leadership in Washington to a Democratic administration that would back the Akaka bill. However, the reality is that even if the bill passes, there are sure to be legal challenges, further delaying the negotiation and settlement process.

And that means advocates within state government must push the Hawai'i congressional delegation to deliver more support on Capitol Hill. Hawai'i has two of the most senior members in the Senate; Sen. Daniel Inouye, in particular, needs to apply more of that political muscle to this mission.

Closing the book on Hawai'i's turbulent past is essential before the state can tap its resources and focus its attention fully on a future that supports all its people.