Why Senate Bill 2378 SD2 is important

Senate Bill 2378 SD2 democratizes Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) elections.

We need to democratize OHA elections, because the current elections process allows a candidate to win even if that candidate only gets 30% of the votes. We explain this below.

OHA ELECTION SCENARIO
Let's say we have four candidates (A, B, C & D) running for the same OHA trustee position and only 4,000 people vote for that position.

• Candidate A gets 1,200 votes (30%),


• Candidate B gets 1,100 votes (27.5%),


• Candidate C gets 850 votes (21.25%), and


• Candidate D gets 850 votes (21.25%).

Current OHA Election Process
Candidate A has only 30% of the votes (less than half), but wins the election because Candidate A has more votes than anyone else. Clearly more people (70%) voted against Candidate A, but the current election process can reward the candidate who only gets 30% of the votes. This happens because there is only one "special" election rather than a primary and a general election.

OHA Election Process after SB 2378 SD2
SB 2378 provides for a primary and general election for OHA Trustee. The new process would take the two candidates with the most votes (candidates A and B in the above scenario) and have them run against each other in a general election. The OHA general election would occur at the same time as the general elections for county, state, and federal offices. General elections take place in November of an election year.

Assuming that 4,000 people vote again for that particular OHA position in the general election, then, the candidate with at least 2,040 votes (51% or more) will win the election. In other words, the candidate who gets elected into office is the candidate that the majority of voters chose.

Senate Bill 2378 SD2 makes OHA elections better. But it's up to you to tell lawmakers that you want better elections for OHA.

You can make OHA elections better in just 2-3 minutes. Just call Representative Marcus Oshiro at 586-6200 and kindly ask him to schedule SB 2378 SD2 for a Finance Committee hearing. If you don't know exactly what to say, just CLICK HERE.

"Ceded" Lands Case Debate at Law School hosted by Federalist Society

We couldn't resist letting you know about an event that is happening today. An organization (often recognized as a conservative organization) at the law school known as the Federalist Society is hosting a debate on the "ceded" lands case at 12:45pm. The Federalist Society, despite being a law student organization, is not affiliated with the Kupu‘āina Coalition or ‘Ahahui o Hawai‘i (the Hawaiian law student organization). Attached is the flyer distributed by the Federalist Society. Participating in the debate is Ilya Shapiro and Honolulu attorney and law professor Carl Christensen.

The Kupu‘āina Coalition supports the Hawai'i Supreme Court's landmark January 31, 2008 ruling that placed a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands until the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians are resolved. Our organization has also been active in the effort to have a moratorium passed by the Hawai'i legislature that would protect Hawaiian claims. We believe it is important for the Hawaiian community, and the general Hawaii community to witness for themselves what institutions exist that fiercely oppose Native Hawaiian programs and seek the demise of those programs and Native Hawaiian rights and claims.

We are up against more than just the "Grassroot Institute of Hawaii" or the "Pacific Legal Foundation." In our effort to show our supporters who some of the people and institutions are that seek to actively work against us, we will be live-streaming today's event from our website, www.stopsellingcededlands.com. However, we want you to know, that we are in complete disagreement with Ilya Shapiro and we want everyone to know that despite the fact that a law student (or two) have organized tomorrow's event, their views on the issue neither reflects the views of Kupu‘āina nor do their views (if any) discourage Kupu‘āina from proceeding with our efforts to protect the ceded lands. It may also be important for people to know that Kupu‘āina and Ahahui o Hawai'i were not consulted in anyway before this event was scheduled. We had no input for the decision making or determining who would be speaking/debating today.

While our views are in disagreement with Illya Shapiro, we are confident that this debate will show our community and our supporters what we are up against. We are streaming this event not because we agree with it, (we DO NOT AGREE with the anti-Hawaiian views that will be expressed in it) but we consider it useful just for the simple purpose of knowing our opponents. The event is scheduled to start at 12:45 pm today.

"State court correct in protecting ceded lands"

Two UH law professors wrote a commentary in their individual capacities as attorneys for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Professors Jon Van Dyke and Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie have a commentary in today's Honolulu Advertiser.

The commentary does a great job of discussing the Hawai'i Supreme Court's decision while also countering statements from the Lingle Administration. The commentary, in part, provides, "The administration has also incorrectly asserted that the Hawai'i Supreme Court found that the state does not have good title to the ceded lands. In fact, the opinion expressly stayed away from that issue and explained that "the issue of Native Hawaiian title to the ceded lands will be addressed through the political process."

Press Conference and Rally

A sheriff's deputy on site at the Capitol today said in his estimate, there was between 400-500 people present during the Kupu‘āina Coalition's press conference and rally.

Reporters from various media outlets were present. A video can be found on the KGMB9 site. CLICK HERE to watch video and read story.

Another video can be found at the KITV.com site, although, Darryl Huff does a weird job of blending together his own narration and usage of video clips from the press conference. CLICK HERE to watch video.

The Honolulu Advertiser wrote a "Breaking News" article on the event, "Groups Oppose Ceded-Land Appeal."

Resolve Claims Before Selling Ceded Lands

The below commentary was published in today's Honolulu Advertiser.  

Resolve claims before selling ceded lands
It's a matter of simple justice and fairness for Native Hawaiians

By Derek H. Kauanoe

Five years ago, The Advertiser reported that Gov. Linda Lingle described Native Hawaiian federal recognition as being "about fairness, justice and treating all indigenous people in our country the same." Gov. Lingle was also quoted as saying that federal recognition is a "matter of simple justice" when she testified before Congress in support of the Akaka bill.

Whether the state should be selling ceded lands, lands belonging to the Hawaiian kingdom and eventually transferred to the State of Hawai'i, before reaching a settlement with Native Hawaiians, is also a matter of simple justice and fairness.

I recently explained the ceded lands situation to someone who did not quite understand the conflict between the Lingle administration's view that the state can sell ceded lands and our highest state court's landmark decision placing a moratorium on such sales.

I asked this person to imagine that the two of us were married, but the marriage did not work out. As a result, we apologized to each other for the difficulty and hurt inflicted and agreed to get a divorce. In the process of getting a divorce I began selling personal property that she brought into the marriage in addition to selling the personal property we owned together, both before we established a complete inventory of the property and before a determination was made as to who would get what. I kept the money from those sales but she felt she had a claim to those property items sold. After realizing the unfairness of my actions, she sought the opinion of an independent third party to help us resolve our dispute. Much to my disappointment, the independent third party declared that it was not right for me to dispose of those items and any remaining items until the two of us resolved the issues of who would get which items. Fairness required that I discontinue selling those items.

Although a failed marriage may not be the best analogy to describe the ceded lands situation, the person I spoke with understood that this ceded lands issue is indeed a matter of simple justice and fairness.

Ceded lands, to which the Legislature and Congress have recognized that Native Hawaiians have a claim, should not be sold before those claims have been resolved.

Our highest court correctly acknowledged that selling lands to which Native Hawaiians have a claim results in the further loss of lands. By reducing those lands, Native Hawaiians will be disadvantaged in negotiating a settlement; Native Hawaiians will have less bargaining power.

The court also noted a moratorium on ceded land sales until claims are resolved provides for fairness in negotiations.

Native land claims and federal recognition are no strangers to each other. Indigenous groups in the continental United States have settled land claims with state and local governments coinciding with their federal recognition process. Although it may be unintentional, it is nothing short of unusual that the Lingle administration would support Native Hawaiian federal recognition efforts, yet undermine those efforts by selling ceded lands. In the interests of justice, a settlement should be reached before any ceded lands are sold.

Other comments made by Gov. Lingle are equally awkward and confusing. The Advertiser, on Feb. 25, 2003, also reported that she asked lawmakers "not to let the courts unravel decades of work in Congress to help Native Hawaiians through land, health, education and housing programs."

Here, however, the Lingle administration stands to unravel work on the state and federal level by selling ceded lands to which Native Hawaiians have claims. Today, it is our state Supreme Court that seeks to prevent the unraveling of "decades of work" to help Native Hawaiians.

Although these issues can be confusing, it is clear that we as a community do justice a gross disservice if we allow ceded lands to be sold before resolving the issues and claims that arise from those lands.

Derek H. Kauanoe is a graduate of the University of Hawai'i-Manoa's William S. Richardson School of Law, with a specialty in Native Hawaiian law. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.