Proceed with caution when reading/hearing some local media reports

You may have heard by now that the United States Supreme Court has ruled on the "ceded" lands case. Unfortunately, several local media outlets do not explain the Supreme Court ruling adequately and, in my opinion, may inadvertently mis-lead the public.

Upon first glance, anyone might come to the conclusion that the State of Hawai'i can sell ceded lands. But, Kupu‘āina reads the opinion differently. When the Hawai'i Supreme Court made its landmark ruling last year placing a moratorium on the sale of "ceded" lands, it did so using both the 1993 Apology Resolution AND relevant state law. When the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its ruling this morning, it only ruled on the 1993 Apology Resolution and not state law. In fact, at the end of its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that it has no authority to decide questions of Hawai'i state law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Hawai'i Supreme Court to proceed in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.

The Attorney General Mark Bennett, sought to take this "ceded" lands case out of the Hawai'i Supreme Court. Now, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has put the case back into the hands of the State Supreme Court.

This morning there are two good interviews on the KGMB website that is helpful to people who want to understand today's ruling.
There is an interview with

• Clyde Namuo (OHA Administrator) http://tr.im/Namuo090331 and


• Colleen Hanabusa (Hawaii Senate President http://tr.im/Hanabusa090331.

Clyde Namuo explains how this ruling is exactly what the Office of Hawaiian Affairs hoped for once the Supreme Court decided to take up the case. Generally, the reason is because the ruling puts the case back into State court. Senator Hanabusa also explains why, the State, still can't sell "ceded" lands at this time. Hanabusa's statements are contrary to today's Honolulu Advertiser headline which reads, "US Supreme Court says state can sell ceded lands." This headline was later changed to read, "U.S. Supreme Court rules state has authority to sell ceded lands."

Kupu‘āina encourages the public to read the U.S. Supreme Court's short opinion on this issue rather than rely only on media reports. You can access the opinion at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html

Kupu‘āina Live! Webcast #15

Webisode #15 2003-03-23 Kupu‘āina Live!

In today's Kupu‘āina Live! We explain why the recent SuperFerry ruling isn't something to necessarily worry about in drafting "ceded" lands legislation. We also talk about what we consider to be a "sneaky" change in the language of SB 1677, that most people don't know about.




Mahalo for your support.

The rumor was true!

Last week, we wrote about a rumor we heard regarding an unexpected change regarding Senate Bill 1677.

Finally, the information has been made available online. If you haven't read the original SB 1677, you might not notice the difference. SB 1677 originally required a two-thirds approval for the sale of "ceded" lands. Media reports and capitol insiders suggested that a two-thirds approval is difficult to achieve so a two-thirds approval effectively prevents the sale of "ceded" lands. But recently, the State House of Representatives' Water, Land & Ocean Resources Committee (WLO) and the Judiciary Committee (JUD) have changed the language of SB 1677. Instead of requiring a two-thirds approval for the sale of lands, now, a two-thirds dis-approval is needed to stop the sale of lands. Below is the relevant changed language.

     (2) Making proposed sales or exchanges of state lands subject to legislative disapproval by:
          (A) The adoption of a resolution by a two-thirds majority vote of either the senate or the house of representatives; or
          (B) The adoption of a concurrent resolution passed by simple majority vote of both houses of the legislature.

This change in the House, after SB 1677 already passed the Senate, means that this bill will most likely need to be brought to conference for the Senate and House to discuss the bill, assuming SB 1677 is passed out of the House Finance Committee (FIN).

It is very disappointing that the two committees, WLO and JUD, changed the language. A good amount (the majority actually) of testimony supported 1677 before the language of a two-thirds majority dis-approval was made.

As of the time of this posting, SB 1677 has not yet been scheduled for a hearing with the FIN committee. We will keep you updated.

What's going on at the capitol?

As we wrote last week, SB 1677 was heard in joint committee with Water, Land & Ocean Resources (WLO) and Judiciary (JUD).

Late last night, Kupu‘āina received a credible tip that the language of SB 1677 was being revised. Instead of requiring a two-third majority approval vote for the sale of "ceded" lands, reportedly, the revised version would allow sales but require a two-thirds dis-approval vote of the legislature.

A two-thirds dis-approval vote is a VERY BAD idea and the exact opposite of what is proposed in SB 1677. Local newspapers have reported, and legislative insiders have said, that a two-thirds approval is difficult to achieve. Acknowledging this, we can conclude that a two-thirds approval vote is difficult and therefore, sales of "ceded" lands will be difficult. However, if only a two-thirds disapproval is required to prevent sales of "ceded" lands, then we can conclude that, since a two-thirds majority vote is difficulty to achieve, then it will be difficult to stop a sale of "ceded" lands.

I spoke with a few people this morning. Apparently, a few others have heard the same thing. Information isn't available online yet. Mark Bennett testified in opposition to this bill, yet it was passed. No indication was given at the committee hearings on 3/13/09 that the changes made to Bill 1667 included a "two-thirds disapproval."

As we get more information, we'll be sure to keep you updated.

We Need You To Send E-mails to the House This Time

We previously asked you to send e-mails to the Senate. We now need you to send e-mails supporting SB 1085, to the State House of Representatives.

E-mails should be sent to HAWtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov and reps@capitol.hawaii.gov Please include kupuaina@gmail.com in the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy). We'll appreciate it and it gives us some idea how many e-mails the Representatives get.

We have templates for you to use if you don't know what to write in an e-mail. Please pick ONE of the templates below.

     Template 1     Template 2     Template 3     

We also have a special template for our supporters who do not live in Hawai‘i. CLICK HERE for the special out-of-Hawai‘i template.

In addition, please do not forget about our Just 5 Minutes a Day Campaign. Learn more by CLICKING HERE.

Mahalo for your continued support. Please encourage family, friends and co-workers to support these efforts.

Lastly, don't forget to watch our Live-Streaming webcast, Kupu‘āina Live! at 5:30 pm Mondays at StopSellingCededLands.com

Legislative Updates Senate Bills 1085 and 1677

If you've been keeping up with us on Twitter, you may have seen that on Friday, the House Committees on Water, Land & Ocean Resources (WLO) and Judiciary (JUD) passed Senate Bill 1677. You can find the status of SB 1677 by going to tinyurl.com/SB1677stat or CLICKING HERE.

Three people spoke to the committee:

• UH West O‘ahu Chancellor Gene Awakuni,


• Attorney General Mark Bennet, and


• Derek Kauanoe of the Kupu‘āina Coalition

Chancellor Awakuni did not testify for or against SB 1677 but expressed concern that the current language of the bill was too broad and could affect the UH O‘ahu campus, which he says does not sit on ceded lands. He expressed a desire to see the language narrowed in such a way so as to not impact the West O‘ahu campus in a manner that was not intended.

AG Mark Bennett, testified in opposition of SB 1677. From what I can recall, he emphasized that in the history of the State of Hawai‘i, no governor has abused authority in a way that "ceded" lands have been sold in substantial portions. I also remember Mark Bennett describing support for the current method of selling "ceded" lands in the legislature. If I understand correctly, the current process requires a two-thirds opposition of the state legislature. SB 1677 would require a two-thirds majority vote for a sale of "ceded" lands. From what I remember, he also commented that as a practical matter, SB 1677 does not make sense.

Derek Kauanoe testified in support of SB 1677 but expressed concern that it did not adequately reflect the public policy of the Legislature as declared in Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 (SCR 40). You can check out SCR 40 at http://tinyurl.com/09SCR40stat. SCR 40 declared the public policy of the State of Hawai‘i is to honor the decision of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. In addition, SCR 40 also provided that appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court "is detrimental to the interests of all of the people of Hawai‘i and to the ongoing reconciliation process between the State and the Native Hawaiian people." Kauanoe also urged the two committees to adopt key language in SB 1085. You can check out SB 1085 by going to tinyurl.com/09SB1085stat. Generally, Kauanoe asked that SB 1677 be revised to better reflect SB 1085.

The committees passed SB 1677 with amendments, however, we're still waiting to see what specific amendments are being added.

I noticed today, that some time in the late afternoon yesterday (3/13/09) that the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs has scheduled a hearing for SB 1085 on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9am in room 329. Mahalo goes out to Representative Mele Carroll for scheduling a hearing and giving more than 48 hours notice on this. This prompt scheduling provides people with a good amount of time to write testimony, for or against the bill, and the opportunity to meet the deadline as well.

In our opinion, SB 1085 is a better bill than SB 1677 for a few reasons:

• SB 1085, unlike SB 1677, is a re-affirmation of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's "ceded" lands case opinion


• SB 1085, unlike SB 1677, also re-affirms the need for reconciliation with Native Hawaiians


• SB 1085, unlike SB 1677, places an actual moratorium (freeze) on the sale of ceded lands


• SB 1085, unlike SB 1677, provides a comprehensive process for the sale of ceded lands once the moratorium (freeze) is lifted.


• SB 1085, unlike SB 1677, is consistent with the Hawai‘i Legislature's expressed public policy found in Senate Concurrent Resolution 40.

We urge everyone to send e-mail testimonials to HAWtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov in support of SB 1085. Over the next day or so, we will be putting together a more complete e-mail list in addition to a few templates for people to send through e-mail. Mahalo for your support and please don't forget to watch Kupu‘āina Live! on Monday at 5:30pm at our website stopsellingcededlands.com.

SB 1677 is scheduled for a hearing

Just a few moments ago, we learned that earlier today, the House of Representatives scheduled Senate Bill 1677 for a hearing THIS FRIDAY!

This scheduling occurred a day after the Senate passed Senate Bill 1085, which is a much better bill than SB 1677. Go to tinyurl.com/KupuCast09-03-09 to watch the webcast where we discuss why SB 1085 is better than SB 1677.

Anyway, it is important that you copy and paste the below e-mail addresses and send out the e-mail below to:
WLOtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov, JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov, mailinglist@capitol.hawaii.gov, repito@capitol.hawaii.gov, rephar@capitol.hawaii.gov, repcabanilla@capitol.hawaii.gov, repchang@capitol.hawaii.gov, repchong@capitol.hawaii.gov, repcoffman@capitol.hawaii.gov, repherkes@capitol.hawaii.gov, repclee@capitol.hawaii.gov, repluke@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmorita@capitol.hawaii.gov, repsagum@capitol.hawaii.gov, repching@capitol.hawaii.gov, repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov, repkaramatsu@capitol.hawaii.gov, repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov, repcarroll@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmckelvey@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmizuno@capitol.hawaii.gov, repboshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov, repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov, reptsuji@capitol.hawaii.gov, repwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmarumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov

Please BCC us at kupuaina@gmail.com

Please cut and paste the e-mail template below

---

[Insert Name Here]
House Committee on Water, Land & Ocean Resources
House Committee on Judiciary
Friday, March 13, 2009 at 2:00pm
SB 1677


Dear Committee Chair Ken Ito, Madame Vice-Chair Sharon Har and members of the Committee on Water, Land, & Ocean Resources,

Dear Committee Chair Jon Karamatsu, Vice-Chair Ken Ito, and members of the Committee on Judiciary,

My name is [insert name]. I submit testimony in support of Senate Bill 1677 on the condition that SB 1677 be amended to better reflect the Hawai‘i Legislature’s policy as defined in Senate Concurrent Resolution 40, passed by the Senate and adopted by the House of Representatives last month.

Through Senate Concurrent Resolution 40, as members of the Legislature, you

• urged the Governor to “withdraw the appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court decision” in the “ceded” lands case, and


• declared “the public policy of the State of Hawai‘i is to honor the decision of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.”

Passing SB 1677, in its current form, does not reflect the public policy described in Senate Concurrent Resolution 40.

I urge you to add the language below to SB 1677:

      Chapter 171, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

     "§171- Limitation on sale and transfers. The State shall not dispose of any lands in the public land trust, as described in subsection 171-18(a), whether by lease with option to purchase, sale, or exchange, except as provided in subsection 171-18(d); provided that the State may dispose of lands in the public land trust pursuant to subsection 171-18(c), if one of the following conditions is met:

      (1) The claims of the native Hawaiian people, as defined in the United States Apology Resolution, Pub. L. No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 (1993), have been resolved;

      (2) The legislature finds pursuant to a concurrent resolution adopted by at least two-thirds majority vote of the members to which each house is entitled that the State no longer supports reconciliation between the State and the native Hawaiian people; or

      (3) The approval of the disposition of the public lands trust land by lease with option to purchase, sale, or exchange occurs after December 31, 2014."

In addition to the above language, I also urge you to add the language below:

      Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the State, its political subdivisions, boards, agencies, departments, and entities created pursuant to state law, may hold or manage public land trust lands, as described in subsection (a), by lease, permit, license, easement, exchange, or set aside. In addition, upon the occurrence of an event as described in section 171- (1), (2), or (3), the State, its political subdivisions, boards, agencies, departments, and any other state entity may dispose of public land trust lands, whether by lease with option to purchase, sale, or exchange, provided that all of the following conditions are met:

      (1) The State establishes a compelling state interest for the disposition;

      (2) There is no reasonable alternate means to accomplish the compelling state interest;

      (3) The disposition is limited to accomplishing the compelling state interest; and

      (4) The disposition is approved by the legislature by concurrent resolution adopted by at least two-thirds majority vote of the members to which each house is entitled.

     The conditions described in subsection (c)(1) to (4) shall not prevent the State from:

      (1) Disposing of remnants, as defined in section 171-52;

      (2) Providing easements to public utilities and government agencies pursuant to section 171-95; or

      (3) Engaging in land exchanges pursuant to sections 171-50 and 171-51."

The above proposed language better reflects the public policy of our Legislature. Any and all text in the current form of SB 1677 that contradicts this proposed language should be omitted/stricken so as to recognize that the proposed language above is the language recognized in the Bill.

I urge you to pass 1677 only with amendments. I also urge you to schedule a hearing for SB 1085 which better reflects the public policy declared by our legislature.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.

[Insert your name]

Hawaii State Senate Passes SB 1085

Media contacts:
Derek Kauanoe kupuaina@gmail.com
Davis Price kupuaina@gmail.com

For Immediate Release:
March 10, 2009


State Senate Passes “Ceded” Lands Moratorium Bill

HONOLULU, HI -- Today, the Hawai‘i Senate passed Senate Bill 1085, which places a 5-year moratorium on the sale of ceded lands and provides a process for the sale of “ceded” lands after the moratorium is no longer in effect.

SB 1085 was passed with 24 votes with 1 senator voting against it.

SB 1085 will now go to the Hawai‘i State House of Representatives.

Last week, SB 1677, which was also passed out of the Senate and crossed over to the House of Representatives, passed the House Hawaiian Affairs committee. SB 1677, does not provide a moratorium but instead requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate for “ceded” lands sales.

Derek Kauanoe, speaking for the Kupu‘āina Coalition, described SB 1085 as a bill that “is good for all of Hawai‘i generally. While SB 1085 acknowledges the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians, it also provides a comprehensive process to protect the ceded lands for the general public.” Kauanoe continued to explain, “unlike the continental United States, in Hawai‘i, we have limited natural resources such as land. SB 1085 provides a process to ensure that proposed transfers of lands will be used for important purposes only. This process goes into effect when the moratorium is over.”

The Kupu‘āina Coalition is an organization, of current law school students and recent law school graduates of the William S. Richardson School of Law, that is dedicated towards the protection of “ceded” lands.

Support for SB 1085 from two Senators.

As we wait for the Senate vote on SB 1085, I thought I would share some of the e-mails coming from Senators that made its way to us. We expect there is much more support than from the two Senators we got e-mails from.

---

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:13:27 -1000
From: "Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland"
Reply-To: "Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland"
Subject: RE: Support SB1085 moratorium on sale of "ceded" lands
To:

Hi Eileen:

Mahalo a nui loa for your support. I am very supportive.

Aloha,

Senator Susie Chun Oakland

---

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Sen. Donna Mercado Kim wrote:

Aloha,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding SB 1085. This measure will be on the Senate floor for final reading tomorrow and I will be supporting it as it goes over to the House for further consideration.


Mahalo,


Senator Donna Mercado Kim
Chair of Ways & Means Committee
State Capitol, Room 210
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 808-587-7200 Fax: 808-587-7205

---

Webcast. Why SB 1085 is better than SB 1677

SB 1085 will be voted on by the Senate tomorrow around 11:30 am. If the Senate passes SB 1085 and sends it to the State House of Representatives. The House of Representatives will then need to determine whether SB 1085 or SB 1677 should be passed. In our most recent webcast, Kupu‘āina Coalition Spokesperson Derek Kauanoe explains why the coalition says SB 1085 is better than SB 1677.



We strongly believe that SB 1085 is the better bill of the two for a number of reasons:

• Unlike SB 1677, SB 1085 is a reaffirmation of the Hawaii Supreme Court's landmark January 31, 2009, opinion.


• The mere description of the bills alone, SB 1085 specifically acknowledges the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians. SB 1677 does not.


• Also unlike SB 1677, SB1085 also provides for a comprehensive process for a sale on ceded lands even if a two-thirds majority is reached.

Watch the video for more details of why SB 1085 is better.

We Need You To Send E-mails!

Now that SB 1085 passed out of the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations committee, the full senate will need to vote on it. We're asking you to send our senators e-mails urging them to pass SB 1085.

E-mails should be sent to sens@capitol.hawaii.gov if you can include us on the cc (or better yet the BCC) by putting kupuaina@gmail.com in that e-mail, we'd greatly appreciate it.

We have templates for you to use if you don't know what to write in an e-mail. Please pick one template only:

• Template 1


• Template 2


• Template 3

We also have a special template for our supporters who do not live in Hawai‘i. CLICK HERE for the special out-of-Hawai‘i template.

SENATE BILL 1085 passes

Senator Sam Slom was the only state lawmaker in the Judiciary and Government Operations (JGO) committee to vote NO on Senate Bill 1085 yesterday morning shortly before 10 am. The Committee chair, Brian Taniguchi and Vice-Chair, Dwight Takamine in addition to committee members Robert Bunda and Clarence Nishihara voted to pass SB 1085. Senator Mike Gabbard was not present for the vote.

When the vote was made, Senator Taniguchi noted that the bill would be passed with only technical amendments. We assume this means that non-substantive changes will be made.

The next step for Senate Bill 1085 is to be heard by the full senate. In a previous phone conversation with Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, it was suggested that SB 1085 will pass the Senate and be sent to the state House of Representatives.

Moments after the senate committee passed SB 1085, Kupu‘āina organizers met with the Speaker of the House of Representatives Calvin Say. Calvin Say suggested that SB 1085 will be scheduled for hearings with different committees. He did express concern however about the senate passing two different bills addressing the same issue. The House can not do likewise. The other bill being SB 1677. The House will need to pass just one of those bills.

Speaker Say said that he would like to see both SB 1677 and SB 1085 heard together in committee so that the House can determine which of those two bills it will support and proceed forward with.

Between the two bills, coalition organizers prefer to see SB 1085 pass out of the legislature. SB 1085, in the coalition's opinion, is more of a re-affirmation of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's January 31, 2008 landmark decision in OHA v. HCDCH.

Coalition organizers hope SB 1085 will be heard on the Senate floor by Tuesday, March 10. We will keep you updated. PAU.

SB 1085 is FINALLY scheduled for a hearing!!!

We have two different testimony/commentary templates for you to use by cutting and pasting. It is important that you submit this testimony/commentary no later than 9:30am March 4, 2009.

You can submit this by sending it via e-mail to JGOTestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov

It is also very important that you “cc” (carbon copy) this e-mail to the following e-mail addresses: sentaniguchi@capitol.hawaii.gov, sentakamine@capitol.hawaii.gov, senbunda@capitol.hawaii.gov, sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov, sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov, and senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov

We also encourage you to “cc” us on the e-mail by sending it to kupuaina@gmail.com

Please choose ONLY ONE of these templates only, copy and past the text in an e-mail and send it to the e-mail addresses listed above. You can choose a template by clicking on one below.

TEMPLATE 1 or TEMPLATE 2

---

Senate Bill 1085 has finally been scheduled for hearing.

WHEN: March 5, 2009 at 9:45am
WHERE: State Capitol in Room 211
WHO: Senate Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations (JGO) and YOU!
WHY: To protect the so-called "ceded" lands from being sold.

SB 1085 is the only surviving piece of legislation that provides a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands. If the bill is going to move forward, it needs to be out of the JGO committee by 3/5/09.

For more information on the status of SB 1085 go to tinyurl.com/SB1085update3-3

Maoli Thursday, March 5, 2009

Click on image to enlarge.



A live stream will be used to broad cast this event. The webcast will be shown at both stopsellingcededlands.com and www.uhm-nativehawaiianlaw.blogspot.com.

Legislative efforts to protect ceded lands get slimmer.

Don't forget to watch our weekly live-streaming webcast today at 5:30pm Hawaii Standard Time.

WE NEED YOU TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY!
Senate Bill 1085 (which, with its amendments, provides a 5-year moratorium on the sale of ceded lands and then requires a two-thirds majority vote for sales) still has not been scheduled for a hearing by Senator Brian Taniguchi. If Senate Bill 1085 is not passed out of Taniguchi's Judiciary and Government Operations committee by March 5, it will die.

Currently, Senate Bill 1677 has passed out of the Senate and is currently in the House. It is scheduled for a hearing with the House Hawaiian Affairs committee this Wednesday. Senate Bill 1677, is not the preferred bill, but it is currently the only bill alive right now, that has also passed one chamber of the legislature, and would restrict the sale of ceded lands and make sales virtually impossible. Senate Bill 1677 requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate for a sale of ceded lands.

Sample testimony is provided at the end of this posting. You can cut and paste it, and submit via e-mail to HAWtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov We also encourage you to write your own testimony if you have additional thoughts or perspectives you would like to express to the House Committee.


JUST FIVE MINUTES A DAY
We still need just five minutes a day from people like you, your family and friends. Please go to our Just Five Minutes Calendar to see what you can do. You may also go to http://tinyurl.com/Just5Minutes. You can join our fight to protect Hawaiian lands by dedicating just five minutes a day.

We're receiving positive feedback from people about this Just 5 Minutes effort. We're hearing that we've made advocating for "ceded"/seized/stolen lands protection easy. We hope so and we're confident too that, you too can accomplish a lot in just 5 minutes. Please be sure to participate. Depending on what happens in the next week, we may be revising the calendar.


THE SUPREME COURT CASE
Last Wednesday, as you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys representing the Lingle Administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. A few commentaries have been floated around online about it. We read the transcripts last week Wednesday. The transcripts should be understood within the context of domestic U.S. law. If we were to make an assessment based only on the questions asked (which is not a complete assessment) it might be easy to assume that this case will find its way back to the Hawaii state court system. This is a state issue and is more properly addressed here rather than in Washington D.C. The Supreme Court justices asked very challenging questions of both attorneys, Attorney General Mark Bennett and OHA attorney Kannon Shanmugam.

Justice Samuel Alito surprised us though. A question he asked suggested that he was familiar with proposed moratorium legislation introduced in our legislature. His question was about legislation of a 5-year moratorium on "ceded" lands and wanting to promote a reconciliation process. This refers to Senate Bill 1085. Some commentators like to emphasize that OHA attorney admitted that "if the Hawaii Supreme Court based their ruling on the Apology Resolution, then that would be wrong." However, emphasizing this so-called admission as somehow being weak or "giving-up" on the case is incorrect and mis-placed. OHA's strategy was to emphasize that 1.) this is a state issue, and 2.) the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision was based primarily on State law. In reality folks, you can't argue that the State Supreme Court's decision was based on state law, that this is a state issue, AND ask the Supreme Court to not review the case while also saying the State Supreme Court's decision was based on federal law.

Questions asked by the Court suggested that it may hold that the Apology Resolution did not prevent the State from selling ceded lands, and that the Court might send it back to State court. The Court did express concerns however, that even if the Apology Resolution doesn't prevent the state from selling ceded lands, that state law may prevent such sales. However, they did raise the question that, if those state laws were inconsistent with federal law, then there may still be a federal issue. However, when Mark Bennett asked the Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision, he only asked the Court about the Apology Resolution. He didn't include in his question, inquiries about the Newlands Resolution (1898), the Organic Act (1900) or the Admission Act (1959). Justices served Bennett a bunch of questions and expressed concern that those other federal laws were not adequately raised before the Court.

We can expect a decision to come out before the end of June. We suspect an opinion may come out some time in May.


VIGIL AT CAPITOL
Mahalo nui loa to everyone who came out to the capitol. While it was a very political experience, it was also a very spiritual and cultural experience. Being in the presence of our brothers and sisters in solidarity, chanting and praying to ke Akua, and for others na akua and na aumakua was indeed spiritual. Mahalo to everyone across the United States who joined in on Kukulu Kumuhana and who generally support our struggle. Mahalo for the halau hula and kumu hulu who were present as well.


STOP SELLING CEDED LANDS STICKERS
More people are buying stickers. Sticker sales help to pay for printing our materials, website hosting, etc., costs associated with this effort. Although this is a 100% volunteer effort, postage, photocopies, papers, website hosting, website domain hosting all have costs. Mahalo to those who donated postage stamps, it helped tremendously.

Anyway, you can read more about our stickers by going to http://tinyurl.com/stick-um.


Testimony. We're providing the testimony for SB 1677 below. You can cut and paste it into your own e-mail and send it to HAWtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov Testimony should be submitted by 9:30am tomorrow (Tuesday) March 3, 2009.

Name: (enter name here)
Committee: House Hawaiian Affairs Committee
Date/Time of hearing: March 4, 2009 at 9:30am
Re: Senate Bill 1677 - TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Madam Chair Carroll and Madam Vice-Chair Shimabukuro, and members of the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs:

My name is (enter name here). I submit written testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 1677. Unfortunately, Senate Bill 1085, at the time of this writing, has not yet been passed out of all its Senate committees. Senate Bill 1085, apparently, is stalled at the Judiciary and Government Operations committee, chaired by Senator Brian Taniguchi.

Senate Bill 1677 may be our only hope this legislative session to protect the so-called ceded lands from being sold. It is important that the “ceded” lands be protected from sales so that the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians can be resolved.

Senate Bill 1677 does not explicitly provide a moratorium, but its two-thirds requirement to sell ceded lands provides a mechanism for restricting the sale of such lands. We must support legislation that protects the “ceded” lands.

Recently, our legislature passed a resolution that urged Governor Lingle to withdraw the “ceded” lands case from U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps more importantly, the resolution provided that “the Legislature declares the public policy of the State of Hawaii is to honor the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court” in its January 31, 2008, landmark ruling. Although Senate Bill 1677 falls short of re-affirming our highest state court’s decision, Senate Bill 1677 in effect provides some protection of these lands.

Please pass Senate Bill 1677. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Sincerely,


(enter name here)