Don't forget to watch our weekly live-streaming webcast today at 5:30pm Hawaii Standard Time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment