The U.S. Senate is scheduled on Monday and Tuesday to debate the merits of the bill, referred to as the "Akaka Bill" for U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and vote next week on whether the Akaka Bill should pass the full Senate. The U.S. House scheduled a subcommittee hearing on Tuesday to determine whether the Akaka Bill is constitutional.

Lingle already testified before the Senate in support of the Akaka Bill and has aggressively lobbied the U.S. Senate and President George W. Bush in person on the issue.

Lingle says many people have worked hard over the years to get Hawaii to this historic point, which she notes is the process to establish self-governance for Native Hawaiians. She will be meeting with co-sponsors of the Akaka Bill, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and those Senators still undecided, to answer questions and provide additional information about this legislation and its significance to all the people of Hawaii.

However many Hawaii residents -- Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian -- want to know why state officials, including the governor and trustees from the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs, are representing all of Hawaii’s people as being in support of the Akaka Bill.

There have been no public hearings organized by her state administration, the University of Hawaii's Hawaiian Studies Department, Hawaii's congressional delegation or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to determine if there actually is support for the Akaka Bill. A Hawaiian group opposing the Akaka Bill pleaded with OHA trustees in a recent meeting to hold hearings and consider other viewpoints by Hawaiians, and OHA refused. OHA says it has sponsored pro-independent speakers in various forums for Hawaiians to attend, and that people could express their views at those forums.

In terms of debating the merits of the Akaka Bill, the governor and state Attorney General Mark Bennett have declined to go head to head over the Akaka Bill with several well-known authorities who have requested an open discussion on the impact of the bill.

The one survey the Office of Hawaiian Affairs sponsored two years ago in 2003 only polled 305 Hawaiians and 301 non-Hawaiians. OHA officials say the survey was in-depth, person-to-person poll, and more effective and accurate than an automated poll. The results of the survey, according to a spokesperson for OHA, was 86 percent of Hawaiians supported the Akaka Bill and 76 percent of non-Hawaiians supported the bill. There was no other polling or surveying done because OHA officials felt those 606 people were representative of the feelings of the people living in the state. From there, OHA embarked on an aggressive campaign, funded by the taxpayers, to lobby for an independent nation and for the Akaka Bill.

Critics of the Akaka Bill say the 606 people surveyed was not a sufficient number, and note there has been no vote taken during recent elections -- including the 2004 election -- to determine public support for the Akaka Bill.

There has been little education by the local media as to what impact the Akaka Bill will have on the state.

There have been no publicly televised debates organized by the television news media.

The only private group that has held a balanced debate, which aired on public television, is the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group, which several months ago facilitated a debate between four people -- two in favor of the Akaka bill and two against.

The media, with the exception of The Honolulu Advertiser, KITV and Hawaii Reporter, have not even bothered to date to report on the statewide poll released by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii that shows there in fact is not broad support for the Akaka Bill and growing disenchantment.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, the only group that sponsored two statewide polls -- the first polling 10,000 people and the second polling every household in the state or 290,000 households, has documented broad opposition to the Akaka Bill.

The survey to the first poll included responses from 1,696 people (10,000 were called but not all responded) and 67.11 percent of all respondents opposed the Akaka Bill with 22.71 percent of all respondents identified themselves as Native Hawaiians.

People of all political affiliations responded: 34.42 percent of respondents were Republican, 33.56 percent were Democrat and 32.01 percent did not affiliate with either major party.

The 45-second poll also showed that 44.88 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for an elected official who supported the Akaka bill.

In the second poll conducted by CC Advertising for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii from July 8 to 10, 2005, and released on July 14, 2005, shows an estimated two out of every three people in Hawaii oppose the Akaka Bill. The poll, which attempted to survey all 290,000 households in Hawaii, received 20,504 responses to the question "Do you support the Akaka Bill?" In support were 5,197 people or 32.70 percent, opposed were 10,694 or 67.30 percent. The remaining people polled chose not to answer that question. To the question of whether they support racial preferences, 23,129 people responded, with 3,022 people or 18.37 percent saying yes they do support racial preferences and 13,427 people or 81.63 percent saying they do not support racial preferences.

OHA dismissed the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii polls, saying their 2003 survey conducted locally by Ward Research with 606 "live" people was more comprehensive and reliable.

Department of Justice Puts Hawaii on Notice – There are Problems with Akaka Bill

The Department of Justice yesterday issued a 2-page letter to U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, chairperson of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee listing "four serious policy concerns" about the Akaka Bill and asking for changes to the measure.

Specifically, the Justice Department wants the bill to:

• Prevent gambling from being legalized in Hawaii through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;
• Prevent interference in U.S. Military affairs, facilities or readiness;
• Spell out whether the state, federal government or new Hawaiian government entity, would have jurisdiction over crimes committed on native Hawaiian lands;
• Preclude potential claims from "asserting an alleged breach of trust, calling for an accounting, or seeking the recovery of or compensation for lands once held by native Hawaiians."

Bill Will Meet with Opposition in Senate

While Gov. Lingle notes several U.S. Senators support the Akaka Bill, based on her representation that the people of Hawaii and all lawmakers want the bill passed, there are many Senators opposed to the measure.

The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a report in June entitled "Why Congress Must Reject Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians" The main objections to the bill, according to this report, is the conditions set forth in the Akaka Bill are unconstitutional and illegal and would cause extensive litigation that would end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The bill encourages increased litigation, including claims against private landowners and state and federal entities, which would heavily impact private and public resources."

The report says to "create a race-based government would be offensive to our nation's commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in the law."

Hawaii’s State Attorney General issued a 38-page response to the U.S. Senate. Critics say the Lingle administration has spend a great deal of political capital and taxpayers funds lobbying and advocating for the Akaka Bill.

Why the Akaka Bill is in Contention

While advocates of the Akaka Bill say Hawaii will be a better place if the legislation is passed and justice will finally be served to descendents of Hawaiians wronged by Americans in 1893, opponents say the Akaka Bill will segregate Hawaii in a way that "boggles the mind."

Opponents note the result of Akaka is unpredictable and could turn on its head public and private land ownership, access to natural resources, the American justice system, state and county government operations, and the Hawaiian community, which is integrated deeply into Hawaii’s melting pot of multiple ethnicity. There are fewer than 1 percent of Hawaii’s 1.3 million population who claim to be pure Hawaiian, according to the U.S. Census, with some people with just a drop of Hawaiian blood claiming to be Native Hawaiian so they can claim benefits.

In addition, critics note the Bill of Rights does not typically apply to Indian tribes, but those elements that do, are challenging to enforce, and may become even more so if the Hawaiian monarchy is reinstated or the new Hawaiian government severs ties with the United States.

This despite the fact that there wasn't a race-based government in Hawaii even before 1893, there was no sovereignty for Hawaiians, the queen’s subjects were from all over the world and the government included officials of many races.

What Advocates Are Trying to Preserve

Advocates of the Akaka bill, many who don’t hold back in expressing their disdain for Caucasians or "haoles" who stole their lands and imprisoned their queen, want to continue receiving federal and state subsidies and lands and getting preference in state and federal grants and aid.

But there is a movement by groups in the community to unite all people of Hawaii as Americans, thus removing special preference for the Native Hawaiians.

At stake are millions of dollars and millions of acres of land, in addition to tremendous power over the future of the Hawaiian people.

While Congress has catered to the Native Hawaiian movement, issuing in 1993 an official apology for America's alleged role in the overthrow of the monarchy 100 years earlier, the courts have not been so kind.

Until 2000, the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs were required to be Native Hawaiian and those who voted in the election also were of Hawaiian ancestry. That year, the Supreme Court ruled the racial restrictions on voting violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial restrictions on voting. Most alarming to advocates of special treatment, Supreme Court justices cast doubt on the constitutionality of the whole scheme of benefits for Native Hawaiians. Since then other legal challenges have been made to racial preference for native Hawaiians and those cases are pending.

Reach Malia Zimmerman, editor and president of Hawaii Reporter, via email at mailto:Malia@hawaiireporter.com

Today in Hawaii...