The adoption of a constitution, however imperfect, represents a quantum leap for the Native Hawaiian community seeking to advance its sovereignty cause.
The monthlong Native Hawaiian convention, laboring under diminished conditions and with an uncertain pathway forward, completed its primary task last week and moved out an organic document for later ratification. There was significant opposition — 30 votes against — but the 88 votes in favor comprises support approaching super-majority levels.
Reaching that level of accord in what has been a deeply contentious issue for decades is an achievement that must not be dismissed. But the legal turbulence that swirls around the whole enterprise will not abate anytime soon. Confronting these problems squarely is essential to making further progress on what is necessarily a long-term movement.
Critics of the convention, also known as the ‘aha, correctly chronicle the flaws in the process, including these elements:
>> Na‘i Aupuni, the nonprofit organizers of the convention, sidestepped the looming legal impasse by canceling the election to choose delegates to the ‘aha. This departure from its own established process, which had been officially noticed and published, leads many people to reasonably question its legitimacy.
>> The roll of voters that will have to ratify the constitution was amassed from multiple enrollment campaigns, mounted under varying circumstances. There were stipulations about Hawaiian sovereignty that not all enrollees signed.
There is also a dispute over whether the ratification vote can include members of an electorate expanded beyond the current roll.
>> Legal challenges still hover over any ratification vote to be planned, which puts into question whether funds can be secured to do the outreach necessary to bring in sufficient participation.
It’s not even clear yet whether the original lawsuit, now lodged in the federal appellate court, is moot. But even if it is, the entire notion of a vote conducted only within the Native Hawaiian community is all but certain to draw down a new challenge.
The Grassroot Institute, the nonprofit policy group on the offensive in the current legal challenge, issued a statement Monday decrying the fact that “this (‘aha) Constitution does not follow the inclusive spirit of the (Hawaiian) kingdom, which was not racially-based.”
The Star-Advertiser has agreed with the finding by the U.S. District Court, that the voting is a private action that should be allowed to proceed. The right of any group of individuals to assemble, organize and govern themselves is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Where this process requires intervention is in how or whether the state and federal government interacts with whatever self-governing entity emerges at the end. The state would have to decide whether the new entity would essentially supplant the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs in managing the ceded-lands revenue and other resources authorized for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
Also, the federal government would need to recognize the new government as representing indigenous Hawaiians, similarly to recognition given to Native American tribes and Native Alaskan corporations.
Whether these hurdles can be cleared in time for the lame-duck Obama administration to complete the recognition process it launched seems doubtful, to put it mildly.
However, the Native Hawaiian community should put its focus not on meeting any external timetable but to strive to improve the fairness of the process. For example: Those who want off the voting roll for whatever reason should be accommodated.
The document itself should be a unifying force, not a source of further battles. The individuals who crafted it were unelected, but they were assembled through the call issued in the initial delegate election plan.
This constitution, then, is the product of a broad-based segment of the Hawaiian population and merits consideration as a serious distillation of Native Hawaiian values and aspirations.
