Those trying to stop a Native Hawaiian election in court vowed to continue their legal fight Friday despite a judge’s decision to allow the voting of convention delegates to move forward.

Plaintiff Keli‘i Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said he was confident the ruling would be overturned by a higher court.

“It is simply wrong for the state to use public resources in order to promote a racially discriminatory process,” said Akina, one of six individuals who filed a lawsuit in August claiming the state is illegally running a race-based and view-based election.

On Friday U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright denied a motion to block the election, saying the vote is a private matter not subject to the same 14th Amendment requirements imposed on state-sanctioned elections.

In addition, Seabright denied most of the other constitutional claims brought by the plaintiffs, saying they failed to meet the requirements of violations cited in the First, 14th and 15th Amendments and the Voting Rights Act.

Afterward, Na‘i Aupuni attorney Bill Meheula said the ruling underscores the fact that an election held exclusively for Native Hawaiians does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Meheula said the ruling will be difficult to topple on appeal. Not only did the defendants win on the state action doctrine, he said, but on other constitutional claims as well.

“(Seabright) basically said they lost at both levels, and they needed to win on both levels. We only need to win on one level. So for them to win on appeal, they have to reverse him basically twice,” Meheula said.

The ruling paves the way for a November election with more than 200 candidates hoping to become delegates to a governance aha, or constitutional convention, planned to start in February.

More than 95,000 Native Hawaiians were included on a list of eligible voters put together by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, the group established by the 2011 state Legislature in Act 195.

Na‘i Aupuni, a group of five volunteer and unpaid directors with ties to Hawaiian royalty, is overseeing the election and convention with nearly $2.6 million given to it by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which was tapped by Act 195 to underwrite the effort.

In court on Tuesday, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that Na‘i Aupuni was essentially a government actor carrying out the mandate of Act 195.

What’s more, they said that even if Na‘i Aupuni is considered an independent group, the election is public in its effect because of the far-ranging consequences it would have on the tens of thousands of Native Hawaiians and others in the state.

In his ruling, however, Seabright said any consequences of the election are purely speculation. Even if it results in the ratification of a constitution, the document would be powerless until it is recognized in negotiations with the state or federal government. In other words, he said, Na‘i Aupuni is just an early step in the process.

Act 195 also didn’t mandate any one self-governance process, the judge said, and the nexus between state funding and the election isn’t close enough to label it “a state election.”

Seabright, who moved quickly to issue a ruling before the election, said he would issue a more detailed written order in a week or so.

Outside the courtroom Friday, Honolulu attorney Michael Lilly, who represented the plaintiffs along with attorneys with the conservative public-interest group Judicial Watch, said, “This certainly isn’t the end of the discussion.”

Lilly said he didn’t see how anyone could argue what is happening is a private action.

“It was organized by the state of Hawaii through state agencies and state funding, so it’s about as much of a state action as anything could be,” he said.

Left unchallenged, he said, Seabright’s ruling is “a prescription to completely nullify the state-action requirement. It would completely destroy (the requirement) because it would be so easy to find that something is not state action by subterfuge.”

Kamana‘opono Crabbe, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said the the judge’s decision makes it clear that OHA took the appropriate steps to maintain neutrality in the process.

“We always believed it was a private election,” Crabbe said. “It’s purely for the purposes and goals of determining what options and direction Native Hawaiians want to go. It’s not fixed. I know there are people who believe it’s a slam dunk for federal recognition, but in our deliberations we really believe it’s up to the people.”

Ballots are scheduled to be mailed out Nov. 1, with voting ending Nov. 30. Voters will elect 40 delegates who will meet on Oahu between February and April over the course of eight consecutive weeks.

If the delegates recommend a form of Hawaiian government, a ratification vote may be held two months after the convention ends, according to Na‘i Aupuni guidelines.

“The federal court has confirmed that Native Hawaiians have the right to bring our voices together to be heard,” OHA Chairman Robert Lindsey said in a statement. “It’s now up to us. This is our opportunity as a community to take on the kuleana — the rights and responsibilities — to improve our lives. Native Hawaiians have the chance to engage in Na‘i Aupuni’s process to ultimately create greater well-being for our people today and for generations to come.”