The Attorney General of Hawaii opines in his editorial "U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report on the Akaka Bill Fails Native People of Hawaii" that the Constitution grants wide latitude for Congress to give away the rights of some to benefit others simply because of his definition of "the sufferings of the Native Hawaiian people."  

An attorney must understand the role of historical experience in the development of our legal systems. Historical experience is the basis for the U.S. Constitution and for the constitutions of many other nations. Common Law is built on experience and rulings. To now suggest that ancient suffering is rationale enough to void equal rights protections developed through the centuries of experience; turns logic upside-down.

Congress, the Attorney General, and all the supporters of the Akaka Bill should recognize that with a vote in 1959 Hawaii became a state. That vote set up a compact between the people of Hawaii and the government of the state of Hawaii. The statehood vote made all Hawaii voters (residents) the beneficiaries and owners of this state. Changes to the ownership structure of this state, and the Akaka Bill is a significant change, should first be subject to a vote of the voters.

Afterall, establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs came about through a constitutional vote of acceptance. With a vote, true reconciliation might be possible. Without a vote reconciliation will need to be imposed by the courts.

This seems to be the route the Attorney General prefers; a prolonged legal action to reasoned voter consultation. Noting that the Akaka Bill has not had a public hearing in Hawaii for years nor has ever been subject to a vote by the people of Hawaii demonstrates that the proponents seek to avoid voter views instead of seeking voter guidance and approval.   

With a vote by the owners of the State of Hawaii that clearly accepts the act of creating an ethnic tribe, endowed with the transfer of specific public lands and/or money, Hawaii as a state stands a chance of continuing as a racial melting pot with Aloha for all. Without such a vote we ensure that one group is set up legislatively, at the expense of the others, to have special privileges defended by the courts. The long-term result of such arrogant use of legislative power will be to erode the confidence of those not selected for special treatment in the entire system of laws made legislatively and judicially. 

Hawaii must use voter consultation, not legislative, executive, or judicial action, to guarantee that Hawaii is a state with justice for all. The Attorney General should instead be asking the Legislature to amend our State Constitution, which would be subject to approval by Hawaii voters, to accomplish his purposes and not by going to Washington to get an outside "solution" imposed. 

Jack Schneider is the chairman of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a board member of Small Business Hawaii, and owner of JS Services. He can be reached via email at mailto:jschn@lava.net