(UPDATED) Hawaii News Now – Hawaiian Affairs CEO moving forward after letter

Hawaii News Now reports “Hawaiian Affairs CEO moving forward after letter

Hawaii News Now Photo

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Does the Hawaiian Kingdom still exist? That’s the question the CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wants answered by the U.S. Justice Department.

His inquiry has sparked an internal dispute within OHA, as several trustees have attempted to rescind the request, but he’s standing by his decision and now a few trustees are switching sides and backing him as well.

Dr. Kamanaʻopono Crabbe addressed the public today for the first time since submitting a formal request to Secretary of State John Kerry seeking clarification on the legal status of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.

Flanked by dozens of supporters, Dr. Crabbe held a press conference Monday morning to clarify the intent of his inquiry, which he says was sent within his authority under OHA’s governing documents and Hawai’i statutory law.

He says the chief reason for requesting that Secretary Kerry seek a legal opinion of the U.S. Attorney General regarding the status of Hawai’i under international law is to ensure OHA can effectively facilitate a process of rebuilding a Hawaiian nation.  Dr. Crabbe went on to say highly qualified experts have provided their answers to the questions posed, but it would be irresponsible for OHA to assume the United States views the situation similarly.

“My staff and I have held some 30 community meetings in the past two months regarding our proposed process to rebuild our nation. In that same period we also held two governance summits with key community leaders. At these gatherings, and in other virtual contexts, we heard repeatedly concerns about engaging in a process of rebuilding a nation when — following the research of many legal, historical, and political experts — our nation continues to exist in the context of international law,” Dr. Crabbe said.

Dr. Crabbe says he made the inquiry because these claims appear to be valid, but for over 120 years, Native Hawaiians voices and concerns have not been properly answered.

“It is imperative for us to move forward to have at least accurate information and truth so that our people can make well informed decisions,” Dr. Crabbe said.

Among the questions Dr. Crabbe asked in his letter to Secretary Kerry:

“First, does the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?
Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?”

Experts say these are questions that have come up for decades, since the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi in 1893 and since the U.S. government formally apologized for the illegal overthrow in 1993, but supporters say this is the first time the State Department has ever been asked point blank for an answer.

OHA’s CEO says his inquiry is not intended to invalidate the nation-building efforts of Kanaʻiolowalu but to make sure self-determination is achieved legally and with no unanswered questions.

“I can only imagine the burden that our Queen Lili’uokalani faced in 1893, but her charge and her legacy, and most of all, her spirit remains with us today, but most of all we must heed not only her guidance but each other,” Dr. Crabbe said.  “For we are all Natives.  We are patriots.  We are sons and daughters of this great land and as we move forward let not the differences divide us, but let our common beliefs and values and the principals of our kupuna unite us.  That is the call I ask from our people, from our trustees and our staff as we move forward in unity,” said Dr. Crabbe.

Only one trustee was present at Monday morning’s press conference, Oswald Stender.  Dr. Crabbe addressed the disagreement that exists between himself and OHA’s trustees since they learned of his inquiry, but says he has not been asked to resign or step down from his position as CEO.

“I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve,” said Dr. Crabbe. “The Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward.  And this is the reason I felt it was imperative to not only ask the questions but that the community be aware of the inquiry.”

Initially, all nine trustees signed a letter asking Secretary Kerry to rescind Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry, which was sent by OHA Chair Colette Machado Friday afternoon.

However, over the weekend Trustee Dan Ahuna sent another letter to Secretary Kerry — this time, asserting his support for Dr. Crabbe’s initial inquiry.

“It clearly appears that Dr. Crabbe is carrying out his fiduciary authority of due diligence in gathering evidence needed to make decisions as the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs,” Ahuna wrote.  “It is the best interest of our people to gather further information and pertinent documents.”

Immediately following Dr. Crabbe’s press conference Monday morning, Trustee Carmen Hulu Lindsey sent a letter to Chair Machado asking her name be removed from the rescind request.

“I have attended the many community town hall meetings OHA has held throughout the islands and heard the concerns articulated in Dr. Crabbe’s letters expressed by several people.  While those questions may be troubling and difficult to address, it is precisely because they are so that I now believe Dr. Crabbe demonstrated courage and integrity in moving those concerns forward to try to get the clarity we need,” Lindsey wrote.

More than 1,200 people have signed He Mana’o Pono, a petition in support of Dr. Crabbe’s State Department request since Saturday.

“Really what we’ve sought in that letter of support is first to honor Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe and the position that he’s taken and really bringing to the forefront questions that have plagued our community for generations.  We’re not committed to any particular answers to those questions or outcome , but we are committed to having those questions asked,” said said Dr. Kamanamaikalani Beamer, a law professor with the University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa.  “Hawaiʻi is at a pivotal time.  We need facilitative leadership.  We need people that are going to bring our communities together and I feel like answers to these questions and clarifications will help and I want to support a leader that listens to our people.”

“Those are important questions — some of which are coming out of the University right now.  This is cutting edge research on the legal political history of Hawaiʻi that I think is prompting a new kind of awareness in the community.  What you’ve seen the CEO do today is respond to that new awareness — this new curriculum, this new education and research that’s coming out of the university,” said Dr. Willy Kauai, a UH Manoa lecturer in the Ethnic Studies department.  “I think what’s paramount in what took place today was kind of a call for education that, ʻEh, if we’re going to go about doing these important things, such as nation-building, we should probably have a very clear understanding of our own history’.”

Hundreds have commented on the petition.

“The truth can only be hidden from the world for so long. People in positions of power and policy making who have a conscience must speak out to the truth and challenge those who continue to perpetuate the lie that Hawaiʻi is a state of the USA.  Kamanaʻopono Crabbe is another champion in our history of leaders to step forth and question what is perceived to be the truth.  Mahalo nunui e Kamanaʻopono and to all who continue to keep the fire alive!” one supporter wrote.

“As a person of non-Hawaiian ancestry, I stand in solidarity with the statement of support by He Mana’o Pono.  It has been over 100 years of illegal occupation by the US goverment of these sovereign islands and it is high time the US government obliged to its obligations under international law as an occupying power, to uphold the Hawaiian constitution until such time as to the end of said occupation,” wrote another who signed the petition.

In a statement from OHA Chair Colette Machado sent to Hawaii News Now and all of the OHA staff, Machado writes she agrees Dr. Crabbe “has identified important questions that have been asked by many advocates for Hawaiʻi’s independence throughout the decades since the illegal overthrow of our Queen”, but says his actions “by-passed our Hawaiian legislators who have worked diligently, against great odds, to protect our Native Hawaiian trusts, programs, lands and entitlements.  They also sponsored and promoted Act 195 for the Kanaʻiolowalu roll.”

“I believe that the action pursued by Ka Pouhana demonstrates a lack of respect for the over 125,000 Native Hawaiians who registered to participate in the process,” Machado wrote.

According to Machado, an executive session will be held to address the trustees concerns with Dr. Crabbe next week at which time they will “initiate an investigation of the breach of established processes” and decide on a strategy to have the questions Dr. Crabbe raised addressed “without affecting the Kanaiʻiolowalu process and OHA’s commitment to facilitating a process to reorganize a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.” Machado says the trustees will take “appropriate action” following their meeting.

Statement of Chair Colette Machado – http://bit.ly/1onwhim

Chair Machado’s Message to all OHA – http://bit.ly/1onwkdW

Here is a copy of Dr. Crabbe’s address from Monday morning’s press conference in its entirety:

Prepared Comments of Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ka Pouhana and CEO Press Conference of May 12, 2014 

Aloha mai kakou, 

I called this media conference today to offer additional information about my letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, which was sent within my authority under OHA’s governing documents and Hawai’i statutory law.  As with any leader, I am often called upon to make tough decisions, which are sometimes controversial. I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve. I stand behind this decision and accept full responsibility for it.

As Ka Pouhana and CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I must ensure that the policies and commitments of the OHA Board of Trustees are implemented with thorough due diligence and a minimization of risk to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I take this responsibility seriously. And that was the chief reason for my inquiry with Secretary Kerry. 

As stated in the media release sent out this past Friday, I requested that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seek a legal opinion of the U.S. Attorney General regarding the status of Hawai’i under international law. I also posed additional questions to clarify how the answer to that primary question impacts current efforts to rebuild a Hawaiian nation. 

Answers from the U.S. Attorney General are needed for OHA to effectively facilitate a process of rebuilding a Hawaiian nation. We must start with agreed upon facts (or begin identifying points of disagreement that require clarification).  Highly qualified experts have provided their answers to the questions posed. However, it would be irresponsible for OHA to assume that the United States views the situation similarly. The stakes are far too high for OHA to proceed under assumptions. 

A second reason for my questions to Secretary Kerry stems from our Hawaiian community. My staff and I have held some 30 community meetings in the past two months regarding our proposed process to rebuild our nation. In that same period we also held two governance summits with key community leaders. At these gatherings, and in other virtual contexts, we heard repeatedly concerns about engaging in a process of rebuilding a nation when-following the research of many legal, historical, and political experts-our nation continues to exist in the context of international law. Such concerns have led our community to request more time in the nation rebuilding process to have questions– such as I raised with Secretary Kerry– fully explored and shared with our people so that they can make well-informed decisions throughout the process. 

The Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward. And this is the reason I felt it was imperative not only that I ask the questions but that the community be aware of the inquiry. 

However, recognizing the gravity of the questions posed, I met with Chair Machado before making the letter public. I explained that my questions were a matter of due diligence and risk management to avoid OHA missteps in its nation rebuilding facilitation. I believed I had her consent to proceed with sharing publicly my letter to Secretary Kerry. Unfortunately, it is now apparent that we walked away from that meeting with a misunderstanding and misinformation. 

Despite disagreements that will need to be worked out between myself and OHA’s trustees, I am certain that the Board and I stand firmly together in our commitment to do all that we appropriately can to reestablish a Hawaiian nation. I look forward to engaging with the trustees in the ho’oponopono, which Chair Machado graciously suggested, so that we can work collectively to Ho’oulu Uihui Aloha, to Rebuild a Beloved Nation.

We must succeed in our efforts for the good of our lahui, our community, and our families for generations to come.

Associated Press: Hawaiian Affairs CEO Moving Forward After Letter

HONOLULU (AP) – The chief executive of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs said Monday he’s moving forward after a disagreement with the organization’s trustees over seeking clarification on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

But CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe told reporters Monday he stands behind a letter he sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last week that sought a legal opinion on whether the kingdom continues to exist under international law.

“I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve,” Crabbe said.

The request revealed divisions within the state agency that has a mission of protecting Native Hawaiians and perpetuating Hawaiian culture.

After Crabbe revealed the letter on Friday, all nine trustees signed a different note to Kerry saying Crabbe’s letter didn’t reflect their position or that of the agency.  On Monday, one trustee, Dan Ahuna, mailed yet another letter to Kerry reversing his position, removing his signature from the trustees’ letter and giving his support to Crabbe.

Crabbe, speaking at a news conference with nearly 100 supporters at the agency’s headquarters in Honolulu, said he thought he had the blessing of the board’s chairwoman, Colette Machade, before sharing the letter with the public.  He said he believes answers to the questions in the letter are crucial for moving forward withpursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Machado, who was in meetings on Molokai on Monday, did not immediately return a message seeking comment from the Associated Press.

Crabbe said the board took a position, and it’s his role to implement that decision.  “We are currently moving forward,” he said.

Crabbe said he had had several discussions with a majority of the board’s nine trustees and looked forward to meeting with them again next week.  “They have not asked me to resign,” he said.

In his original letter, Crabbe wrote that he was concerned with an analysis by scholars alleging the federal and state governments were illegal regimes.  The scholars said Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees and Native Hawaiian Roll Commission members may be criminally liable under international law.

Crabbe said he would ask trustees to put off pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until they confirmed the kingdom doesn’t exist under international law.

Crabbe said supporters of building a governing entity should continue their discussions.

“Remain vigilant and to be aware and to participate regarding their choice,” he said.  “That’s what this is all about.”

OHA Trustee Hulu Lindsey Follows Trustee Ahuna in Removing Name from Letter to Rescind

Trustee Hulu LindseyAnother Trustee takes steps to remove name from rescinding letter to Secretary of State Kerry. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Carmen Hulu Lindsey representing Maui, has notified Chairperson Trustee Colette Machado, that she is requesting removal of her name from the May 10, 2014 letter addressed to Secretary of State Kerry. The letter was signed by all nine Trustees, including Trustee Ahuna, which stated:

“We understand that you received a letter from Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana‘opono M. Crabbe, PhD dated May 5, 2014. The contents of that letter do not reflect the position of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or the position of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. That letter is hereby rescinded.”

Trustee Hulu Lindsey Ltr 1Trustee Hulu Lindsey Ltr 2

KITV News: OHA CEO Explains Disagreements with Trustees

KITV News reported “OHA CEO explains disagreements with trustees: Crabbe stands behind letter to Kerry seeking legal opinion

KITV photo

HONOLULU —The chief executive of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs explained to the media on Monday a disagreement with the organization’s trustees over seeking clarification on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

CEO Kamana’opono Crabbe told reporters Monday he stands behind a letter he sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last week, seeking a legal opinion on whether the kingdom continues to exist under international law.

After revealing the letter, all nine trustees signed a different note to Kerry saying Crabbe’s letter doesn’t reflect their position or the agency’s.

“The Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward,” said Crabbe.  ‘And this is the reason I felt it was imperative not only that I ask the questions but that the community be aware of the inquiry.”

Crabbe says he thought he had the blessing of the board’s chairwoman before sharing the letter publicly.  He says he believes answers to the questions in the letter are crucial for moving forward with pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

“Despite disagreements that will need to be worked out between myself and OHA’s trustees, I am certain that the Board and I stand firmly together in our commitment to do all that we appropriately can to reestablish a Hawaiian nation,” said Crabbe.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Ahuna Removes his Name from Letter to Rescind

Trustee AhunaIn a recent change in events, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Dan Ahuna representing Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau, has notified Chairperson Trustee Colette Machado, that he is removing his name from the May 10, 2014 letter addressed to Secretary of State Kerry. The letter was signed by all nine Trustees, including Trustee Ahuna, which stated:

“We understand that you received a letter from Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana‘opono M. Crabbe, PhD dated May 5, 2014. The contents of that letter do not reflect the position of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or the position of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. That letter is hereby rescinded.”

 

Ahuna_Removal_Letter_Page_1Ahuna_Removal_Letter_Page_2Ahuna_Removal_Letter_Kerry_Page_1Ahuna_Removal_Letter_Kerry_Page_2

Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Crabbe’s Letter to Secretary of State Kerry

Here follows the letter Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana‘opono Crabbe submitted to the Department of State dated May 5, 2014. What will be gleaned from the letter itself is that the CEO was well within his vested power to seek clarity on the question of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

LTR TO US State Dept_Page_1

LTR TO US State Dept_Page_2LTR TO US State Dept_Page_3LTR TO US State Dept_Page_4

Petition of Support for CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe

Petition of Support

Petition of Support 2

Aloha,

In response to the letter submitted today to U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Dr. Kamanaopono Crabbe, we have created a statement of support.  If you are interested in signing onto this document please see the attachment or go to the online site:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/525/987/222/he-manao-pono-a-statement-of-support/

Please disseminate this widely throughout our community.

In solidarity,

Kekuewa Kikiloi

__

Kekuewa Kikiloi, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies
Hawaiʻinuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
2645 Dole Street Honolulu HI 96822

What Have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustees Done—It Doesn’t Make Sense or Does It?

Dr.-Kamana’opono-Crabbe-OHAAfter the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe submitted a formal request to Secretary of State John Kerry seeking clarification on the legal status of Hawai‘i under international law, all nine OHA Trustees yesterday signed a letter to the Secretary of State, stating:

“We understand that you received a letter from Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana‘opono M. Crabbe, PhD dated May 5, 2014. The contents of that letter do not reflect the position of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or the position of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. That letter is hereby rescinded.”

Did the Trustees even read Dr. Crabbe’s letter? How do you rescind a letter that seeks clarification for risk management purposes. You can’t. The only person that can rescind the letter is the CEO himself, and only when the risks identified have been found to not be risks in the first place. Another word for this is fiduciary duty.

Colette MachadoThis morning’s front page article in the Star-Advertiser reported that Trustee Chairwoman Colette Machado said “Crabbe exceeded his authority as chief executive officer that requires him to consult the board on such matters.” Is Dr. Crabbe’s request for clarification a management issue or a board issue. Does the CEO need Board approval to ask questions? What is the position of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs? We don’t want clarification? The so-called rescind letter is not only odd, but it is disingenuous and has nothing to do with Dr. Crabbe’s letter. It also raises the question of who is pulling the strings.

After carefully reviewing Dr. Crabbe’s letter, he did not state or even imply that he was taking any position on whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. He merely sought clarification on a legal issue that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel is more than capable of answering. If there is any position taken by Dr. Crabbe its responsible management and the well-recognized principle “risk management.” His letter begins with:

“As the chief executive officer and administrator for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, being a governmental agency of the State of Hawai‘i, the law places on me, as a fiduciary, strict standards of diligence, responsibility and honesty. My executive staff, as public officials, carry out the policies and directives of the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the service of the Native Hawaiian community. We are responsible to take care, through all lawful means, that we apply the best skills and diligence in the servicing of this community. It is in this capacity and in the interest of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs I am submitting this communication and formal request.”

The performance of risk assessment begins with identification of risks. Once the risk or risks have been determined the management can choose to avoid the risk, reduce the risk, share the risk or retain the risk. After the option is made, management then calls for a plan for contingencies, create safeguards, and, lastly, to monitor.

Dr. Crabbe has clearly taken the path to avoid the risk by seeking clarification from the State Department and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

From his letter he specifically states the risks began to surface when one of his executive managers attended a presentation and panel discussion at the University of Hawai‘i Law School featuring former Hawai‘i governor John Waihe‘e, III, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang and political scientist Dr. Keanu Sai. The law student chapter of the American Constitutional Society sponsored the presentation. Dr. Crabbe provided Secretary of State Kerry an online link to view the video of the law school presentation.

Crabbe wrote, “The presentations of Professor Chang and Dr. Sai provided a legal analysis of the current status of Hawai‘i that appeared to undermine the legal basis of the Roll Commission, and, as alleged in the panel discussions, the possibility of criminal liability under international law. Both Professor Chang and Dr. Sai specifically stated that the Federal and State of Hawai‘i governments are illegal regimes that stem from an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States as a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. As a government agency of the State of Hawai‘i this would include the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and by enactment of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature, it would also include the Roll Commission. Both Act 195 and U.S. Public Law 103-150, acknowledges the illegality of the overthrow.”

Professor ChangHere are some quotes from senior Law Professor Chang:

“The power of the United States, over the Hawaiian islands, and the jurisdiction of the United States in the State of Hawai’i, by its own admissions, by its own laws, doesn’t exist.  And so that means that ever since the 1898 annexation of Hawai’i, by a Joint Resolution, they say, we have been living a myth.” (3:01 min/sec.)

“If you don’t have legal power over a territory, you’re governing without jurisdiction.” (4:20 min/sec.)

“…there’s no treaty between the United States and Hawai‘i by which Hawai‘i was acquired by the United States…” (4:41 min/sec.)

“A joint resolution, as an act of Congress, cannot acquire another country …If the United States could acquire Hawai‘i then the House of Nobles and the Legislative Assembly of Hawai‘i could acquire the United States.” (4:54 min/sec.)

“If two sovereigns are equal … one cannot acquire the other by its own laws.” (5:17 min/sec.)

“If Congress cannot, by Joint Resolution in 1898, acquire Hawai‘i unilaterally, it cannot do so in 1959.” (9:42 min/sec.)

“So in short, the United States by its own hands admits that it didn’t acquire the Hawaiian Islands, and all those Hawaiians, who have been saying the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction, have been right.” (11:25 min/sec.)

“So the annexation, that we all admit that nothing can be achieved without the United States going along with it, that’s the 900 lbs. elephant in the room. But we have to come in with the best leverage we have, and the best leverage we have is a hundred years of being lied to, being misrepresented, being told that we were part of the United States, and that has been legally false.” (17:19 min/sec.)

“…we’re all in this boat together in this journey of knowledge, and when I talk about the state of emergency, being the United States, how it is able to govern us for a hundred years without putting guns to our heads, it’s us.  We’re the problem, the law school is the problem. Why, because judges and lawyers have a duty of candor and truth. Judges, on their own, have to tell the courts, tell the attorneys that there is no jurisdiction.  It’s a duty of zealous representation for attorneys to present the best defense, and isn’t it the best defense that there’s no jurisdiction.” (1:36:41 hr/min/sec.)

Dr. Keanu SaiHere some quotes from political scientist Dr. Keanu Sai:

“Without a treaty, the United States has enacted “internal laws,” by its Congress, imposed in Hawai‘i…1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation, 1900 Territorial Act, 1959 Statehood Act, 1993 Joint Resolution of Apology for the 1893 Overthrow” (1:37:17 hr/min/sec.)

“Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside of its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention.” (1:36:53 hr/min/sec.)

“military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.” (1:13:19 hr/min/sec.)

John Waihe‘e, IIIEven former governor and chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission Waihe‘e was in agreement with Dr. Sai’s analysis that Hawai‘i is not a part of the United States. Waihe‘e told the audience:

“I have absolutely no doubt that Hawai‘i is in an illegal occupation, I have absolutely no doubt. I mean, you’ve got to be illiterate not to finally get to that point.” (1:19:04 hr/min/sec.)

Can a CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs take this lightly, especially when the Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission himself stated he has no doubt that Hawai‘i is occupied and that you’ve got to be illiterate to not see it. Dr. Crabbe correctly states:

“These matters have raised grave concerns with regard to not only the Native Hawaiian community we serve, but also to the vicarious liability of myself, staff and Trustees of the Hawaiian Affairs, and members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. The community we serve, the Trustees, and many of my staff members, to include myself, and the members of the Roll Commission are Native Hawaiians, who are direct descendants of Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. And as a State of Hawai‘i governmental agency, it would also appear that I am precluded from seeking any opinion on the veracity of these allegations from our in house counsel or from the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, because there would appear to exist a conflict of interest if these allegations are true.”

Dr. Crabbe then provided the questions he’s seeking to be answered as part of the process of risk management.

• First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?

• Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?

• Third, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, what effect would such a conclusion have on United States domestic legislation, such as the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, and Act 195?

• Fourth, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, have the members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs incurred criminal liability under international law?”

Dr. Crabbe’s conclusion in his letter clearly speaks to risk management and his determination to avoid the risk of criminal liability under international law. He stated, “While I await the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, I will be requesting approval from the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that we refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until we can confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent sovereign State, does not continue to exist under international law and that we, as individuals, have not incurred any criminal liability in this pursuit.”

At no point has Dr. Crabbe taken a position for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and nor has he taken a position of whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. He’s seeking clarification from a federal agency who is more than capable of providing the answers. As chief executive officer, Dr. Crabbe is responsible for the protection of the staff at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which includes the Trustees, and to the Native Hawaiian community OHA serves. The Trustees’ so-called rescind letter is a blatant attempt to undermine the very duty Dr. Crabbe was appointed to do as the CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Trustees’ do not manage the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the CEO does.

The irony is that Dr. Crabbe’s request for clarification is to protect the Trustees, even from themselves.

Hawai‘i News Now – Letter seeking clarity on Hawaiian Kingdom status is rescinded

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Does the Kingdom of Hawai’i exist today — and are we all subject to its rules? Those questions have triggered an internal dispute within the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

OHA’s Chief Executive Officer created a firestorm Friday when word spread he sent a letter to the Secretary of State asking for an official opinion on whether the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists as an independent sovereign state under international law.  Problem is, it appears no one else at OHA knew about or agreed with the letter, stirring an internal controversy that has raised concerns the inquiry could derail or delay Kana’iolowalu nation-building efforts.

Officials confirm the letter was quietly sent out on Monday by OHA CEO Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe, in which he requested a formal legal opinion from the Justice Department.

“I will be requesting approval from the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that we refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until we can confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom  as an independent sovereign State, does not continue to exist under international law and that we, as individuals, have no incurred any criminal liability in this pursuit,” Crabbe wrote.

OHA Chair Colette Machado tells Hawaii News Now she and fellow trustees only learned of the letter Friday afternoon.

“Our whole goal is to establish a Native Hawaiian governing entity and we are very close in achieving that.  The Trustees fully support this, that’s why we’re quite surprised — how did our Chief Executive Officer not understand this by sending the letter to the state Department especially to the Secretary John Kerry?  That’s why we had to respond quickly on a unanimous position to rescind that letter, because it is not an official position of OHA,” Machado said by phone from Washington, D.C., where she and Crabbe are attending a meeting about the upcoming World Conference on Indigenous Peoples at the invitation of the Department of State.

All nine trustees signed off on retracting the letter, which Machado confirms has already been sent to the Department of Justice.

“I want to assure the Hawaiian people that the Board of Trustees has not changed its position towards facilitating a process to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing entity,” Machado said.

Native Hawaiian Roll Commission Chair, former Governor John Waihe’e, says he was also surprised by the letter.

“For all of us that know our history, there’s no doubt in our mind that the government of Queen Lili’uokalani was illegally overthrown and that the United States annexation of Hawaii was not done properly, was not done legally.  In fact, this was admitted by the United States Congress when they passed the resolution — the apology resolution — in 1993.  Any of us that know our history, know that we don’t need to ask anybody, know whether or not any of these things were proper — what we need to do is go about organizing ourselves and beginning to assert our own self governance.  I don’t know what motivated Kamana’opono to do this, but personally I think it’s sort of disempowering.  It’s a disempowering tactic to ask for permission to pursue your own destiny,” Waihe’e said.

More than 125,000 people have signed up for Kana’iolowalu to pursue a Native Hawaiian self-governing entity, an effort which OHA is financing.

“That’s more people than all the labor unions in Hawai’i combined,” said Waihe’e.  “As far as we’re concerned, the Roll Commission is concerned, we’re still proceeding forward.”

Hawaii News Now was unable to reach Dr. Crabbe directly Friday.  Officials confirm he scheduled a press conference for next week Monday to explain the inquiry, but now that the trustees have rescinded that letter it’s unclear if the press conference will still be happening.

To view Dr. Crabbe’s request letter, click here.

Washington Times: Agency seeks clarity on Hawaiian Kingdom status

HONOLULU (AP) – Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe says he will seek approval from the agency’s trustees to refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Crabbe says the agency would put nation building efforts on hold until officials are able to confirm the Hawaiian Kingdom doesn’t continue to exist under international law.

Crabbe outlined his proposal in a May 5 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. The agency released a copy of the letter Friday.

The letter says an analysis from scholars alleging federal and state governments are illegal regimes has raised concerns. The analysis says OHA trustees and Native Hawaiian Roll Commission members may be criminally liable under international law.

Crabbe is asking the State Department to request an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Associated Press: Office of Hawaiian Affairs seeks clarity on status of Hawaiian Kingdom under international law

HONOLULU — Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe says he will seek approval from the agency’s trustees to refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Crabbe says the agency would put nation building efforts on hold until officials are able to confirm the Hawaiian Kingdom doesn’t continue to exist under international law.

Crabbe outlined his proposal in a May 5 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. The agency released a copy of the letter Friday.

The letter says an analysis from scholars alleging federal and state governments are illegal regimes has raised concerns. The analysis says OHA trustees and Native Hawaiian Roll Commission members may be criminally liable under international law.

Crabbe is asking the State Department to request an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

State of Hawai‘i Government Official Requests from U.S. State Department Legal Opinion on the Current Status of Hawai‘i under International Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 09, 2014

OHA’s top executive makes formal request to U.S. Department of State for legal opinion on the current status of Hawai‘i under international law

Dr CrabbeWASHINGTON, D.C. (May 9, 2014) – The Office of Hawaiian Affairs top executive submitted a formal request with the U.S. Department of State requesting a legal opinion from the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel addressing the legal status of the Hawai‘i under international law.

The Office of Legal Counsel drafts legal opinions of the U.S. Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the various agencies of the Executive Branch, which includes the Department of State.

Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are in Washington, D.C., at the invitation of the Department of State for a consultation with representatives of the federal government, federally recognized tribes and other indigenous peoples of the United States on May 9. The topic of the meeting is the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, to be held at the United Nations, September 22-23, 2014. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of State, 23rd Street entrance, between C and D Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C.

John_KerryIn a letter addressed to Secretary of State John F. Kerry, OHA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe, described his request as a very important question that needs to be answered from an agency that is not only qualified but authorized to answer, saying that it is addressing very grave concerns of OHA’s activities in its efforts toward nation building.

“As the chief executive officer and administrator for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, being a governmental agency of the State of Hawai‘i, the law places on me, as a fiduciary, strict standards of diligence, responsibility and honesty,” Crabbe said. “My executive staff, as public officials, carry out the policies and directives of the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the service of the Native Hawaiian community. We are responsible to take care, through all lawful means, that we apply the best skills and diligence in the servicing of this community.”

Crabbe explained the action taken was prompted when one of his staff attended a presentation and panel discussion at the William S. Richardson School of Law on April 17, 2014 that featured former Hawai‘i Governor John Waihe‘e, III, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang, and Dr. Keanu Sai, a political scientist. Click here to view a video of the Law School presentation and panel discussion.

“The presentations of Professor Chang and Dr. Sai provided a legal analysis of the current status of Hawai‘i that appeared to undermine the legal basis of the Roll Commission, and, as alleged in the panel discussions, the possibility of criminal liability under international law. Both Professor Chang and Dr. Sai specifically stated that the Federal and State of Hawai‘i governments are illegal regimes that stem from an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States as a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.” Crabbe said. “As a government agency of the State of Hawai‘i this would include the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and by enactment of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature, it would also include the Roll Commission. Both Act 195 and U.S. Public Law 103-150, acknowledges the illegality of the overthrow.”

According to Crabbe, “These matters have raised grave concerns with regard to not only the Native Hawaiian community we serve, but also to the vicarious liability of myself, staff and Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. The community we serve, the Trustees, and many of my staff members, to include myself, and the members of the Roll Commission are Native Hawaiians, who are direct descendants of Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Crabbe said he wanted to seek an opinion on the veracity of these allegations from its in house counsel or from the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, but felt he was prevented because there would appear to be a conflict of interest if these allegations were true.

In his letter, Crabbe said, “because the Department of State is the United States’ executive department responsible for international relations and who also housed diplomatic papers and agreements with the Hawaiian Kingdom, I am respectfully submitting a formal request to have the Department of State request an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, addressing the following questions:

• First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?

• Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?

• Third, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, what effect would such a conclusion have on United States domestic legislation, such as the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, and Act 195?

• Fourth, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, have the members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs incurred criminal liability under international law?”

A press conference is scheduled for Monday, May 12, at 10:00 a.m. when OHA’s Chief Executive Officer Dr. Crabbe returns from Washington, D.C.

Click here to download the request letter.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Dr. Crabbe’s letter specifically states:

“For your consideration, I have enclosed Dr. Sai’s law journal article published in the Journal of Law and Social Challenges that compares federal recognition under the Akaka bill and the international laws of occupation. Act 195 is the State of Hawai‘i’s version of the Akaka bill. Dr. Sai argues that Native Hawaiians are not indigenous people of the United States, but rather nationals of an occupied State. In addition, I’m am also enclosing a brief authored by Dr. Sai and Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London, SOAS, Law School, titled “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom;” a DVD packet with booklet of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands (1999-2001); a Complaint filed with the President of the United Nations Security Council in 2001 (without exhibits); a Protest and Demand filed with the President of the United Nations General Assembly in 2012 (without exhibits); a Referral submitted with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Netherlands, in 2013, calling upon the Prosecutor for the investigation of war crimes alleged to have been committed in Hawai‘i (without exhibits); and a complaint for war crimes filed with the Philippine government under its universal jurisdiction alleging that one of our Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Ms. S. Haunani Apoliona, committed a war crime in her private capacity as a member of the Board of Directors for the Bank of Hawai‘i (without exhibits).”

“While I await the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, I will be requesting approval from the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that we refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until we can confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent sovereign State, does not continue to exist under international law and that we, as individuals, have not incurred any criminal liability in this pursuit.”

# # #

Media Contact: Garett Kamemoto

Communications Manager

808-594-1982

garettk@oha.org

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Depleted Uranium found in Army Training Areas in Hawai‘i

War crimes are actions taken by individuals, whether military or civilian, that violates international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Conventions, 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. War crimes include “grave breaches” of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which also applies to territory that is occupied even if the occupation takes place without resistance. Protected persons under International Humanitarian Law are all nationals who reside within an occupied State, except for the nationals of the Occupying Power. The International Criminal Court and States prosecute individuals for war crimes.

War Crimes: Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

In 2006, the United States Army disclosed to the public that depleted uranium (DU) was found on the firing ranges at Schofield Barracks on the Island of O‘ahu. It subsequently confirmed DU was also found at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Island of Hawai‘i and suspect that DU is also at Makua Military Reservation on the Island of O‘ahu. The ranges have yet to be cleared of DU and the ranges are still used for live fire. This brings the inhabitants who live down wind from these ranges into harms way because when the DU ignites or explodes from the live fire, it creates tiny particles of aerosolized DU oxide that can travel by wind. And if the DU gets into the drinking water or oceans it would have a devastating effect across the islands.

The following video and information is provided by Kamakako‘i: Cutting Edge.

The information below has been consolidated and summarized primarily from publicly available documents on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s web-based “Agencywide Documents Access and Management System” (ADAMS). A comprehensive listing of the original documents related to U.S. Army depleted uranium licensing in Hawai‘i can be found by going to http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/ and doing a search of “Docket Number 04009083.” The date and “accession” reference number for each document is provided in the filename of each downloadable document.

DEPLETED URANIUM BACKGROUND:

Depleted Uranium (DU) (external link) is a byproduct of the nuclear energy and atomic weapon industries. Because it has been altered, DU is less radioactive than natural uranium, which occurs naturally in the environment. DU is forty percent more dense than lead, yet lighter than other comparable materials, and has civilian uses such as in medical applications, as well as for ballast in aircraft and boats. DU is used in military applications as ballast for spotting rounds and as armor and weaponry because it has the ability to pierce other kinds of armor, self-sharpen, and ignite on impact at very high temperatures.

DEPLETED URANIUM AND THE ARMY IN HAWAI‘I:

According to Army documents, between 1962 and 1968, the Army used DU in M101 spotting rounds for the Davy Crockett Weapon system, a low-yield battlefield nuclear device. The body of the M101 spotting round contained 6.2 ounces of DU that allowed soldiers to simulate the flight path of the munitions fired from the Davy Crockett Weapon system. Although not an atomic explosive, M101 spotting rounds contained a small amount of explosive charge that created a puff of smoke to allow training soldiers to locate the point of impact for a round. Remnants of the M101 rounds were rediscovered during unexploded ordnance clearance at the Schofield Barracks impact area in August 2005, and again following prescribed burns in September 2006.

LICENSE APPLICATION:

In November 2008, the U.S. Army submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a materials license to possess depleted uranium at military installations where the Davy Crockett M101 spotting round was used in training activities. In Hawai‘i, the U.S. Army application covered impact areas (where access is restricted due to the presence of in-field hazards, including unexploded ordnance) within training ranges located at Schofield Barracks on O‘ahu and the Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawai‘i Island. The license was requested to cover the possession and maintenance of depleted uranium remaining in the field from the 1960s training. Due to sparse training records (full document with appendices can be found here (external link)), the amount of DU and the distribution of rounds within each training range could not be determined, so the Army sought to license the 125 kilograms of DU from 714 spotting rounds that the Army believed it had fired at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION:

In response to a request filed by a Hawai‘i Island resident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated an enforcement investigation against the U.S. Army for its possession of DU without a materials license, following the expiration of its previously held license in April 1978. On August 1, 2011, the NRC issued a notice of violation to the Army for its possession of DU at training ranges located at Schofield Barracks and the Pohakuloa Training Area from spotting round fragments of the M101 Davy Crockett weapon system, fired at Army training ranges during the 1960s. The NRC considered the violation to be significant, but did not impose a civil penalty due to the corrective actions proposed by the Army to control access into areas suspected of containing DU.

LICENSE EXEMPTION REQUEST: 

During its extended negotiations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the conditions of a DU possession license, the U.S. Army formally applied for an exemption for its in-field DU at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Ranges, by letter dated September 10, 2012. Through information provided in its original request and a later February 6, 2013 response, the Army argued that it had met its burden of showing that the exemption would not “endanger life or property, or the common defense and security and [would be] otherwise in the public interest.” The NRCdenied the Army’s request for a license exemption.

DU POSSESSION LICENSE ISSUED:

On October 23, 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued to the U.S. Army a materials license for DU located at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area. In addition to the conditions contained in the license, the NRC incorporated the commitments, representations, and statements contained in the Army’s original license application, the Physical Security Plan, and the Radiation Safety Plan. The materials license also requires the Army to provide the NRC with an air sampling plan and a plant sampling plan for its review and approval. In accordance with its materials license and air sampling plan, the Army conducted training that included high-explosive fire into the radiological control area at Schofield Barracks in February 2014, with an NRC inspector present.

1998 Memorandum Confirms Women Can Vote under Hawaiian Kingdom Law

MEMORANDUM

 March 12, 1998

TO: SUBJECTS OF THE KINGDOM

FROM: OFFICE OF THE REGENT

RE: SUFFRAGE OF FEMALE SUBJECTS

On March 12, 1997, at a public meeting held at the Queen Lili‘uokalani Children Center at Halona, it was brought to the attention of this office by a female subject of the Kingdom, that there is no provision in the law that bars female subjects from voting in the election for Representatives of the Kingdom. She asserted that although the “voter qualification” statute specifically relates to the male gender, §15, chapter III, title I, provides, in part, that “…every word importing the masculine gender only, may extend to and include females as well as males.” Based upon the dubious nature of this statute in its relation toward both genders, I have diligently researched the election laws and have arrived at the following conclusion.

§783, article XXXII, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221, provides that every “…male subject of the Kingdom who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district, as hereinafter provided, shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district; provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote; and no other person than those qualified as in this section provided shall be allowed to vote at any election for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of this Kingdom.”

“The intention of the makers of a statute is frequently to be collected from the cause or necessity for the statute; and whenever this intention can be discovered it ought to be followed with reason and discretion in the construction of the statute, although such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute.” See Rixman v. Goodale, 1 Haw. 298, 300 [536, 540] (1856); Shillaber v. Waldo, 1 Haw. 21, 25, [31, 38] (1848).

Pursuant to §12, chapter III, title I, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 3, the statute provides that one “…of the most effectual ways of discovering the true meaning of the law, when its expressions are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which induced the Legislature to enact it.” Therefore in order for this office to ascertain the intent of this statute as it relates to the Representative body, a careful examination of the old laws must first be done in order to determine the reason and spirit of their enactment.

In the year 1839 His Majesty King Kamehameha III declared protection for the persons and private rights of all his people from the highest to the lowest. In 1840 he granted the first Constitution by which he declared and established the equality before the law of all his subjects, Chiefs and people alike. By that Constitution, he voluntarily deprived himself of some of his powers and attributes as an absolute Sovereign, and granted certain political rights upon his subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government. See Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 720 (1864). The Constitution of 1840 specifically provides a provision respecting the Representative Body, by stating, in part, to wit, that there “…shall be annually chosen certain persons to sit in council with the Nobles and establish laws for the nation. They shall be chosen by the people…” These political rights that were conferred upon all subjects of the Kingdom were not limited to a specific gender, but rather upon his “people” who comprised the Chiefly class and the Commoner class.

On November 2, 1840, a statute providing the means of electing the Representative body in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, was enacted by the House of Nobles and signed into law by the King. Section 3 of this election statute provides that should “…any man forge another’s name as a signature to a letter written as above…he shall be fined ten dollars for every name thus criminally written.” See chapter II, Of the Representative Body, Laws of 1842 (Old Laws). When this provision of a male gender is compared with the original provision of respecting the Representative body as stated in the Constitution, the latter does not disqualify the female gender, but merely states that certain persons are to be chosen to sit in council with the Nobles in order to establish laws for the nation. The Constitution does not specify that only men can vote for Representatives. On the contrary, the Constitution repels the conclusion of excluding the female gender from participating in the Legislative body, when that Constitution specifically provided for certain women to serve in the government, namely, Kekauluohi as Premier, and Hoapiliwahine, Kekau‘onohi, Konia, and Keohokalole as members of the House of Nobles.

Since that first statute relating to the Representative body was enacted on November 2, 1840, in conformity with the Constitution of October 8, 1840, the following Statutes were passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed into law affecting the House of Representatives:

  • December 10, 1845, Second Act of Kamehameha III, “An Act to Organize the Executive departments of the Hawaiian Islands” Title I, part V, – Duties to the Legislative Branch of Government
  • July 30, 1850, “An Act to Increase the number of the Representatives of the People in the Legislative Council”
  • July 11, 1851, “An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Election of the Representatives of the People”
  • June 14, 1852, Constitution of 1852, “Articles 19, and 75-80”
  • May 26, 1853, “An Act to Regulate the number of the Representatives of the People”
  • June 16, 1853, “An Act Repealing Certain Laws,” which includes Chapter II of the Old Laws, 1842, respecting the Representative Body
  • May 14, 1855, “An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Election of Representatives of the People”
  • May 30, 1856, “An Act to Amend an Act to Regulate the Election of Representatives of the People”
  • May 17, 1859, enactment of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands,
    • Article XXXI – Of the House of Nobles
    • Article XXXII – Of the Election of Representatives, Of the Time and Place of Holding Elections, Of the Qualifications of Electors, Of the Manner of Conducting Elections, Mode of Annulling an Election and of Filling Vacancies, Provisions to Preserve the Purity of Elections
  • April 18, 1856, “Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of this Kingdom proposed and agreed to, pursuant to the 105th Article of the original Constitution”
  • April 18, 1856, “Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of this Kingdom proposed and agreed to, pursuant to the 105th Article of the original Constitution”
    • Article 2 amending Article 29, which provides for the convening of both houses of the legislature
    • Article 6 amending Article 61, which provides when the legislative body shall assemble
  • August 20, 1864, Constitution of 1864, “Articles 18, 19, 28, 45-56, 60-63, 75-78, and 80”
  • December 31, 1864, “An Act regarding the Qualifications of Electors”
  • June 22, 1868, “An Act to Amend Section 788 of the Civil Code,” providing for the Number of Representatives
  • June 22, 1868, “An Act to Amend Section 780 of the Civil Code,” providing for the Voting Polls
  • June 24, 1868, “An Act to Establish the Compensation of Representatives”
  • June 24, 1868, “An Act to Repeal an Act entitled ‘an Act Regarding the Qualifications of Electors,’ approved December 31st, 1864, and to Regulate the Qualifications of Electors for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom”
  • July 13, 1874, “An Act Providing for the Tenure of Office of Representatives”
  • July 13, 1874, “An Act to Regulate the Time for Holding Elections for Representatives”
  • August 7, 1874, “An Act to Amend Sections 2 and 3 of an Act entitled, ‘an Act to Repeal an Act entitled an Act Regarding the Qualification of Electors for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom as approved on the 24th of June, 1868, and to Repeal Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 86 of the Penal Code’”
  • August 3, 1876, “An Act to Amend Sections 796, 797, 799 of the Civil Code,” pertaining to the Duties of the Legislative Assembly
  • September 15, 1876, “An Act to Amend Section 18, Chapter 86, of the Penal Code, of Holding Elections”
  • September 19, 1876, “An Act to Amend Chapter 86 of the Penal Code, ‘regarding the Qualification of Electors,’ by adding a new Section to be Numbered 17a”
  • May 2, 1882, “An Act to Authorize the Holding of an Election for Representative for the district of Kaanapali, Maui”
  • May 13, 1882, “A proposed Amendment to Article 56 of the Constitution granted by His Majesty Kamehameha v on the 20th day of August, a.d. 1864, as amended and approved on the 13th day of May a.d. 1868, according to Article 80 of the Constitution”
  • May 22, 1882, “An Act to Amend Section 1 of an Act entitled ‘an Act to Establish the Compensation of Representatives,’ approved on the 24th day of June, a.d. 1868”
  • July 11, 1884, “An Act to Amend Section 782 of the Civil Code, relating to Time and Places of Holding Elections”
  • October 7, 1886, “An Act to Amend Chapter lxxxvi of the Penal Code,” relating to Inspectors of Elections
  • October 15, 1886, “An Act to Provide the Residence Required by Law as necessary to the Exercise of the Elective Franchise”

Careful examination of the Organic laws and Statutes which affect the Representative body of the Kingdom fails to disclose any provision precluding the female gender from participating in the electoral process, except for insane or idiotic persons or persons convicted of an infamous crime without a pardon by the Monarch. See §783, article XXXII, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221.

In conclusion, the intent of the election statute was to have a Representative Body chosen by the people in order to help establish laws for the nation together with the King and Chiefs, and not a Representative Body to be chosen exclusively by men. This is in line with the intention of the Declaration of Rights of 1839, and the granting of the first Constitution, 1840, that “…conferred certain political rights upon his (King Kamehameha III’s) subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government.” See Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 720 (1864). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1325, political rights are defined as the “…power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition.”

The issue here is not a question of whether Hawaiian women can or cannot participate in the election of Representatives or serving as a candidate for the House of Representatives, but whether there is any provision in the election laws that preclude Hawaiian women from participating. If no such provision exists, as the case be, then Hawaiian women do have a right to participate in the electoral process under their political right, and that the male gender referred to in the “qualifications of electors” does not preclude the female gender, provided the female is a subject of the Kingdom, of the age of 20 and is neither an idiot, an insane person, or a convicted felon.

David Keanu Sai
Regent, pro tempore