ARAKAKI #2 LAWSUIT -- A QUICK SUMMARY BY A NON-LAWYER (Ken Conklin) AFTER THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL
NAME, DATES, PLAINTIFFS: The name of the lawsuit was Arakaki v. Cayetano when it was filed on March 4, 2002, because the plaintiff who was first in alphabetical order was Earl Arakaki, and the Governor of Hawai'i was Benjamin Cayetano. There was a multiracial group of 16 plaintiffs whose ancestry included Chinese, English, Filipino, Hawaiian, Irish, Japanese, Okinawan, Russian, and others. Following the elections of November 2002 the new Governor became Linda Lingle, so the lawsuit became Arakaki v. Lingle. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Honolulu where it was given CIVIL NO. 02-00139 SOM/KSC [Susan Oki Mollway, judge, assisted by magistrate judge Kevin S. Chang]. The lawsuit was dismissed on January 14, 2004. There was a previous successful lawsuit filed in July 2000 with the same first-named plaintiff, Mr. Earl Arakaki, regarding the right of candidates to run for OHA trustee without racial restrictions. That previous lawsuit, now informally known as Arakaki#1, has extensive information at
Everything below here pertains to Arakaki#2.
THEORY OF THE ARAKAKI#2 LAWSUIT: The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) are agencies of the State of Hawai'i whose beneficiaries according to the state constitution are restricted by race. DHHL can give benefits only to ethnic Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum (although people with 25% can inherit a lease), while OHA can give benefits only to people with any amount of native ancestry. It is contrary to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for a government agency to provide benefits to a racially exclusionary set of beneficiaries. Taxpayers of the State of Hawai'i have standing to complain that their tax dollars are being spent for purposes that are unconstitutional. Revenues earned from government operations on state lands are part of the money available for running the government; so if land revenues are diverted to a racially restricted set of beneficiaries, then either taxpayers will be forced to pay higher taxes or else their general government services must be cut.
HISTORY OF THE ARAKAKI#2 LAWSUIT -- ARAKAKI V. LINGLE -- DURING PHASE 1, IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU, MARCH 2003 TO JANUARY 2004. Legal documents, newspaper reports, editorials, marches and demonstrations.
HISTORY OF THE ARAKAKI#2 LAWSUIT -- ARAKAKI V. LINGLE -- DURING PHASE 2: 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS -- Legal Documents and News Events February 4, 2004 to November 8, 2005
ARAKAKI #2 (ARAKAKI V. LINGLE) Phase 3: Detour to U.S. Supreme Court on Issue of State Taxpayer Standing -- Legal Documents and News Events Beginning November, 2005
In Summer 2002 research was done for plaintiffs in the Arakaki2 lawsuit showing astonishing amounts of state government money spent for OHA and DHHL. For details, see:
OHA and DHHL Cost to State of Hawai'i Treasury: $1 Billion to Date. Estimate for Next Ten Years: $2 Billion More at the Current Expenditure Rate. See Spreadsheets On This Webpage for Details.
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE