Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Hawaii Legislature 2025 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty and Racial Entitlement Programs. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Webpage published March 15, 2025 and then updated until end of session in May, whenever a new bill or resolution relevant to Hawaiian sovereignty was introduced and got a committee hearing. 2025 is the first year of a two-year legislature. Much time is being devoted to financial and political issues unrelated to Hawaiian sovereignty. As of March 15 there were only 10 new bills or resolutions during 2025 on which Conklin had submitted testimony on behalf of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. More items will probably be introduced during the second half of the session when "resolutions" rather than bills begin to be heard.

Here is an internal search engine allowing you to find all pages on this website which discuss the topic you're interested in.

BACKGROUND ON HAWAIIAN RACIAL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND EFFORTS TO PROTECT THEM BY CREATING A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED HAWAIIAN TRIBE THROUGH AN ACT OF CONGRESS (THE AKAKA BILL 2000-2012) OR A REGULATION ENACTED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (43CFR50, developed 2013-2016 and proclaimed on October 14, 2016 by publication in the Federal Register to take effect on November 14, but available for implementation at any time in future years without needing approval by Congress or the State of Hawaii)

The Hawaii legislature is dominated by Democrats, most of whom are far to the left on the political spectrum. Legislation focusing on ethnic Hawaiians is often explicitly and shockingly favorable to racial supremacy, racial separatism in the tribal concept, and/or restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation. That's because ethnic Hawaiians as a group are the state pet: see "NATIVE HAWAIIANS AS THE STATE PET OR MASCOT: A Psychological Analysis of Why the People of Hawaii Tolerate and Irrationally Support Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawnsasmascots.html

Hawaii has hundreds of racial entitlement programs. See webpage "For Hawaiians Only. Webpages identifying and describing government funded racial entitlement programs providing benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians using taxpayer dollars from the U.S. and State of Hawaii." at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

These programs provide financial benefits or governmental authority (such as advisory councils or fishing rights) exclusively to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. People without a drop of the magic blood cannot receive benefits or serve on these special commissions. Racial entitlement programs are stepping stones to political sovereignty. The Akaka bill in Congress was pushed hard but unsuccessfully during the period 2000-2012. After that a four-year process within the U.S. Department of Interior under President Barack Obama and his Assistant Secretary of Interior Esther Kia'aina (a lifelong Hawaiian sovereignty activist) created a new pathway for federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe through a regulation 43CFR50 proclaimed in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. That regulation allows ethnic Hawaiians to be get federal recognition solely through an administrative process in the U.S. Department of Interior without needing approval from either Congress or the State of Hawaii. One of the primary purposes of that 16 year effort has been to provide a legal defense against lawsuits to abolish racial entitlement programs on the grounds that they violate the 14th Amendment clause requiring that government must treat all people equally under the law regardless of race. Federally recognized tribes are allowed to discriminate, including tax-supported racial entitlement programs; but federal, state, and local governments are not. During the four years from 2017 through 2020 there was no significant activity to create a Hawaiian tribe either in Congress or through the Department of Interior regulation, probably because everyone realized that President Trump, along with the Republican-controlled Senate, would block any such effort. During 2021 and 2022 the Biden administration, and his Native American Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland [50% Norwegian blood], caused expectations to rise that somehow a Hawaiian tribe will be created. That expectation was heightened by the fact that Hawaii Senator Schatz is chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee; and Hawaii Congressman Kai Kahele, who served during 2021-2022, is ethnic Hawaiian (He chose not to seek re-election to Congress in order to run a campaign for Governor, which he lost by a wide margin in the Democrat primary election). During the second half of President Biden's term it became apparent that Biden himself was no longer mentally competent; his subordinates were actually running the government and had very little free time or attention to spend on Hawaiian racial entitlements. During early 2025, with Donald Trump newly inaugurated on January 20 for a second term as President, his policies toward ethnic Hawaiian affairs were not yet manifested and the Hawaii legislature was merely maintaining course or recycling concepts from previous years.

Legislation in Hawaii for racial entitlement programs or race-based political power is usually passed unanimously, showing no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Most Republicans in Hawaii might be called RINOs (Republicans in name only). In previous years there might be an occasional "Nay" vote by the lone Republican Senator Sam Slom, who was politically conservative. As the only Republican in the Senate he was automatically a member of every committee but therefore was physically unable to attend most committee hearings. However, Senator Slom suffered major health issues in 2016 and was defeated for re-election. He died May 22, 2023. The Hawaii state Senate during 2017-2018 was the only state legislative body in the U.S. where all members belong to a single political party. For 2019-2022 there was one alleged Republican in the Senate (Kurt Fevella). For 2023-2024 Fevella was joined in the Senate by another alleged Republican Brenton Awa, a former news reporter. Both are ethnic Hawaiian, engage in political activism favoring Hawaiian racial entitlement programs, and lean left and vote the same way as the Democrats on nearly every item. In 2025 a third alleged Republican joined the Senate: Samantha DeCorte; but she gave a floor speech in March with powerful language supporting Hawaiian race-nationalist sovereignty. In the state House, which has 51 Representatives, only 9 are Republicans in 2025; their longtime leader Gene Ward was a strong pusher of the Akaka bill and remains a strong supporter of racial entitlement programs. For a couple years Beth Fukumoto was the Republican leader in the House but then switched to the Democrat Party, then moved to the mainland from where she pontificates about Hawaii politics as a columnist for leftwing Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper!

The bills and resolutions covered in this webpage are troubling. The public should study them to get a grasp of how real are the dangers of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawaii. Citizens should phone or write to their legislators to express outrage when a legislator sponsors or votes in favor of bills and resolutions like these, which are both dangerous and ridiculous.

HOW THIS WEBPAGE TRACKS HAWAII LEGISLATION DURING 2025

Each bill or resolution has its own webpage on the legislature's website. On that webpage there are links to full text of the bill or resolution, list of all the committee hearings including a record of how each legislator voted, a pdf file containing all the written testimony, and the official committee report for each committee. If a bill or resolution is introduced in either the House or Senate and also has a duplicate companion introduced in the other chamber, links are provided to the webpages for both of them. Full text is also provided of the testimony of Ken Conklin on behalf of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. Conklin's testimony was provided to each committee, usually as a formatted pdf file on letterhead, or occasionally as unformatted shorter comment. Conklin's testimony can be seen in each committee's file of all testimony; but is also provided here on this webpage in simple text to save bandwidth. Some bills appropriate millions of dollars (or hundreds of millions of dollars!) while other non-monetary bills or resolutions are focused on culture or language. Items are generally listed here in order of the date when the first hearing for a bill or resolution is scheduled, or its clone companion is scheduled in the other chamber.

This webpage was created on March 15, 2025 after ten different bills (not counting cloned companions) had already had hearings held or scheduled in either the House or Senate, or both, for which Ken Conklin submitted testimony. Items are listed approximately in chronological order according to the date of their first hearing. More items were added to this webpage through the end of the legislative session in May, as new items got introduced and had committee hearings and Ken Conklin submitted testimony. However, ordinarily only Conklin's testimony on the first version of a bill or resolution was posted here. Amended versions of bills or resolutions and new testimony can be tracked through the legislature's webpage for that item as listed below.

===============

TABLE OF CONTENTS REGARDING THE HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE 2025: List of bills and resolutions on which Conklin testified, in the order they appear below, for the 2025 Hawaii Legislature. Scroll down to find the one that interests you. They are in approximately chronological order of when each item had its first committee hearing, not necessarily in the order of their importance. Full text of Conklin's testimony on each item is presented in the same order, below the table of contents, along with links to the legislature's webpage for each item to find the text of the bill or resolution, the chronology of actions and votes on it (including names of yeas and nays), and a file of all the written testimony presented at each hearing.

HB 410 RELATING TO THE BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS. Appropriates moneys to fund the operating expenses of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for the fiscal biennium beginning on 7/1/2025, and ending on 6/30/2027.

HB 304 / SB 109 RELATING TO THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE. Requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and meets certain criteria.

HB 146 / SB 781 RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY'S �ŌLELO HAWAI�I INITIATIVES. Appropriates funds to support the Olelo Hawaii Initiatives.

SB 534 RELATING TO THE HAWAII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Clarifies the process by which the Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority may approve residential development on certain parcels of Kakaako Makai. Raises the building height limit and the maximum floor area ratio on certain parcels in the area. Requires a certain percentage of the residential units developed on certain parcels to be allocated to households at or below a certain income level in perpetuity, with priority given to certain essential workforce in the area. Limits the sale of residential units developed in certain residential developments to prospective owner-occupants. Requires the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to determine a Kakaako Makai association fee to be collected from residents, tenants, and lessees of certain parcels to be deposited into a special account in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Special Fund to fund various services and projects in the Kakaako Makai area. (SD1)

SB 199 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN CULTURE. Requires the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to establish and maintain Native Hawaiian cultural centers within the State. Requires the Office to submit reports to the Legislature regarding the Office's compliance with this Act. Appropriates moneys for the planning and design of the first Native Hawaiian cultural center.

SB 268 RELATING TO ISLAND BURIAL COUNCILS. Decreases the size of the Island Burial Councils from nine to seven members. Removes the requirement for the councils to include members having development and large property owner interests. (SD1)

SB 624 RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE. Requires certain public buildings near mass transit projects and on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

HB1358 RELATING TO THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST WORKING GROUP. Appropriates moneys to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to facilitate the hiring of necessary staff and the purchase of equipment and professional services on behalf of the public land trust working group.

HB 1088 RELATING TO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. Exempts housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands from school impact fees.

SB 614 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY. Establishes "La Ku'oko'a", or Hawaiian Independence Day, as a state holiday to be observed annually on November 28th.

SB1051 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HISTORY MONTH. Designates September as Hawaiian History Month.

================

FULL TEXT OF KEN CONKLIN'S TESTIMONY ON EACH BILL OR RESOLUTION, AND LINKS TO LEGISLATURE'S WEBSITE WHERE THE PROGRESS OF EACH ITEM IS TRACKED AND FILE OF ALL TESTIMONY IS PROVIDED

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=410&year=2025

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill appropriates moneys to fund the operating expenses of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for the fiscal biennium beginning on 7/1/2025, and ending on 6/30/2027.

According to OHA's Annual Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, on page 15, OHA's total assets were $971 Million. By now, half a year later, that figure is likely more than A BILLION DOLLARS. No other branch of the State government is allowed to carry forward such a huge amount. Yet here comes OHA, demanding money for its operating expenses like a beggar holding out his tin cup.

Hawaiʻi Free Press on Friday June 24, 2025 reported some information from OHA's check register which it was able to obtain only after demanding access through the Freedom of Information Act. OHA's payroll was $15.9 Million for its bloated bureaucracy, which was 40.7% of its spending. Any charity spending such a large percentage on payroll would be regarded as a scam.

Every year OHA's bills demanding money try to distinguish between general funds and trust funds. That's a distinction without a difference. Money is fungible. All these funds belong to the State of Hawaiʻi, whether the money is kept in the right trouser pocket or the left pocket. It is laughable to make it look like there's a fair and equitable balance between general funds and trust funds by appropriating identical amounts of each type of fund for each of the listed purposes.

It might be asserted that OHA's administrative costs for the salaries of its board of directors and its bureaucrats, and the operation of its buildings, should be paid from general funds because OHA is an agency of the state government. However, most of the money appropriated in this bill is to provide political advocacy, personal assistance, or legal representation that will be given exclusively to OHA "beneficiaries" -- I.e., exclusively to people of Hawaii's favorite racial group who have at least one drop of the magic blood (at least one ancestor who lived in Hawaii before Captain Cook's arrival in 1778). All money restricted by race should come from "trust funds"; and even if thus restricted, it is probably unconstitutional for a government agency to engage in such blatant racial discrimination.

Please vote NO on this bill. Give the money back to Hawaiʻi's taxpayers, or spend it to help the thousands of truly needy people of all races who are citizens of Hawaiʻi.

-----------------------

HB 304 / SB 109 RELATING TO THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE. Requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and meets certain criteria.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian, or if the law was originally drafted in English and if the law was subsequently amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in Hawaiian.

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION My dear legislators: Would you vote to pass a bill that's written in a language you are not fluent in? Would you be willing to rely on an English translation of it provided by someone (a) who stands to benefit greatly by getting you to vote for it; and (b) who gives you an English translation which changes or distorts what the bill actually means in its original language as written, knowing that the inaccuracies in the English version will cause you to like what you're reading even though you would dislike what was actually stated in the original version; and (c) who intentionally fails to remind you that the bill's meaning in its original language is the meaning that really counts? The only way you can logically vote in favor of this bill is by saying "Yes" to all three (a), (b), (c).

If enacted, this law immediately becomes a "sleeper agent" affecting all bills in the future that are written in Hawaiian first before being translated into English -- even years after this bill itself is forgotten, legislators will vote on bills whose Hawaiian-language meaning is the official one even though they do not understand Hawaiian and they mistakenly think they are voting on what it says in English (which could be very different from how it will actually be interpreted by attorneys and judges who are certified as having expertise in Hawaiian).

In your desire to vote in favor of this bill because you wish to honor and display respect for Hawaiian language during "Hawaiian language month", please do not allow that emotion to sway you into making a very unwise decision. I speak Hawaiian with moderate fluency -- perhaps better than anyone on this committee. 33 years ago when I came to live permanently in Hawaiʻi I immediately enrolled in night school courses in Hawaiian language, history, and culture for three years precisely because I had fallen in love with the language, people, and culture of my hanai homeland. Thereafter I have continued to learn further and more deeply. I have also discovered the existence of attitudes and political goals which are extremely divisive and dangerous to the Aloha Spirit and to Hawaiʻi's future as a multiracial, multicultural society. This bill aligns with those negative goals.

Please bear with me as I explain what's really happening with this bill

I'm asking you to do two things before you vote. (1) Try out the little experiment I propose where you will read an actual bill that was written first in Hawaiian and then in English -- where I want you to read only the Hawaiian version that comes first and then stop and explain to yourself what it means, before you read the followup English version to discover how bad your understanding was. (2) Read my analysis of how an extremely important short Hawaiian-language phrase in the Mahele law of 1848 has become twisted to a very different meaning in the English-language interpretation of it that was relied upon in the PASH decision and continues to shape the way "Native Hawaiians" are mistakenly given special race-based benefits deriving from the mutant interpretation.

EXPLANATION

First let's note that this bill is written entirely in English. Now, why in the world would that happen in view of the main purpose of this bill? It seeks to establish that if a bill is written first in Hawaiian and then translated into English, the Hawaiian version shall take priority as the official version. So why not write this bill first in Hawaiian and then provide an English translation? Indeed, why not write this bill solely in Hawaiian with no English at all? Would the members of this committee feel comfortable with that?

Would you feel confident that you understand what you are enacting? No? Then why in the world would you even so much as fool around with the idea of making the Hawaiian version of a bill take priority over the English version in case of a dispute later on over how it should be interpreted or implemented? This bill is so poorly written, and lacking in detail -- it's surprising that the bill is getting a hearing (or perhaps that's not so surprising after all, considering that hearing the bill is a virtue signal to celebrate "Hawaiian language Month"). But there were bills in two previous years along the same lines. Those bills failed, and were also poorly written, but at least they had more detail. The best thing about SB701 and SB195 from year 2019 was that they were written in Hawaiian language first, and then had English translations of their various sections. Thus those bills give us an opportunity to do a thought-experiment. Let's put the members of this committee to a test where you can judge for yourselves whether you could possibly be serious about enacting the concept "that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English." Here is a link to full text of SB701 from year 2019:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/Bills/SB701_.pdf

Go ahead now. Read the first part of that bill, which is in Hawaiian, and then stop the first time you encounter the subordinate English translation. Did you understand it? Even if you as an individual are one of the rare legislators who speaks Hawaiian fairly well, do you understand what you read with sufficient confidence to vote for it even if it was highly controversial? More importantly, do you seriously believe that your colleagues in the legislature are competent to vote on it? If necessary, continue this thought-experiment by reading only the Hawaiian portion of each subsequent part of the bill, and then summarizing its main concepts in whatever language you prefer, before you read the English translation. A majority of your fellow legislators whose fluency in Hawaiian language is moderate or even non-existent will be relying entirely on the English translation, but they will actually be voting on what the Hawaiian version says, according to the injunction "that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English."

If you'd like another example, run the thought-experiment with SB195, also from year 2019:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/Bills/SB195_.pdf

Giving priority to Hawaiian language is a political stunt to bolster ethnic pride and get votes from a constituency that demands visible tokens of validation and status; but it has no practical usefulness. It seems likely that every person outside Ni'ihau who speaks Hawaiian also speaks English with greater fluency. Hawaiian activists, following the lead of Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, sometimes insist on speaking Hawaiian in the courtroom or when giving speeches, interviews, or testimony; but they are perfectly capable of speaking and understanding English. Nobody NEEDS to speak or hear Hawaiian to express himself or to understand what someone is saying -- the activists demand it to score a political point; and sometimes to simply "gum up the works" when there is testimony on an environmental impact statement regarding telescopes on Mauna Kea or construction on a military base. Please see a large and detailed webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawLangPolitWeapon.html

Kaleikoa Kaeo is a community college instructor who speaks English fluently. In fact he teaches classes using English as the language of instruction, makes fiery political speeches in English, and has also learned to speak Hawaiian fluently. He demanded to give court testimony in Hawaiian, not because he is unable to speak English, but merely as a stunt -- a form of Hawaiian sovereignty street theatre or political activism.

Kaleikoa Kaeo took his inspiration from the wealthiest person in Hawaiʻi in the 1860s and 1870s, Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, who could speak perfectly good English but refused to do so when politicians or journalists visited her -- she took great pleasure in humiliating them by forcing them to hire translators. She felt she was having a political and "moral" victory by forcing them to use Hawaiian. Is that what legislators and Hawaiian language zealots are doing with this bill?

Hawaiʻi is filled with the Aloha Spirit. Our people are kind and generous, and show our good will to people who cannot speak English by allowing them to give testimony in their own language and by providing them at our own taxpayer expense with interpreters who have been certified by the court to be fluent in both their own language and English. But Kaleikoa Kaeo's political stunt was neither kind nor generous. It did not display good will, let alone the Aloha Spirit. He could easily have spoken English, but he chose to speak Hawaiian as a way to FORCE everyone else to either learn Hawaiian or to spend taxpayer dollars to hire speakers of Hawaiian. That's what today's bill in our legislature is all about -- a political stunt that would inconvenience everyone and cost a lot of money over time merely for the sake of cultural/ linguistic chauvinism. Hawaiʻi has large numbers of people from many ethnic backgrounds who speak different languages in their homes; but we all come together in shared spaces where we are expected to speak English.

Inability to speak English is treated as a disability or handicap. People who cannot speak English are given special accommodation to help them communicate in their own language, just as someone who is deaf gets a sign-language interpreter, someone who is blind is allowed to use a seeing-eye dog even in places where dogs are not normally allowed, and someone who cannot walk is allowed to use a wheelchair and elevator. Kaeo who is fluent in English but insists on speaking Hawaiian is like a marathon runner who might demand just for fun to come to court in a noisy wheelchair with a taxpayer-supplied assistant to push it for him.

If this bill were enacted into law, the Hawaiian language content of a bill would be the official law even though your comprehension of its meaning came only from the English-language version. And you can be quite sure that Hawaiian-language zealots would give top priority to writing many important bills in Hawaiian before getting them translated into English, thereby invoking the new rule that the Hawaiian version takes priority. Would your expertise in Hawaiian be sufficient to enable you to detect kaona (wat dat?) -- subtle double meanings that you would never vote for if you knew they were in the law you just finished enacting? Kaona were widely used orally in ancient times and later in Hawaiian language newspapers, as a sort of secret code, so that insiders "in the know" about obscure cultural metaphors would understand hidden social or political meanings in poetry or songs. For example, a hula might seem to be about a bee spreading pollen while flitting from flower to flower sipping nectar; but in reality one of its hidden meanings was about a man "spreading his seed" while engaging in intimate activities with one after another young ladies. On a more serious note, a phrase that seemed to be celebrating a needle piercing a white plumeria flower while stringing a lei might actually be an incitement to hurl a verbal or actual spear at a haole opponent.

Perhaps you're aware that there are some Hawaiian sovereignty activists who would love to get you to enact laws whose legally binding meaning in Hawaiian language would undermine or even overthrow the [fake!] State of Hawaiʻi and replace it with a rejuvenated Kingdom; even though the merely advisory subordinate English translation being relied upon to solicit votes appears to pertain only to plowing on a farm as a way to turn over the soil. ("Huli" is to turn over, whether it refers to plowing the soil on a farm or inciting to violent political revolution.)

TRANSLATING HAWAIIAN INTO ENGLISH: THE MAHELE PHRASE "KOE NAE KE KULEANA O NA KANAKA."

I conclude this testimony by citing an extremely important example from Hawaiian history illustrating how a single phrase, and especially an individual word in that phrase, has been subjected to deliberate distortion over time because of what the word meant in Hawaiian when proclaimed into law seventeen decades ago and what it has come to mean in English since then. The phrase in the Mahele laws beginning in 1848 and culminating in the Kuleana Act of 1850 is: "koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka." The individual word whose meaning has morphed is "kanaka."

When private land ownership was created by granting royal patent deeds during the unfolding stages of the Mahele, chiefs were given huge swaths of land, while peasants living on and farming individual parcels were given the right to have fee-simple ownership of their parcels. The problem was that the chief's land completely surrounded the peasant's small parcel, thus making it necessary for a peasant to trespass through the chief's land in order to gather materials necessary for daily life, or to go to the ocean for fishing. So in the interest of what we today might call "social justice", the chief's royal patent deed gave him ownership "but reserving the rights of the people" [for gathering or shoreline access]. That Hawaiian phrase �koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka� today is always translated to mean "reserving the rights of the native tenants." However, there was nothing racial about the word "kanaka" back in 1850, although today it has come to refer to so-called "Native Hawaiians." The word "kanaka" simply meant person, or human being, with an implication that it might be referring to a servant or peasant. If you look up "kanaka" in the big Pukui/Elbert dictionary you will find no racial terms. Furthermore, the word "kanaka" does not mean "tenant" -- that word is "hoaaina." Although non-natives made up only a small percentage of Hawaiʻi's population in 1850, the rights reserved to the "kanaka" in the Kuleana Act were reserved for ALL the "people" regardless of race and regardless whether they were tenants under a particular chief.

The Hawaiʻi Constitution Article 12 Section 7, and also the PASH decision by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, include racial restrictions which are modern distortions and simply do not grow out of the Mahele or the Kuleana Act. "The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua�a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights."

The traditional and customary rights of native Hawaiians from before 1778, and still possessed under the Kuleana Act of 1850 -- those terms describe what rights are being referred to, but those terms should NOT be construed as limiting those rights to members of any particular racial or ethnic group. By interpreting those rights to be possessed by ALL Hawaiʻi's people, we would ensure equality under the law for everyone including ethnic Hawaiians. The fact that my interpretation of "koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka" is so unusual should serve as an important illustration of why it is dangerous to give primacy to a language which very few people understand with sufficient fluency -- especially when the only people who do have sufficient fluency have been trained by teachers and institutions which are politically active; and the students mastering the language under their tutelage have been indoctrinated with their political views and will interpret the meaning of laws in a manner that facilitates their political agenda.

------------------------

HB 146 / SB 781 RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY'S �ŌLELO HAWAI�I INITIATIVES. Appropriates funds to support the Olelo Hawaii Initiatives.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This poorly written bill would appropriate $300,000 for this year and an additional $300,000 for next year "to support the judiciary�s �Olelo Hawai'i initiatives." The money would be given to the judiciary for a few vaguely identified purposes "to explore ways of providing 'Olelo Hawai�i resources, interpreter, and translation services to the public."

List of 3 main points
1. $300,000 proposed in this bill this year is merely seed money for a project that will mushroom to hundreds of millions in future, as shown by demands made in previous legislation and in Chief Justice Recktenwald's own 50-page report.
2. Practical need for using a language vs. ethnic pride or vanity in seeing a language displayed -- who should pay?
3. The case of Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo.

1. $300,000 proposed in this bill this year is merely seed money for a project that will mushroom to hundreds of millions in future, as shown by demands made in previous legislation and in Chief Justice Recktenwald's own 50-page report.

A similar bill in a previous year proposed to appropriate $300,000 seed money to establish the beginnings of a new bureaucracy inside the Judiciary for the purpose of fostering and normalizing Hawaiian language, by translating various legal documents into Hawaiian. First comes $100,000 for salary for a chief bureaucrat (who might already have been chosen behind the scenes); and then an additional $200,000 "for implementation, including translation services, website upgrades, preparation of materials, and educational efforts." Of course that's only the beginning.

A hidden purpose of this bill is to set up a bureaucracy that will expand by leaps and bounds to provide paid employment for the growing number of people who become fluent in Hawaiian language but cannot find jobs as teachers of it. Let's remember how the labor unions lobbied aggressively for the Honolulu rail project because they wanted jobs; but now the people of Hawaiʻi are stuck paying more than $10 Billion for an ugly makework project that most people don't want and will never use (like translating the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes into Hawaiian). As that bill points out, "[I]n 2015, the legislature adopted a concurrent resolution, H.C.R. No. 217, Session Laws of Hawaiʻi 2015, that requested the judiciary to convene a task force to examine and report on establishing �Ōlelo Hawai�i resources for the judiciary... made several recommendations and identified projects that can serve as a guide to the judiciary."

In the regular session of 2016 this legislature entertained companion bills SB2162 and HB2180 whose purpose was to appropriate $500,000.00 in seed money for the judiciary to begin a program to train people to become expert in both Hawaiian language and the specialized concepts of the legal profession to the point where they can translate the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes into Hawaiian, along with case law that might be cited to support or oppose legal briefs or memos in current courtroom proceedings. And that was only seed money!

Bill SB560 in the legislature of 2017 provides evidence of the costs for translation services. For translating just one document from English to Hawaiian -- the state Constitution -- SB560 proposed an appropriation of $25,000.00 for year 2017 and an additional $25,000.00 for year 2018, to be given to the University of Hawaiʻi.

The $300,000 proposed in this year's bill is merely an acorn poised to grow into a mighty oak tree. Why is the Judiciary proposing a make-work boutique project when it presumably has plenty of work to cope with the practical realities of a huge backlog of cases [especially jury trials] resulting from the COVID pandemic?

I have read the 50-page report by Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald to the House Judiciary Committee dated December 16, 2015: "Report of the Hawaiian Language Web Feasibility Task Force" appointed pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution No. 217, House Draft 1, Senate Draft 1 adopted by the Legislature in 2015. IT PROPOSES A PAY RATE OF $500 PER HOUR FOR THE EXPERT TRANSLATORS proposed in SB2162 regular session of 2016. How many hundreds of millions of dollars would be needed to translate the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes into Hawaiian, along with case law that might be cited to support or oppose legal briefs or memos in current courtroom proceedings? Mr. Recktenwald did NOT hire anyone to translate his own report into Hawaiian language. Why not? He should be willing to take a pay cut to get the job done! His document was 50 pages long. If each page required one hour to translate, the cost for just that one document alone, at his proposed pay rate of $500.00 per hour, would be $25,000.00.

2. Practical need for using a language vs. ethnic pride or vanity in seeing a language displayed -- who should pay?

There is no practical NEED for anyone to speak Hawaiian in court, nor to have state laws or legal pleadings or documents available in Hawaiian, because everyone who can speak Hawaiian is more fluent in English. By contrast, there is great NEED for translations of documents into and from Asian and European languages, and NEED for courtroom interpreters for those languages. Let's spend taxpayer dollars for what is NEEDED; not for using Hawaiian language as a vanity display of ethnic heritage and pride.

According to OHA's annual report on June 30, 2021 OHA had assets of $823 Million. In its annual report for fiscal year 2024, on June 30 OHA had assets of $971 Million -- an increase of about $150 Million in three years, or $50 Million per year increase in assets! By now OHA has over A BILLION DOLLARS IN ASSETS.

Let OHA pay for using Hawaiian language as a vanity display of ethnic heritage and pride. The $300,000 called for in this bill, and all the money needed to fund the future dreams of Mark Recktenwald and the Hawaiian language empire, is a smaller portion of OHA's wealth than a single puakenikeni blossom on a Kamehameha Day float.

Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani insisted on speaking Hawaiian when giving speeches, interviews, or testimony, even though she was perfectly capable of understanding and speaking English fluently. She was famous for humiliating haole diplomats and news reporters this way, forcing them to hire translators. She felt she was having a political and "moral" victory by forcing them to use Hawaiian. Hawaiian sovereignty activists and language zealots follow her lead and do this same stunt nowadays -- see discussion about the case of Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo who did precisely this stunt in court a couple years ago, humiliating the individual judge by forcing him to knuckle under to the demand for a court interpreter and humiliating the entire Judiciary by eliciting a policy to unnecessarily provide interpreters for Hawaiian language in the same manner as they provide necessary interpreters for speakers of other languages who lack understanding of English.

Nobody NEEDS to speak or hear Hawaiian to express himself or to understand what someone is saying -- the activists demand it to score a political point; and sometimes to simply "gum up the works" when there is testimony on an environmental impact statement regarding telescopes on Mauna Kea or construction on a military base. Please see a large and detailed webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawLangPolitWeapon.html

There are numerous Hawaiian sovereignty activists and Hawaiian language zealots who certainly would make demands for thousands of documents -- not because there is any real need to have those documents in Hawaiian language, but merely for the pleasure and ethnic pride of seeing them and with the conscious intention of providing employment for their friends.

3. The case of Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo.

Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo is a community college instructor who speaks English fluently. In fact he teaches classes using English as the language of instruction, makes fiery political speeches in English, and has also learned to speak Hawaiian fluently. He demanded to give court testimony in Hawaiian, not because he is unable to speak English, but merely as a stunt -- a form of Hawaiian sovereignty street theatre or political activism.

Hawaiʻi is filled with the Aloha Spirit. Our people are kind and generous, and show our good will to people who cannot speak English by allowing them to give testimony in their own language and by providing them at our own taxpayer expense with interpreters who have been certified by the court to be fluent in both their own language and English. But Kaeo's political stunt was neither kind nor generous. It did not display good will, let alone the Aloha Spirit. He could easily have spoken English, but he chose to speak Hawaiian as a way to FORCE everyone else to either learn Hawaiian or to spend taxpayer dollars to hire speakers of Hawaiian. That's what today's bill in our legislature is all about -- a political stunt that would inconvenience everyone and, over time, would cost a lot of money merely for the sake of cultural/ linguistic chauvinism.

Hawaiʻi has large numbers of people from many ethnic backgrounds who speak different languages in their homes; but we all come together in shared spaces where we are expected to speak English. Inability to speak English is treated as a disability or handicap. People who cannot speak English are given special accommodation to help them communicate in their own language, just as someone who is deaf gets a sign-language interpreter, someone who is blind is allowed to use a seeing-eye dog even in places where dogs are not normally allowed, and someone who cannot walk is allowed to use a wheelchair and elevator. Kaeo who is fluent in English but insists on speaking Hawaiian is like a marathon runner who might demand just for fun to come to court in a noisy wheelchair with a taxpayer-supplied assistant to push it for him.

Honolulu Star-Advertiser of January 25, 2018 reported: "A Maui District Court judge on Wednesday issued a bench warrant for the arrest of a University of Hawaiʻi-Maui College assistant professor of Hawaiian studies after he refused in court to acknowledge himself in the English language. Kaleikoa Kaeo, who was scheduled to start a trial for his August 2017 arrest for trying to block a shipment of parts to the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope under construction atop Haleakala, spoke only in the Hawaiian language when Judge Blaine J. Kobayashi asked him repeatedly if he was present for the trial. While an interpreter was provided for Kaeo during his initial court appearance, Kobayashi in December approved a motion by the Maui Prosecutor's Office requiring that the trial be conducted in English. There is no legal requirement to have Hawaiian language interpreters for those who speak English but prefer to speak Hawaiian in court, according to the state Judiciary. Nevertheless, Wednesday's events prompted outrage within the Hawaiian community. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana'opono Crabbe issued a statement saying the agency is "deeply disturbed and offended" that Kaeo was prohibited from defending himself in the Hawaiian language and that a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana'opono Crabbe issued a statement saying the agency is "deeply disturbed and offended" that Kaeo was prohibited from defending himself in the Hawaiian language and that a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. "Punishing Native Hawaiians for speaking our native language (evokes) a disturbing era in Hawaiʻi's history when olelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language) was prohibited in schools, a form of cultural suppression that substantially contributed to the near extinction of the Hawaiian language," the statement said. "It is disappointing that the state government continues to place barriers on olelo Hawaiʻi, 40 years after Hawaiʻi's Constitution was amended to recognize the Hawaiian language as an official language of the state. We demand that the state Judiciary find an immediate solution to this issue.""

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 26, 2018 reported: "An interpreter was not available when Kaeo showed up for a Nov. 22 hearing at which the prosecutor told Kobayashi she wanted to conduct the trial in English. In its written request the prosecutor says requiring a Hawaiian-language interpreter will cause needless delay and unnecessary expense because Kaeo is fluent in English. The prosecutor also said a federal judge had ruled in a civil case that the right to assert a federally protected language does not extend to judicial proceedings. Kaeo did not submit a written response. ... The Hawaiʻi Judiciary says Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires it to provide language interpreters when a party or a witness in a case has limited English proficiency or is unable to hear, understand, speak or use English sufficiently to effectively participate in court proceedings. Hawaiian cultural practitioner Daniel Anthony says he has intentionally gotten traffic tickets so he can go to court and assert his right to participate in the proceeding in Hawaiian. "I've been detained a couple of times," he said, but no longer than six hours. When the judge ordered him back into court in the afternoon to conduct the hearing, the prosecutor would ask to have the case continued every time he refused to speak in English. Anthony said the cases were dismissed, and the court eventually provided him a Hawaiian-language interpreter."

Chelsea Davis, Hawaiʻi News Now, January 26, 2018, 3:45 PM reported: "The state Judiciary says it will provide interpreters to those seeking to speaking Hawaiian in court "to the extent reasonably possible." ... In a statement, the Judiciary said it will start implementing the new policy immediately. It also asked those interested to serve as Hawaiian interpreters to contact the Office of Equality and Access to the Courts at 539-4860. The policy stands in contrast to the Judiciary's previous statements on using Hawaiian in court. Earlier this week, the Judiciary said: "There is no legal requirement to provide Hawaiian language interpreters to court participants who speak English but prefer to speak in Hawaiian. In those cases, judges have the discretion to grant, or deny, a request for an interpreter."... Kaeo said. "This is not just about language. This is a larger questions in which Hawaiians have been struggling to become visible within Hawaiʻi and the world." ... The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary issued a statement to Hawaiʻi News Now on Wednesday stating, "there is no legal requirement to provide Hawaiian language interpreters to court participants who speak English but prefer to speak in Hawaiian. In those cases, judges have the discretion to grant, or deny, a request for an interpreter."

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 26, 2018, Breaking news at 4:28 PM reported: "The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary will allow the use of Hawaiian language interpreters in courtrooms when participants in legal proceedings "choose to express themselves through the Hawaiian language." The new policy was announced today, following a widely reported incident ... In announcing the new policy yesterday, the Judiciary said it would develop implementation procedures and solicited public input. Comments may be sent to pao@courts.hawaii.gov."

On January 27, 2018 I, Kenneth Conklin, sent an email to the Judiciary's public affairs office at the email address in the news report, which included the following points:

The Hawaiian language is a great treasure for Hawaiʻi's people of all races, and indeed for all the world. Most people of good will are pleased to assist in preserving the language, reviving it and helping it to thrive in everyday use. I myself have spent considerable time and effort over a period of many years learning Hawaiian language to a level of moderate fluency; and I'm proud to use it for reading, writing, and occasionally in public speaking. However, the primary purpose of our courts is to adjudicate cases in controversy in accord with the Constitution and statutes; it is not to engage in well-meaning adventures in cultural expression or "social justice."

Virtually 100% of the people who speak Hawaiian are native speakers of English (i.e., they grew up speaking English) even though they are genetically natives of Hawaiʻi. Probably everyone who chooses to use Hawaiian language in court proceedings will do so for political reasons as an act of resistance, defiance and hostility toward the United States and its "puppet regime" the State of Hawaiʻi. The Hawaiian-speakers in your courtrooms are engaged in street-theatre. They are literally in contempt of court, because they claim your court has no jurisdiction over them due to the "illegal military invasion and occupation" of Hawaiʻi as admitted in the U.S. "confession" of 1993 (i.e., the apology resolution). My dear legislators, please do not (perhaps unknowingly) function as an enabler and accessory to racial divisiveness, anti-Americanism, anarchy and revolution. Please see my large, detailed webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at
http://tinyurl.com/668vqyz

--------------------

SB 534 RELATING TO THE HAWAII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Clarifies the process by which the Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority may approve residential development on certain parcels of Kakaako Makai. Raises the building height limit and the maximum floor area ratio on certain parcels in the area. Requires a certain percentage of the residential units developed on certain parcels to be allocated to households at or below a certain income level in perpetuity, with priority given to certain essential workforce in the area. Limits the sale of residential units developed in certain residential developments to prospective owner-occupants. Requires the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to determine a Kakaako Makai association fee to be collected from residents, tenants, and lessees of certain parcels to be deposited into a special account in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Special Fund to fund various services and projects in the Kakaako Makai area. (SD1)

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

OHA's main reason for pushing this legislation is the same as any landowner's reason for seeking up-zoning -- self-enrichment. 400-foot-tall apartment towers would generate huge amounts of income for OHA, while lowering the desirability of other properties across the street whose viewplanes would be destroyed and whose lifestyles would be severely impacted by traffic congestion and by overwhelming the infrastructure regarding water, sewage, roads, and the services of the fire department and police department.

OHA has repeatedly asserted that it was somehow cheated when it accepted the land at Kakaako makai in settlement for alleged underpayment of a portion of ceded land revenues. But OHA accepted that settlement knowing full-well about the zoning restriction, and there were members of the OHA negotiating team who had significant backgrounds in real estate valuations and zoning regulations. OHA could easily make plenty of money by developing these lands with low-rise businesses, but instead OHA's negligence has allowed these lands to remain barren for many years.

The Hawaii Community Foundation is a race-focused institution headed by people whose backgrounds lie with other race-focused institutions such as Bishop Estate (now rebranded as Kamehameha Schools) and OHA. HCF managed hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations and government grants for the recovery of Lahaina following the devastating wildfires; but ethnic Hawaiian people and their cultural issues got most of the help even though only about 10% of the residents were ethnic Hawaiians. The Filipino community, comprising three time that many people, got so little help they complained publicly and felt compelled to create their own agency.

Please defeat this bad bill.

-----------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill requires the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to establish and maintain Native Hawaiian cultural centers within the State. Requires the Office to submit reports to the Legislature regarding the Office's compliance with this Act. Appropriates moneys for the planning and design of the first Native Hawaiian cultural center.

The question is: Why must the legislature REQUIRE OHA to do these things? Why has OHA not already done these things using its vast hoard of wealth? And why should taxpayers be forced to pay for this particular ethnicity's cultural centers when other ethnicities developed their cultural centers mostly with money donated for that purpose?

Hawaii has "cultural centers" focusing on displays and activities of particular ethnic groups: In Honolulu the Japanese Cultural Center and Filipino Cultural Center, for example. Their buildings were paid for primarily by fundraisers and community groups working together, and their ongoing operating expenses are covered in the same way. From time to time they get grants from the legislature, but those are small portions of their budgets.

This bill proposes to establish "Hawaiian" cultural centers, referring to the ethnic group "Native Hawaiian". OHA is mandated to manage conceptualization, construction, and operation of these "Hawaiian Cultural Centers" using government money they have already been given; and now this bill proposes that the legislature must "Appropriate moneys for the planning and design of the first Hawaiian cultural center" and then presumably all the other ones to follow on every island, as will undoubtedly be called for in future legislation. That's grossly unfair to Hawaii's people.

According to OHA's financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, OHA had $971 Million in assets. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, OHA had $823 Million in assets. Thus we see that OHA's cash stash is increasing by about $75 Million per year, or $37 Million per half-year. Thus by now OHA probably has MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS IN ASSETS!

In 2022 the legislature appropriated tens of millions more "in arrears" and also raised OHA's annual payment of ceded land revenues by tens of millions per year in the future. What does OHA plan to do with all that money?

Make OHA pay for these new "cultural centers." Do NOT appropriate extra money for them. Too much already!

------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill would decrease the size of the Island Burial Councils from 9 to 7 members and remove the requirement for the councils to include members having development and large property owner interests.

It is probably a good idea to reduce the size of the Burial Councils, because some of those Councils have had difficulty assembling a sufficient number of members to constitute a quorum.

It is certainly true that lineal descendants of dead people should have a major role in deciding whether their remains must stay in the place where they were buried or whether they can be respectfully moved to a different place where property development will not intrude upon them. So-called cultural descendants should have a lesser right to participate in such decision-making, but a greater right than the general public.

However, it is grossly inappropriate to exclude landowners or business owners from such decision-making, because their property rights deserve respect.

Among the descendants of the dead people there should be greater rights for the lineal descendants and lesser but still significant rights for the cultural descendants. In the same way, among the property and business owners, there should be greater rights for owners who are directly connected to the lands where the bodies are buried, and lesser but still significant rights for the general class of owners whose lands or businesses are not directly connected to those particular lands but who might be impacted by similar situations concerning their own lands in the future.

Land owners and business owners, as a general class within our society, have a right to participate in setting the rules and attitudes whereby laws affecting all property rights are enacted and then respected.

People lacking Hawaiian native blood are nevertheless citizens of Hawaii with a right to participate in making the decisions which govern us all. It would be blatantly racist to exclude them from participation on the Burial Councils.

The first sentence of the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, proclaimed in 1840 by King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, contains the wisdom that should be applied: "Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka apau i ke koko ho'okahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi a me ka pomaika'i." That sentence can be translated into modern English thusly: God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness.

E hana kakou. Aloha kakou. Let's all work together and love each other.

Karl Rhodes, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in his committee report SSCR873 regarding this bill: "Your Committee finds that the preservation and protection of iwi kupuna (ancestral remains) by island burial councils is of profound spiritual and cultural significance to Native Hawaiian people." But then he disrespectfully dismissed the equally profound economic and political significance of the rights of individuals or corporations to be secure in their ownership of land and their ability to use it productively without interference from government-appointed bureaucrats catering to religious beliefs of a highly politicized ethnic group.

The First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution guarantees that there shall be no "establishment of religion"; but it is indeed a violation of that guarantee when a government agency is empowered to appoint all of its decision-makers from a group of activists who are presumed to all be adherents to a specific religious belief that the spirits of their dead ancestors continue to reside in their bones or other bodily remains or personal artifacts. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that private property cannot be taken by government without just compensation; and courts have repeatedly held that government agencies which enact regulations that prohibit ordinary uses of the land, or severely restrict such uses, have indeed thereby engaged in a taking.

Mr. Rhodes wrote "The stewardship of iwi kupuna should not be governed by those with monetary interests, but rather by representatives with a deep understanding of the spiritual and cultural responsibilities of their roles."

But then Mr. Rhodes failed to display any "deep understanding of the spiritual and cultural" significance of land ownership which was established in Hawaii under King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III who began the Great Mahele in 1848; and Mr. Rhodes failed to mention that the ownership and stewardship of land is a fundamental right under our U.S. Constitution.

The currently existing "requirement for representatives with development and large property owner interests" to be members of the island burial councils is the only way to guarantee that property rights will not be arbitrarily and summarily ignored by such burial councils catering to religious beliefs of an activist ethnic group pursuing an ill-defined agenda of "social justice" and "equity."

If SB268 is enacted, then at some time a few years from now the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii will once again be compelled to defend an indefensible law which will probably be upheld by the Hawaii Supreme Court but overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, costing millions of dollars in legal fees and years of political upheaval. Do we not recall the case Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (2009)? After years of litigation the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 5-0 to uphold a law that the State of Hawaii is prohibited from selling any parcel of ceded lands without permission from OHA; but then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0 to nullify the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision. That case should be an example to this committee why you must defeat SB268 so Hawaii is not again embarrassed as we were in Rice v. Cayetano and again in Hawaii v. OHA.

----------------------

SB 624 RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE. Requires certain public buildings near mass transit projects and on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill REQUIRES certain public buildings near mass transit projects and on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

This bill implies that DHHL leadership and the managers of those buildings, offices, rooms, and waiting areas have not already placed such portraits in those places. Bills or resolutions REQUIRING the placement of such portraits in such places were introduced in 2021, 2023, and 2024 and failed. Apparently during these last several years, DHHL personnel still have not seen fit to put up those portraits on their own initiative. One must wonder why they have not done so. What do they have against Kuhio, so that the legislature felt compelled to FORCE them to do it in previous years and continues to feel compelled to urge them to do it now? Or perhaps the facilities have not yet been built, and the legislature is acting now to urge DHHL personnel to erect such portraits when the facilities are built, for fear they would not otherwise do so. Or maybe the reason why DHHL personnel want the legislature to pass this bill is for the purpose of ensuring that additional taxpayer money will be sent to DHHL. But in 2022 the legislature appropriated $600 Million dollars extra to go to DHHL. Isn't that enough money for them to get the job done?

Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole is widely regarded as a cultural and political hero among today's ethnic Hawaiians. But there are some important reasons why even Hawaiian sovereignty activists would want to re- evaluate their opinion of him, if they were aware of these facts about his life. Below are details about two of those reasons: (1) He abandoned Hawaii at the time when its independence was being lost to annexation, in order to go to South Africa on an adventure as a soldier fighting for Britain in the Boer War; and (2) he waged a personal attack against ex-queen Lili'uokalani during the last years of her life, trying to have her declared mentally incompetent so he could become conservator of her estate and grab her Waikiki properties for himself. Before providing some details about those character flaws, let's think about the idea of putting up pictures glorifying Kuhio in public buildings on DHHL lands, even if his character had been beyond reproach.

In dictatorships around the world there are photos of the dictator looming large over public squares and inside government buildings. It's ugly. After a while those pictures arouse resentment and feelings of oppression more than they inspire love or respect. Haven't we all seen news reports from China showing the huge photo of long-dead Chairman Mao looming over Tiananmen Square in Beijing? In the old Soviet Union there was a big photo of Joseph Stalin in every classroom in every school, every office in every government building, and every grocery store. Big brother is watching you!

Some ethnic Hawaiians revere Kuhio as a prince for the same reasons the peasantry in any monarchial nation reveres its royalty -- majesty, mystery, pride in the nobility of a great leader, and hope for handouts to help the poor and downtrodden. Wealthy racial separatist Hawaiian government institutions honor Kuhio as their founding father, the man who bowed low enough to the colonizers to bring home the bacon from their far-away seat of power.

But was Kuhio's personal behavior princely? At least two major events in Kuhio's life after the revolution of 1893 should cause Hawaiian sovereignty activists to question his worthiness as their torch-bearer. On these two occasions Kuhio was grossly unpatriotic to his Hawaiian "nation." The first occasion was when he abandoned his nation at its time of greatest peril in order to pursue personal pleasure and foreign adventure. The second occasion was two decades later when he abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her land, for his personal enrichment, from the children she intended to help. Kuhio's behavior on both occasions should be seen as not merely selfish, but treasonous from the viewpoint of today's sovereignty activists.

In January 1895, at age 23, Kuhio participated in the attempted counterrevolution against the Republic of Hawaii led by Robert Wilcox. He was sentenced to a year in prison, where his fiancee visited him regularly. After his release they got married and went to Europe. It's understandable that the heir to the throne would feel unhappy about imprisonment and about the loss of his future crown. Certainly nobody would begrudge him the right to get married, and perhaps to travel for a while.

But Kuhio's extended absence is inexcusable in view of the major political events taking place in Hawaii. He played no part in fighting against annexation, even while his fellow "patriots" were making speeches, writing articles in the newspapers, and gathering 21,000 signatures on a petition in 1897 opposing annexation. Today's sovereignty activists excuse his non-participation by claiming he was "in exile." But nobody forced him to leave. Others who had been imprisoned with him stayed in Hawaii after their release in 1895.

Kuhio extended his European adventure by going to Africa where he spent three years fighting on the side of England in the second Boer War.

Let's put that in different terms so that today's sovereignty activists will get the point. Kuhio, designated heir to the throne, abandoned his native land during a time of great political upheaval and went to war halfway around the world, fighting on the side of one White colonial power against another White colonial power in a war to see which one would win control over the land of a poor, downtrodden dark-skinned native population.

Kuhio returned to Hawaii in time to join the Republican Party and defeat the incumbent Robert Wilcox in the 1902 election for Territorial Delegate to Congress, whereupon he took the oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He introduced the first bill in Congress for statehood for Hawaii (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He finally "brought home the bacon" after 19 years in Congress with passage of his Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Sellout!).

The case of Kuhio vs. Liliuokalani in 1915-1916 is perhaps even more troubling. The "prince," now Hawaii's Territorial Delegate to Congress for 13 years, abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her Waikiki land from the children she intended to help. Kuhio publicly accused her of mental incompetence in order to nullify her creation of the Queen Liliuokalani Childrens' Trust, and to establish himself as conservator of her estate, so that after her death her Waikiki properties would go to him instead of to the benefit of the Hawaiian children. Luckily for the children, his lawsuit failed. Full text of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, including details about what Kuhio was trying to do, is on a webpage: JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE v. LILIUOKALANI, Supreme Court of Hawaii, 23 Haw. 457; 1916. Syllabus and full text of the Court's decision:
http://tinyurl.com/ce7avc

Evelyn Cook's book "100 years of Healing" includes extensive description of the lawsuit, and especially the role of attorney W.O. Smith in defending Liliuokalani. Knowledgeable readers might be surprised, because W.O. Smith was one of the leaders of the revolution of 1893 that overthrew Liliuokalani. But as time went by the ex-queen realized that Smith was completely trustworthy whereas Kuhio was arrogant, selfish, greedy, and profoundly disrespectful to the woman most ethnic Hawaiians still regarded as their Queen. Instead of native Hawaiian "Prince" Kuhio, Lili'uokalani appointed White man W.O. Smith as trustee of her Queen Lili'uokalani Childrens Trust.

Kuhio was also a womanizer, both in Hawaii and in Washington D.C., -- in today's parlance we might call his scandalous behavior Trumpian. He earned the nickname "Prince Cupid" (Google it if you want some titillation).

Kuhio does not deserve to be ensconced as head of a cult of personality. You should defer this bill to avoid the embarrassment of voting against it or the even larger embarrassment of voting for it.

-----------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Summary of three main points; detailed discussion follows.

OHA claims it is entitled to 20% of ceded land revenue. Therefore in this bill OHA wants tax dollars to pay for research to create an inventory of all the ceded lands to make sure OHA gets every last penny it is "entitled to" from those lands. This bill would force taxpayers of all races to pay for setup and operation of an agency under the control of OHA whose purpose is to identify all the ceded lands and the revenue they generate, and then to grab 20% of that money to give to OHA for the exclusive benefit of one racial group. OHA's continually rising hoard of assets now totals ONE BILLION DOLLARS with no explanation what they want it for. Make OHA pay for its own research and propaganda whose sole purpose is to grab more money from all of us to benefit only a highly privileged few of us through racially exclusionary programs.

2. The State of Hawaii rightfully owns all the public lands for the benefit of all Hawaii's people, not segregated by race. Under an act of the Kingdom legislature in 1865, signed by the King, the crown lands were consolidated with the government lands. The Hawaiian monarchy was "illegally" overthrown in 1893 (of course all revolutions are "illegal" under the existing laws of the overthrown government, including the anti-monarchy U.S. revolution of 1776). All Hawaii's public lands remained public lands benefitting all Hawaii citizens of all races, including Native Hawaiians, under the revolutionary Provisional Government and then the Republic of Hawaii -- that's what happens throughout the world whenever a government changes because of election or revolution. The Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation in 1897 and the U.S.A. accepted it in 1898 by joint resolution of Congress signed by the President. Under terms of that Treaty these public lands were ceded to U.S.A., as happened routinely every time a new area of land became a U.S. territory during the westward expansion. Later, when Hawaii and the other territories became U.S. states, those ceded lands were then ceded back to them at Statehood. These lands do not belong to a racial group now, and never did throughout the Kingdom period.

3. The rule that 20% of ceded land revenue must be given to OHA is merely a statute, not mandated by the Statehood Admissions Act nor by the Hawaii Constitution. Like any statute enacted during one term of the legislature, it can be amended or rescinded during any later term. The nonsense in this bill gets constantly repeated in legislation and litigation. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO PUT AN END TO IT. PASS A BILL TO RESCIND THE 20% RULE AND DECLARE THAT ETHNIC HAWAIIANS SHALL PAY TAXES AND RECEIVE BENEFITS ON THE SAME BASIS AS ALL OTHER CITIZENS OF HAWAII.

DISCUSSION

1. Make OHA pay for its own research and propaganda.

This bill would force taxpayers of all races to pay for setup and operation of an agency under the control of OHA whose purpose is to identify all the ceded lands and the revenue they generate, and then to grab 20% of that money to give to OHA for the exclusive benefit of one racial group. It is absurd to force defendant taxpayers to pay for research by plaintiff OHA to support political demands or litigation whose purpose is to take away defendant's assets and give them to OHA. OHA has hoarded assets -- far beyond its expenditures "for the betterment of Native Hawaiians" -- assets increasing by tens of millions of dollars every year until it now owns ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Make OHA pay for its own research and propaganda.

Suppose the Department of Education filed a bill demanding millions of dollars to do research proving that schools are good for "the betterment of children" and identifying laws around the world requiring children to attend school, and demanding additional millions of dollars to publish ads in the newspapers and pay for lobbyists at the legislature touting those research findings and demanding huge increases in the DOE budget to build fancy schools and double the salaries of school administrators. Wouldn't you defeat such legislation?

According to OHA's Annual Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, on page 15, OHA's total assets were $971 Million. By now, half a year later, that figure is likely more than A BILLION DOLLARS as can be seen by extrapolating the annual increases in OHA's total assets as documented in its annual reports. No other branch of the State government is allowed to carry forward such an enormous amount. Yet here comes OHA, demanding a huge amount of additional taxpayer dollars for its expenses to build and operate its own private propaganda and lobbyist agency. If OHA wants to have its own private lobbyist group, let OHA pay for it. We, the 80% of Hawaii's people who lack a drop of Hawaiian native blood, should not be forced to pay for OHA's lobbying which is intended to take away our money and give it to them.

All citizens of Hawaii pay taxes to the State government, regardless of race, and receive benefits from the State government, regardless of race. The same thing is true regarding ceded land revenues -- money is fungible; so whether government gets money from taxes or from land revenues, the money is used to provide goods and services. But two branches of the State government, OHA and DHHL, are empowered by law to take large amounts of money and land away from the general population and set it aside for the exclusive benefit of ethnic Hawaiians, even while ethnic Hawaiians also continue to receive all the other benefits that are given to all our citizens. That is obviously unfair. In fact, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2. History shows that the State of Hawaii rightfully owns all the public lands for the benefit of all Hawaii's people, not segregated by race.

Kamehameha The Great owned all the lands of Hawaii by right of conquest, using weapons and military advisors given to him by Britain. He invaded nearly all the islands, slaughtering thousands of natives and ruining some croplands; and at the end he intimidated King Kaumuali'i of Kaua'i to surrender without being invaded, for fear of the same fate.

In 1840 his second son King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III proclaimed the first Constitution of the Kingdom, voluntarily giving up dictatorial powers to establish a legislature and courts. In 1848 Kauikeaouli began the Mahele process, voluntarily giving up his sole ownership of all the lands to create three categories: crown lands (owned by the office of the monarch), government lands (owned by government to provide public services such as roads and harbors), and private lands (initially given in fee-simple in huge swaths to high-ranking chiefs and eventually also allowing ordinary people to own small parcels for homes and farms). There were never any racial set-asides. In the early stages nearly all the people were native Hawaiians, but as time went by increasing numbers of Asians and Whites became private landowners, including some very large plantations. The laws of the Kingdom did not discriminate for or against racial groups regarding land ownership or regulation.

By 1865 Lota Kamehameha V, with a dissolute lifestyle, had run up huge gambling debts to foreigners, and had mortgaged the crown lands to pay them. When he was unable to pay the mortgages, the mortgage grantors threatened to foreclose and take ownership of the crown lands. The chiefs and legislators were alarmed and decided such a thing must never be allowed to happen. So the legislature passed a law declaring that the crown lands now belonged to the government in return for the government issuing bonds to pay off the mortgages; and the King was very happy to sign that law. From that time forward the income from the former crown lands was set aside to pay for the dignity of the office of monarch -- such things as palaces, carriages, crowns, banquets, travel, etc.; but otherwise there was no longer a distinction between crown lands and government lands. The monarch and the government served all Hawaii's people without racial distinctions or set-asides. Native Hawaiians as a racial group had no special privileges or rights regarding land ownership or regulation.

After the monarchy was overthrown in 1893, the public lands (former crown and government combined) continued to be owned and operated by the government, and the income from those lands was used for the benefit of all the people regardless of race. Same land, different government with different laws and policies applying uniformly to all people regardless of race. U.S. President Grover Cleveland, a friend of ex-queen Lili'uokalani, spent the year 1893 trying to undermine and destabilize the Provisional Government, including gunboat diplomacy to intimidate it during "Black Week" December 14, 1893 to January 11, 1894; but President Dole held firm.

A Constitutional Convention, including at least 6 delegates whose names show they were Native Hawaiian, produced a Constitution that was proclaimed in July of 1894. The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic was John Kaulukou, a former royalist. The Republic asked the local consuls of all the nations having consulates in Hawaii to send copies of the new Constitution to their home governments around the world, requesting them to formally recognize the Republic as the rightful successor to the Kingdom. During the remainder of 1894 letters in 11 languages (most accompanied by English translations) were received from at least 19 nations on 4 continents personally signed by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents addressed to President Dole, formally recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. Perhaps the most politically significant letter of recognition was personally signed by Britain's Queen Victoria: significant because here was the reigning Queen of a powerful nation recognizing the legitimacy of a revolutionary government which had overthrown a fellow monarch; also significant because Queen Kapiolani and Princess Lili'uokalani had attended Queen Victoria's golden jubilee in London, and Victoria had also been godmother to Queen Emma's baby Prince Albert and had sent a crib to him (still on display in Emma's Summer Palace alongside Pali Highway). Photos of those letters and accompanying diplomatic letters and envelopes can be viewed on a website at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of- hawaii/
These recognitions by the heads of Britain, France, Spain, Russia, China, Switzerland, and 13 other nations gave the Republic, under international law, the right to speak on behalf of the continuing independent nation of Hawaii, including the right to offer a Treaty of Annexation to the United States which included the ceding of Hawaii's public lands. Minorities (such as ethnic Hawaiians) might always disagree with any policy of any government, but they are legally bound by the actions of their internationally recognized governments. Under terms of the Treaty, the U.S. agreed to pay the accumulated national debt of the Republic of Hawaii, most of which was debt left over from the monarchy to pay for Kalakaua's Palace and his trip around the world. That money was more than the real estate value of the ceded lands at that time. Thus Native Hawaiians, along with all other citizens of Hawaii, did indeed receive compensation for the ceded lands, contrary to the falsehood in the 1993 apology resolution. And at Statehood most of the ceded lands were returned to Hawaii except for national parks and military bases, from which we all benefit.

News of the international recognition of the Republic aroused a significant number of Hawaiian race-nationalists who realized they must take action or suffer permanent political loss. They attempted a counter-revolution led by mixed-race Robert Wilcox in January 1895. Men on both sides were killed. But the Republic maintained control with zero outside help. Guns, ammunition and hand grenades were found buried in Lili'uokalani's flower garden at her "Washington Place" home, and a search indoors revealed she had already signed documents appointing the cabinet ministers she had chosen to take office after her counterrevolution had succeeded. So she was placed on trial and found guilty of "misprision of treason"; i.e., conspiracy in the attempted counterrevolution. Throughout all these tumultuous events, the lands of Hawaii remained under control by the government for the benefit of everyone regardless of race.

The most important acknowledgment that the ceded lands belong to all Hawaii's people, without racial distinction, came in a court decision in 1910. Courses in "Hawaiian Studies" like to cover up this decision, so perhaps even some legislators are unaware of it. In the only lawsuit ever brought by ex-queen Lili'uokalani against the U.S. Lili'uokalani demanded compensation from the U.S. for the crown lands, which she claimed had belonged to herself personally. The Court ruled that she had never been the owner of those lands, partly because of the 1865 Kingdom law discussed above. Furthermore, by claiming personal ownership of the crown lands and demanding compensation only for herself, the ex-queen displayed her belief that so-called "Native Hawaiians" as a group were not the owners of those lands -- she could have named them as co-plaintiffs or they could have moved to intervene to be added as class-action complainants, but neither of those things occurred. According to Lili'uokalani, she was sole owner.

Full text of Lili'uokalani's complaint filed in 1909, and full text of the Court's decision filed in 1910, along with commentary, can be found on a webpage:
"Lili'uokalani Loses A Big One (The Crown Lands) -- Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910)" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ liliucrownlands.html

The ex-queen lost the case. But in the process, many of the claims made today by the sovereignty activists were asserted by the ex- queen and rejected by the Court based on irrefutable evidence. After seeing all the evidence and hearing all the arguments on both sides, the Court of Claims became convinced that her claims had no merit. The decision itself is a valuable legal and historical document. It is important not only because it contains these arguments concerning the Crown Lands, but also because of the very important appendices included by the Court as part of the evidence. Some of the material in these appendices is difficult or impossible to find anywhere else, and decisively refutes claims raised by today's sovereignty activists on issues in addition to the Crown Lands. It is also interesting that she never sued the United States for the "illegal overthrow" or the "illegal annexation" to try to reverse those events or be compensated for them; she sued only for money for "her" Crown Lands. The manner in which she lost lays out the evidence and the arguments for both sides in a direct confrontation between the ex-Queen and the United States. Such a direct legal confrontation at such a high level over "sovereignty" issues was never repeated for 90 years, until the Rice v. Cayetano case. The decision of the Court of Claims (like the Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano) is very clear and convincing. For example, in the Lili'uokalani decision, the Court cited the Treaty of Annexation both as evidence that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case and as affirmation that the Treaty exists and is valid; and the Court provided full text of the Treaty of Annexation in an appendix which is included in the webpage.

3. The rule giving 20% of ceded land revenue to OHA is merely a statute passed by a previous session of the legislature, and can therefore be amended or rescinded at any moment by this legislature. Please put an end to it.

There is a long history of contentious negotiation, legislation, and litigation over the amount of money owed to OHA under the rule specifying 20% of ceded land revenue. The requirement to pay OHA 20% of ceded land revenue is statutory law enacted as Act 273, Session laws of 1980. It is not in the Statehood Admissions Act nor in the State Constitution. Therefore, this law can be amended by the legislature at any time to reduce the percentage; or the law can be rescinded entirely.

Act 273, Session laws of 1980 should be rescinded. OHA should be funded in the same manner as any other branch of the State government; i.e., by an appropriation included in the annual or biennial State budget, including a line-item listing of the purposes for which the money is to be spent. Then there would be no further conflict or litigation over how to calculate the 20%.

Here is the relevant language from section 5(f) of the statehood Admissions Act identifying the 5 purposes allowed for the use of ceded land revenues: "... for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible for the making of public improvements, and for the provision of lands for public use. Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes ..."

My dear legislators: notice something OHA does not tell you. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY MONEY FROM THE CEDED LANDS MUST BE SPENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF THOSE 5 PURPOSES. Section 5(f) specifically says "Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of FOR ONE OR MORE of the foregoing purposes.

For the first 20 years of statehood, 100% of ceded land revenue was given to the public schools, where 26% of the children are Native Hawaiians. Thus 26% of ceded land revenues went for the betterment of Native Hawaiians, without any need for race-specific earmarking.

So what about the remaining 4 purposes in addition to betterment of native Hawaiians? If OHA tells you that each of those 5 purposes gets a dedicated 1/5 (20%) of ceded land revenue, then the public school system plus UH should also be getting its own dedicated 20% portion; the development of low-income housing should be getting its 20% portion; the Department of Land and Natural Resources (especially the Parks Department) and the Highway Department should be getting its 20% portion; etc. Repeal the 20% rule and fund OHA by ordinary budget appropriations in the same way as any other department of the State government.

If the legislature unwisely chooses to keep the requirement of a specific percentage of ceded land revenue to be paid to OHA, then the legislature should write into law that the percentage must be calculated on the base of NET INCOME AFTER EXPENSES rather than gross revenue. It costs a lot of money to construct roads and buildings, supply water and electricity, and pay salaries of staff who operate or maintain the facilities that generate revenue from the ceded lands. Those capital expenditures and operating expenses should be deducted from gross revenue to determine the net income to be used when applying the percentage to calculate how much money to pay to OHA. In many if not most cases, government lands and infrastructure operate at a loss because their purpose is to provide services rather than to make a profit. That's why government imposes taxes in order to provide funding for its operations. Taxpayers pay for all capital investments and operating expenses whereby the ceded lands are enabled to produce revenue, so it is illegal and immoral for OHA to siphon off gross revenue while other land trust beneficiaries pay all the costs and receive none of the revenue.

Let's do a little arithmetic. OHA demands 20% of land revenues exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Hawaiians. And then, because ethnic Hawaiians are 20% of Hawaii's people, they will also receive an additional 20% of the remaining 80% of the land revenues, which is an additional 16%, for a total of 36% of land revenues going to only 20% of the people. Not to mention 20% of all the tax dollars. For the first 20 years of statehood, 100% of ceded land revenue was given to the public schools, where 26% of the children are Native Hawaiians. Thus 26% of ceded land revenues went for the betterment of Native Hawaiians, without any need for race-specific earmarking. Remove racial entitlements, which are both unconstitutional and immoral. You have the power to rescind Act 273, Session laws of 1980. Please do so. And vote "NO" to defeat this bill.

---------------------

HB 1088 RELATING TO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. Exempts housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands from school impact fees.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill is written in a way that, perhaps intentionally, disguises its true purpose. But the previous committee reports explained it in plain English: "The purpose of this measure is to exempt housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands from school impact fees." Doing that "... will allow more affordable housing for native Hawaiian beneficiaries to be developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands without facing additional fees that come from school impact fees." But what was NOT mentioned is that the result would be to reduce the amount of money being sent to the Department of Education to pay for the teachers, buildings, and supplies necessary to educate the children, even though the number of residents on DHHL lands will continue to increase and they will continue to produce even more children who will force an increase in the number of teachers, administrators, support staff, and supplies; and perhaps also an increase in the number of school buildings.

The report from the House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs, HSCR728, noted that there were 5 testimonies: 2 of them supported this bill, 1 opposed it. The remaining 2 testimonies from the Department of Education and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii were classified as comments only, as though they were neutral; BUT IN FACT THE POINTS THEY EXPRESSED WERE ENTIRELY NEGATIVE BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

THIS COMMITTEE ON FINANCE IS OBLIGATED TO GIVE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION TO THESE FINANCIAL IMPACTS RATHER THAN TO ALLEGED ISSUES OF "SOCIAL JUSTICE" OR "EQUITY" FOR A FAVORED RACIAL GROUP.

Keith T. Hayashi, Superintendent of Education testified politely but firmly "The practice of requiring developers of new residential units to dedicate land to mitigate impacts on student enrollment caused by new residential developments is consistent with state and county land use requirements for purposes of essential public facilities such as parks, fire and police stations. Although the Department recognizes the importance and need of affordable, workforce, and housing for use by Department of Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries, the exemption proposed by this bill would limit funding resources and the dedication of land intended to address the impacts on school facilities generated by new residential developments. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii testified that "Builders of large projects within school impact districts are required to provide land for school facilities depending on the numbers of students expected in their projects and the amount of available classroom space in existing area schools. Smaller developers and individual home owner-builders are required to pay a fee instead of land, when their project is too small to entertain a school site. All home builders or buyers must pay a construction cost fee. ... The theory behind this law is that high growth will mean more children, and more schools are required to educate them. The formulas in sections 302A-1606 and -1607 for calculating the fee come up with a land value and dollar value for each new single family unit and each multi-family unit. It makes sense to exempt construction where no new unit is being created, for it would be rational to presume that no additional living unit means that there would not be additional children to educate. By the same token, EXEMPTING ADDITIONAL LIVING UNITS EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN HOUSE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN LINE WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE TAX AND WILL, AT A MINIMUM, CAUSE OTHERS TO PAY FOR THE SCHOOLS NEEDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN IN THOSE UNITS." [emphasis added]

Exempting housing developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands from school impact fees while allowing the residents of DHHL lands to flood the schools with more children would reduce the number of dollars per pupil overall, thereby presumably lowering the quality of education and the productivity and earnings of the adults who emerge from our public schools. It would also be logically correct, although politically incorrect, to note that the children residing on DHHL lands are Native Hawaiian while most of the children in our public schools are not Native Hawaiian; therefore this bill could be viewed as racist because it forces non-Native Hawaiians to suffer reduction in quality of education for the purpose of paying for the education of Native Hawaiian children.

It would be reasonable to exempt assessments of school impact fees for housing developments where there will be no school-age children living there, such as any form of housing permanently excluding school- aged children, with the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions recorded on the property. It would be reasonable to exempt assessments of school impact fees for housing developments where the developers actually build schools on their own land with sufficient capacity to handle the children who will be living there, such as any development with an executed education contribution agreement or other like document with the authority or the department for the contribution of school sites or payment of fees for school land or school construction. But the reasonable exemptions described in this paragraph do not seem applicable to DHHL lands intended for residential use and not set aside for leasing for factories, shopping centers, pastures, or crop production.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful idea to exempt all housing development from general excise tax? That would provide a real incentive to help solve the housing shortage blamed for homelessness and high prices. But this bill singles out one racial group to enjoy such an exemption, while everyone else must pay the tax. That is an example of what is known as "systemic racism" -- setting up an entire system in a way that benefits or harms people because of their race. Whatever happened to diversity, equity, and inclusiveness?

Should DHHL developments be exempted from school impact fees? Do ethnic Hawaiians not make babies and have children? If DHHL builds its own schools to educate children who live in their own redlined racially-gated ghettos, and if the children on DHHL lands are not allowed to attend public schools outside DHHL's gates, then of course they should not have to pay school impact fees to the general public schools that serve both ethnic Hawaiians and non-ethnic-Hawaiians. Read my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
The attitude projected in this sort of legislation exemplifies what I wrote about.

---------------------

SB 614 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY. Establishes "La Ku'oko'a", or Hawaiian Independence Day, as a state holiday to be observed annually on November 28th.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Summary of main points:
1. This bill would give a small boost to "Hawaiian pride" but at a large cost in money and undelivered government services.
2. The major but unstated purpose of this bill is to create a propaganda victory for Hawaii's race-nationalist secessionists by putting the state legislature on record as supporting the concept of returning Hawaii to the political status of independent nationhood. Suddenly elevating a 182-year-old historical footnote into a major state holiday would create a propaganda victory for Hawaii's race- nationalist secessionists by putting the state legislature on record as supporting the concept of returning Hawaii to the political status of independent nationhood. But the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in 1893 by a locally-led revolution. Worldwide formal recognition of the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful successor government gave it the right under international law to speak on behalf of the Hawaiian nation and to offer annexation to the United States in 1897, which USA agreed to in 1898, followed by full statehood in 1959. As the Democratic Party loudly shouted (although in a different context) during the election of 2024: "We are not going back!" Here is Congressperson Jill Tokuda displaying that slogan:
[Photo is displayed in legislature's compilation of testimony, but not dissplayed here in order to save bandwidth.]

1. On the surface it appears the purpose of this bill is merely to help increase the pride of Hawaii's favorite ethnic group by elevating a state-recognized day of observance into an official state holiday; however, this small bit of flattery would come at a large economic cost as previously testified by at least two experts: the budget directors for City of Honolulu and State of Hawaii.

On February 2, 2023 Luis Salaveria, Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance, testified as follows on SB732, "which designates the second Monday in October of each year as Indigenous Peoples� Day, a 14th State holiday":
"B&F estimates that the annual cost in terms of lost productivity to add another State holiday is approximately $17,000,000. This estimate is based on current collective bargaining data projected for FY 24 increases. It includes base pay, Social Security, Medicare, and pension accumulations, but does not include any potential hard costs such as overtime pay for employees who may be required to work and, therefore, are eligible for holiday pay."

Also on that date Florencio Baguio, Jr., Assistant Director of the Honolulu Department of Human Resources, testified as follows:
"The Department of Human Resources, City and County of Honolulu understands and appreciates the historical significance and importance of recognizing indigenous peoples, including Native Hawaiians. Since the matter will require negotiations with the various public unions through the collective bargaining process, our concern is the added cost to the Public Employer should this become an established State paid holiday. We note that the cost to the City and County of Honolulu alone would be close to $2 million annually."

-----

2. The major but unstated purpose of this bill is to create a propaganda victory for Hawaii's race-nationalist secessionists by putting the state legislature on record as supporting the concept of returning Hawaii to the political status of independent nationhood. A nonaggression pact between two European countries in 1843, signed by low-level diplomats addressing only each other, tangentially acknowledged Hawaii as a sovereign nation even though that document was not addressed to anyone in Hawaii and was not signed by anyone from Hawaii. But now, 182 years later, our legislature suddenly converts that historical footnote into a state holiday? And by now creating a state holiday called "Hawaiian Independence Day" our legislature would give the world the impression that we believe Hawaii actually is (or should be) an independent nation. However, that small event in 1843 was hugely overshadowed in 1894 when Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on four continents personally signed letters to President Sanford Dole formally recognizing that the Republic of Hawaii was the rightful successor government after a revolution had overthrown Hawaii's monarchy in 1893. Their letters, and accompanying diplomatic documents, are in Hawaii's state archives and photos are on the internet at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of- hawaii/

Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal? Was it a theft of a nation owned by kanaka maoli and stolen by non-kanaka maoli? See webpage at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/overthrow.html

See also HAWAIIAN REPARATIONS: NOTHING LOST, NOTHING OWED by Patrick W. Hanifin, esq.; Hawaii Bar Journal, XVII, 2 (1982) https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hanifinreparations.html
"Morgan Report" (today's name for a report to the U.S. Senate by its Committee on Foreign Relations, whose chairman was Senator John T. Morgan, Democrat of Alabama. Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, was dated February 26, 1894. It was an investigation into the events surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, and the alleged role of U.S. peacekeepers in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.)
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwistedFull.html

---------------------

SB 1051 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HISTORY MONTH. Designates September as Hawaiian History Month.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Declaring a "Hawaii History Month" would be a good way to encourage everyone to learn the facts about Hawaii's history -- ALL OF IT -- PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD NOT FOCUS ENTIRELY OR PRIMARILY ON CELEBRATING ONE ETHNIC GROUP -- Let's remember that ethnic Hawaiian activists insist that the only people who can rightfully say they are "Hawaiian" are those who have a drop of the magic blood. They insist that "Hawaiian" refers to a race, not a place.

Therefore the name of the month should NOT be HAWAIIAN history month, but rather should be "HAWAII history month."

Also therefore, the entire Section 1 should be deleted from this bill, because it focuses entirely on "Queen Liliuokalani's birth, life, and legacy [which] is remembered and celebrated in the Hawaiian community, including at churches and Hawaiian organizations, such as Kawaiahao Church's Alii Sunday, the Liliuokalani Trust Kipuka (children centers), and the Kamehameha Schools. [and] The legislature further finds that the Hawaii Ponoi Coalition was formed in 2007 to educate residents and visitors to the islands on Hawaii's history, the Native Hawaiian people, and the culture that makes Hawaii a place like no other. In September 2007, the Coalition launched a commemorative event on the grounds of Iolani Palace to celebrate the birthday of Queen Liliuokalani. [and] The legislature concludes that designating September as Hawaiian History Month would be an appropriate way to honor Queen Liliuokalani and recognize the contributions of the Native Hawaiian community, while also providing community building, educational, and economic opportunities."

So whatever happened to Captain Cook, George Vancouver, the missionaries, and the vast contributions to Hawaii's economy and culture by people from Britain, U.S.A., China, Japan, Philippines, Korea, et. al., all of which have collectively created today's "culture that makes Hawaii a place like no other"? Why is this legislature so bound and determined to disrespect everyone lacking a drop of Hawaiian native blood, rendering 80% of our people as Soviet-style "non- persons"?

I further remind this committee and the entire Senate what happened this year with "Ka La Ku'oko'a" -- last year's legislature had passed a bill designating it as a day of observance and specifying that it "is not and shall not be construed as a state holiday" -- the same language contained in section 2 of this current bill -- but then turned around and this year made it an official state holiday. Of course that's what the authors of this current bill have in mind to do next year with "Hawaiian history month" isn't it?

==========================
==========================

HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN PREVIOUS YEARS -- TESTIMONY BY KEN CONKLIN AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE ALOHA FOR ALL AND GRASSROOT INSTITUTE GROUPS.

Personal note by Ken Conklin: I came permanently to live in Hawaii in 1992. From then until 1998 I spent full time doing independent study about Hawaiian language, history, and culture. I felt a strong spiritual relationship with the land and people, which I sensed on three summer vacations beginning 1982 and was one of my main motives for coming to live here permanently. Because of the beautiful spirituality in Hawaiian music, hula, and legends, I was inclined to go along with the historical victimhood narrative pushed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists on such topics as the overthrow of the monarchy (1893), annexation (1898), and statehood (1959). I attended a large number of Hawaiian sovereignty rallies, panel discussions at University of Hawaii, and conversations in public places or in private homes; and read many books. But having a Ph.D. in philosophy I am accustomed to studying issues that are both complex and controversial, asking lots of questions, and doing research. And my masters in Mathematics made me feel a need to be logical and keep my beliefs clear and consistent. The more questions I asked, the more my erstwhile "friends" began questioning my "loyalty" to them and to their movement. In many cases they did not know the facts; and in some cases they did know the facts but persisted in telling me half-truths or outright lies. It took many months of soul-searching, gut-wrenching introspection to figure things out; and then everything fit together within a few days and I saw the whole gestalt picture -- the face of evil in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Since then I gradually began stepping out of private life, writing letters to editor, creating this website, running as a candidate for OHA trustee in 2000, writing my book, etc. I began writing testimony on bills in Congress and in the state legislature around year 1999. For the past decade the internet has made it increasingly easy to keep up to date about bills in the legislature and to submit testimony by email or through the legislature's website.

Below are some webpages providing testimony to the Hawaii legislature over the years, mostly by myself but also some by friends who were members of the Aloha For All and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii groups. This is an incomplete list, but it shows the kind of issues arising in the legislature over time and how civil rights activists are fighting back in an effort to protect unity, equality, and aloha for all. There's a gathering storm in Hawaii as racial supremacists demand either creation of a racial separatist tribe recognized by the state and federal governments, or else restoration of Hawaii's status as an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians under the modern theory of "indigenous rights." See my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

I hope that Hawaii citizens who read the bills and testimony in this year's legislature, and in the legislatures since 2002, will see the dangers, rise to the occasion, and hold their state Senators and Representatives accountable.

Here are webpages covering State of Hawaii legislation related to Hawaiian sovereignty in previous years, listed in reverse chronological order (most recent listed first).

Hawaii Legislature 2023 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2022 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2021 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2020 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2019 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2018 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2017 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2016 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2015 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

In 2014 no compilation was kept of racist bills in the Hawaii state legislature. However, special attention was given to very dangerous legislation creating and expanding a racial registry for building a Hawaiian tribe. See webpage

"Building a Hawaiian tribe through actions of the state legislature: May 2014 progress report (Roll Commission failure to follow the requirements of enabling legislation Act 195; identity theft of 87,000 names from earlier racial registries; enrollment of minor children; legislative hearing as cheerleader rather than oversight enforcer; and more issues)" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/KanaiolowaluMay2014ProgRpt.html

March 11, 2013: Racial entitlement bills in the 2013 Hawaii legislature (and how all the Republicans except Senator Slom and Representative McDermott are voting in lockstep with the Democrats)

February 10, 2013: U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.

July 24, 2011: Racial set-asides of land, money, and political power -- how Act 195 will move Hawaii toward New Zealand and Fiji

July 12, 2011: Gearing up for the divorce -- Klub Kanaka greedily looks ahead to property division and alimony from the State of Hawaii (Hawaii House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs holds informational briefing for government departments to tell how they can help implement Act 195 creating a state-recognized tribe)

May 4, 2011: Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe. SB1520 passed the legislature on May 3, 2011. Why did they do it? What happens now?

April 1, 2011: HR258 and HCR293 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution to rip the Treaty of Annexation out of the hand of President McKinley in his statue in front of McKinley High School

March 22, 2011: HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two alleged executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.

February 3, 2009: Ceded lands issues in the Hawaii Legislature, 2009

February 3, 2009: Legislation in Hawaii in 2009 to declare ethnic Hawaiians as an indigenous people

January 17, 2009: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes in 2009 to Expand the Evil Empire. Subpages include protest of Supreme Court ceded lands case; OHA demand for legislative moratorium on ceded land sales; OHA demand for "back rent" settlement; Akaka bill; other issues as they arise in 2009 including Waimea Valley, Waokele o Puna, etc. Links to coverage of evil Empire expansion in previous years.

January 14, 2009: Some important issues for the Hawaii Legislature in 2009. Stop the giveaway. Just say no.

October 12, 2008: Iolani Palace and the Golden Jubilee of Hawaii Statehood. The Palace was the Capitol of the Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898), Territory of Hawaii (1898-1959), and State of Hawaii (1959-1968), where the transition to Statehood took place in 1959. But the state government is now prohibiting use of the Palace for jubilee celebration due to threats from secessionists and concerns for political correctness.