PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS IN HAWAI'I -- Testimony by Ken Conklin to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, S.147 and H.R.309 (Akaka bill), March 13, 2006

** Note from Ken Conklin: The U.S. Civil Rights Commission approved its official report on the Akaka bill on May 4, 2006. That report, strongly opposing the bill, can be seen at:



Aloha to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Below is my testimony of March 13, 2006 regarding the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, S.147 and H.R.309 (Akaka bill). Thank you for taking the time to read and consider it.


I am Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., retired professor and schoolteacher; a citizen of Hawai'i these past fourteen years. I came to live permanently in Hawai'i primarily because of my love and respect for Hawaiian history and culture, and our rainbow society. I have attended hundreds of Hawaiian sovereignty meetings and demonstrations; and I speak Hawaiian language with moderate fluency. I maintain a very large website on the topic of Hawaiian sovereignty and related issues including history, law, and the Akaka bill, at: My goal is to protect and strengthen the unity of Hawai'i under a single sovereignty, the unity of Hawai'i with the United States, and the equality of all Hawai'i's people.


In the election of November 2000 I was the first person with no Hawaiian native ancestry ever to run for trustee of the state government Office of Hawaiian Affairs, placing fourth out of twenty candidates for one seat on the board. My candidacy was possible only because of two events of great importance for the civil rights of the people of Hawai'i.

(1) In February 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), that it is contrary to the 15th Amendment for a state government election to have a racial exclusion on who can vote.

(2) The State of Hawai'i nevertheless continued to insist that the Rice decision concerned only who can vote but did not specifically nullify racial exclusion of candidates. I was denied the right to run for statewide public office, solely on account of my race. Attorney H. William Burgess donated his services to represent a multiracial group of thirteen plaintiffs (including myself and Hawaiians of native ancestry) who successfully sued to extend the Rice decision to apply to candidacy. One of the major arguments we made in Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i, upheld by both the U.S. District Court in Honolulu (CV 00-00514 HG-BMK) and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Civil No. 00-17213), is that exclusion of candidates because of race violates not only the civil rights of those candidates. Racial exclusion of candidates violates the civil rights of all voters, because their right to vote is abridged by severely limiting the range of candidates for whom they may vote (an earlier example was the Whites-only primary elections in the Southern states that ensured that all candidates in the general election would be white; and an extreme current example occurs in dictatorships when all citizens regardless of race can vote, but are offered only one candidate to vote for).


Hawai'i is plagued with a plethora of institutions and programs, both private and government sponsored, where paticipation is racially restricted. The favored race is a minority group. But one of the beautiful things about Hawai'i is that all racial groups are minorities -- that's why equality under the law is especially important for everyone in Hawai'i.

The favored race is allegedly afflicted by bad statistics regarding educational attainment, income, poor housing, poor health, family dysfunction, and incarceration. They say the broken hearts resulting from the loss of the monarchy 113 years ago are responsible for a high incidence of heart disease among today's great-grandchildren who might have only 1/512 native ancestry (fraction cited by Justice Breyer in his concurring opinion in Rice v. Cayetano).

But there are disadvantaged and needy people of all races. Help should be based on need and not race. If one group has disproportionately bad statistics, then that group will receive disproportionately more benefits when help is given solely on the basis of need. It is a form of stereotyping, or racial profiling, to lump all people of a particular race together and say that anyone belonging to that race is presumed to be unhealthy, destitute, or criminal. Such stereotyping is especially inappropriate because probably three-fourths of so-called "Native Hawaiians" have less than one-fourth of their ancestry from natives; thus statistics which identify everyone with a single drop of native blood as "Native" are of doubtful value.

There's a topsy-turvy concept of civil rights at work here. The theory is that it violates the civil rights of ethnic Hawaiians when they cannot get preferential treatment, land, money, and political power based solely on race. Some say it is disrespectful to ethnic Hawaiians, the "indigenous" people of Hawai'i, to deny them racial supremacy in their "own homeland" where everyone else is merely "a guest." I reject that upside-down logic. To grant such logic would grossly violate the civil rights of 80% of Hawai'i's people who are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and entitled to be treated fairly by both government and private institutions.

The Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano heard about the overthrow, apology bill, the claim that ethnic Hawaiians are indigenous and have a trust relationship like an Indian tribe -- the same things still being said by supporters of the Akaka bill. Nevertheless the Court ruled that "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" are racial categories, not political ones. By a 7-2 vote they said, "the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order" and "Distinctions between citizens solely because of ancestry are by their very nature ODIOUS to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of EQUALITY." (emphasis added)

The tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry grow more wealthy and more powerful with each passing year, as the number and size of race-based programs increase. OHA has boasted in court documents that more than 160 federal programs send money to Hawai'i exclusively for the favored race -- OHA asserts that the number and long-term tenure of such programs has established a federal "trust relationship" with "Native Hawaiians" that must continue and expand forever.

The favored race has become a hereditary elite. The wealth and power of Hawai'i's race-based institutions are an evil empire whose tentacles reach throughout the United States, now seeking to undermine the Constitution and set the stage for racial balkanization under cover of the Indian Commerce Clause. The theory is that Congress has power to single out any group of so-called "indigenous" people and empower them to create a government based not on any history of tribal governance but based solely on race. It doesn't matter that such persons are widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated. Such a theory would also justify the claims of MEChA (Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) that America's people of Mexican ancestry, engulfed by the expansion of the U.S. into areas formerly a part of Mexico or the formerly independent nation of Texas, should be able to form their own government and secede.


Nearly every politician in Hawai'i feels a need to support and defend Hawaiian apartheid and racial supremacy, for three reasons: (1) Hundreds of millions of racially earmarked dollars come to Hawai'i from the federal government, and race-based programs have become a very large part of our economy; (2) politicians (mistakenly) regard ethnic Hawaiians as a monolithic voting bloc, whose 20% swing vote is decisive; (3) Hawaiian culture and the ethnic Hawaiian people are (rightly) seen as the core of what makes Hawai'i a special place -- but the Hawaiian grievance industry has been so successful in portraying the "plight" of ethnic Hawaiians as poor, downtrodden victims of history that many people have adopted the Hawaiian race as a sort of state pet, feeling an urge to give them money, land, and power as reparations for historic misfortune and as a way of "patting them on the head" and saying "there, there, let us help you."


On April 25, 2000, I attended a meeting chaired by USCCR Commissioner Yvonne Lee. This meeting was intended to be secret -- a preliminary planning meeting with representatives of groups in Hawai'i who were unhappy about the February decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano. The meeting was held in Senator Dan Inouye's conference room in the federal building downtown Honolulu. I found out about it only because a partner in a major law firm had been invited. He was unable to attend; but as my friend, he knew I would be interested. Thanks to him I discovered the full extent of the planned propaganda forum. I was later able to make contact with a high-level staff member who served the (only two) conservative Commissioners at USCCR; and thereby eventually I was able to secure a place on the program schedule for Honolulu for myself and two like-minded attorneys to be able to give ten-minute presentations at the Honolulu forum. Without the three of us there would have been no defense of the fundamental concepts of unity and equality -- no defense of the civil rights of 80% of Hawai'i's people; and of most of the remaining 20% who also disagree with racial separatism and ethnic nationalism being perpetrated in their name.

The forum was held at the request of the Hawaii Advisory Committee, who were distressed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano. The Hawai'i Advisory Committee, then as now, was dominated by Hawaiian sovereignty activists. Chairman Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell has been a long-time advocate of independence for Hawai'i, and is currently a leading supporter of the Akaka bill as a way to collect money and political power as reparations for historical grievances, while continuing efforts to seek independence. Vice-Chairman attorney David Forman, who actually chaired the 2000 forum due to the illness of Mr. Maxwell, has been a frequent advocate for Hawaiian sovereignty and spokesman for the leftwing Japanese-American Citizens League. Other members included an attorney with the government-financed Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. Three of the most far-left members of the national USCCR attended and actively participated: Yvonne Lee, Elsie Meeks, and Cruz Reynoso. Chair of the Commission at that time, but not in attendance, was Mary Frances Berry.

Most of those presenting testimony were received enthusiastically and were asked friendly questions encouraging them to amplify their remarks. However, I and my two colleagues (testifying during three different time periods in three groups of presenters) were subjected to intense cross-examination by all three national Commissioners and several local advisory committee members, who were clearly uncomfortable with our perspective and perhaps shocked that our views had been allowed to be heard.

The clear purpose of the two-day forum was to orchestrate support for the Akaka bill. The title of both the forum and the report was: "Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and Rice v. Cayetano for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians." The concept was: the Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano threatens to eventually dismantle the plethora of race-based programs in Hawai'i, and your Civil Rights Commission is here to help figure out what can be done to stop that from happening. A Supreme Court decision upholding the civil rights of all Hawai'i's people was seen as threatening Hawai'i's wall of apartheid and therefore threatening the alleged civil right of a racial group to exercise racial supremacy. The solution proposed was to pass the Akaka bill in order to get around the Rice decision, while at the same time to support the "right" of ethnic Hawaiians to force all of Hawai'i to become independent from the United States.

Secession? Did the Hawai'i Advisory Council, and by implication the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, actually support the "right" of a racial group to force Hawai'i to become independent, thereby grossly violating the civil rights of the vast majority of Hawai'i citizens? Here's the evidence:

About halfway down the lengthy report is the section called "Conclusions and Recommendations" (followed by footnotes that occupy the entire second half of the report). The conclusions clearly support the Akaka bill as a way to overturn the Supreme Court decision; and they also support the right of ethnic Hawaiians to force the secession of Hawaii from the United States.

"... international resolution would necessarily involve secession, a drastic endeavor over which this nation purportedly fought a civil war ... The principle of self-determination necessarily contemplates the potential choice of forms of governance that may not be authorized by existing domestic law.[420] Whether such a structure is politically or legally possible under the law is secondary, however, to the expression of one's desire for self-determination. ..."

"1. The federal government should accelerate efforts to formalize the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This recommendation can be accomplished through the formal and direct recognition by Congress of the United States' responsibilities toward Native Hawaiians, by virtue of the unique political history between the United States and the former Kingdom of Hawaii....[T]he Advisory Committee requests that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights urge Congress to pass legislation formally recognizing the political status of Native Hawaiians." ...

"4. International solutions should be explored as alternatives to the recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

"The Hawaii Advisory Committee recognizes that the sentiment for an international resolution to restore a sovereign Hawaiian entity is beyond the immediate scope and power of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Nevertheless, that limitation does not preclude the United States from exploring such alternatives as a part of the reconciliation process that the United States committed to pursue in the 1993 Apology Resolution. ... Accordingly, the United States should give due consideration to re-inscribing Hawai‘i on the United Nations' list of non-self-governing territories, among other possibilities. ...

"The Hawaii Advisory Committee is fully cognizant of the concern expressed by some that international resolution would necessarily involve secession, a drastic endeavor over which this nation purportedly fought a civil war. However, this view ignores the troubled and racist roots of our nation's history. The Civil War was at its core a conflict over the issue of slavery. Moreover, the Civil War Amendments and Civil Rights Acts, upon which the plaintiff in Rice based his claims, were supposed to effect a reconstruction of American society through equality for African Americans.

"The principle of self-determination necessarily contemplates the potential choice of forms of governance that may not be authorized by existing domestic law.[420] Whether such a structure is politically or legally possible under the law is secondary, however, to the expression of one's desire for self-determination. The important proposition is that those who would choose to swear their allegiance to a restored sovereign Hawaiian entity be given that choice after a full and free debate with those who might prefer some form of association with the United States (including, perhaps, the status quo)....

"Those supervising the reconciliation process should provide for an open, free, and democratic plebiscite on all potential options by which Native Hawaiians might express their inherent right to self-determination. The process should allow for international oversight by nonaligned observers of international repute. After a period for organization of that government, the federal government should engage in negotiations with the sovereign Hawaiian entity.

"The Hawaii Advisory Committee believes that these deliberations should take into consideration and protect, or otherwise accommodate, the rights of non-Native Hawaiians. Thereafter, the federal government should provide financial assistance for the educational effort that may be necessary to reconcile conflicts raised by the choices made by Native Hawaiians. If necessary, the United States should engage in continuing negotiations to seek resolution of any outstanding issues with the sovereign Hawaiian entity."

Hopefully the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, now under wiser management in 2006, will repudiate those conclusions from 2001.


Here is a 5-paragraph summary of what's wrong with the Akaka bill, followed by extensive documentation of all the main points. It is copied from my webpage at

The Hawaiian Recognition bill, S.147 and H.R.309, is highly controversial, unconstitutional, and dangerous to all 50 states. Also known as the Akaka bill, it would give federal recognition to a phony Indian tribe invented out of thin air. The purpose is to protect over 160 race-based programs under court challenge because of a Supreme Court decision. It would carve up Hawai'i by race, and set a precedent for similar balkanization throughout America. 20% of Hawai'i's people, completely integrated and intermarried, living working and praying side by side with everyone else throughout all neighborhoods, would be singled out by law solely because they have a drop of native blood, and given a new government. Most have less than 25% native blood. Many of them oppose the whole idea of a race-based government. After 17 months of intensive advertising and community outreach, fewer than 5% of ethnic Hawaiians placed their names on a racial registry expected to be used as a tribal roll. But if the bill passes Congress, a race-based government can be created to protect the wealth and power of some ethnic Hawaiians and to keep federal dollars flowing to Hawai'i. There will never be a vote by all ethnic Hawaiians or by all Hawai'i's people on this issue, even though a newspaper poll yielded 75% opposed and a scientific survey showed 67% opposed. Ethnic Hawaiians who sign up for the "tribe" get to vote for a "tribal" council and get federal recognition; ethnic Hawaiians who oppose it (probably a majority), and the remaining 80% of Hawai'i's people, are shut out. The bill also allows a negotiated settlement dividing up Hawai'i's lands and resources without any ratification vote by the tribe's members or by the people of Hawai'i. On July 13, 2005 the Assistant Attorney General of the United States issued a warning, pointing out significant problems with S.147. 200 years ago Kamehameha the Great unified all the Hawaiian islands into a single multiracial Kingdom; today the Akaka bill seeks to split up Hawai'i.

The Hawaiian "tribe" would be the largest in America, with 400,000 possible members. 240,000 of them live in Hawai'i, 60,000 in California (more than any current California tribe), and 100,000 in the other 48 states. A new population study in September 2005 projects nearly a million "Native Hawaiians" by year 2050. This huge "tribe" would compete against genuine tribes for federal handouts at the expense of all America's taxpayers. Hawai'i Senators Inouye and Akaka sat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for many years, even though there have never been any tribes in Hawai'i. They constantly inserted "Native Hawaiians" into legislation intended to benefit real Indians and Alaska natives. Because of court challenges, they now want Congress to make it official that "Native Hawaiians" are federally recognized as a tribe. All Hawai'i politicians, both Democrat and Republican, favor the bill to make all America's taxpayers keep sending money to Hawai'i! Bill supporters justify it partly by saying that ethnic Hawaiians have the worst statistics for income, education, unemployment, drug abuse, and diseases; but such victimhood claims are mostly bogus because they ignore that ethnic Hawaiians are 13 years younger on average than other groups, and about 3/4 of "Native Hawaiian" victims each have more than 3/4 of their ancestry from Asia, Europe, and America.

The precedent set by the Hawaiian Recognition bill would strengthen demands by millions of "indigenous" people throughout the U.S. not currently eligible for tribal membership, casinos, or government handouts to form new federally recognized tribes simply because they have a drop of Indian blood. Their people and businesses living on "tribal" lands would be exempt from federal and state income tax, sales tax, environmental regulations, and civil and criminal laws; and would be subjected to whatever laws are created by "tribal" government insiders without recourse to U.S. Constitutional protections. Indian groups throughout America are claiming special rights to race-based control of "sacred places." In Hawai'i, the old pagan religion is being revived and used to support political claims for racial supremacy in land use policy, based on a sacred genealogical family relationship among the gods, the ethnic Hawaiians, and all the lands of Hawai'i.

The balkanization of America is already well underway through racial and ethnic identity politics. The recent California governor recall election showed this dramatically. Cruz Bustamante got huge campaign contributions from California Indian tribes who expected him to protect their special interests -- the money came from untaxed tribal income from casinos and tribal businesses. Bustamante's enthusiastic membership in a radical hispanic group drew major attention -- MEChA claims a right to organize a race-based nation for all people having any Aztec (Mexican) ancestry, converting California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (all former Mexican territory) into a new independent Nation of Aztlan. The legal and moral basis for doing this is similar to the rationale for the Hawaiian bill -- historical grievances against the U.S. and demands for money and power for allegedly poor, downtrodden "indigenous" people. Other nations have suffered grievously because of laws and government policies establishing racial supremacy. Fiji, with a history similar to Hawai'i, enforces Native Fijian racial supremacy over descendants of Asian sugar plantation workers through a legal system resembling what Hawaiian sovereignty activists are seeking. Hawaiian activists, including Senator Akaka and government officials, see the Akaka bill as a way to keep federal dollars flowing to them even while continuing to seek full independence.

Please demand that your Senators and Representatives oppose S.147 and H.R.309, the Hawaiian Recognition bill. Join with Senator Kyl (R, AZ) who wrote a letter to his constituents explaining why he opposes [former bill number S.344] (see below). Join with Senator Craig (R, ID) who wrote a lengthy message on behalf of the Senate Republican Policy Committee asking Senators to vote against it. Join with Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R, WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who wrote a letter to Speaker Hastert demanding that the bill be killed, or referred to his committee for hearings on its unconstitutionality. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial against the bill, entitled "A Bright Line on Race." Dozens of similar, powerful articles by well-known commentators have been published in the national media during Summer and Fall, 2005. But despite all this opposition, a very powerful Senator Inouye (D, HI) continues making backroom deals and trading votes; and an agency of the Hawai'i state government is spending millions lobbying for the bill. That's why your opposition to this bill must be communicated to your Senators and Representatives.

Further information and documentation of facts is available below, and on a large webpage at:



In U.S. Census 2000, more than 400,000 people nationwide checked the box for "Native Hawaiian." If the Hawaiian bill passes, the newly recognized "tribe" would instantly become the largest tribe in America, competing against genuine tribes for government handouts. A spreadsheet created from Census 2000 data shows 240,000 "Native Hawaiians" comprising about 20% of Hawai'i's population; plus 60,000 in California, plus another 100,000 scattered among the remaining 48 states.

A new population study in September 2005 projects nearly a million "Native Hawaiians" by year 2050. (a) Do we want an Akaka tribe on the federal dole with a million members? (b) "Native Hawaiians" are clearly not a dying race; (c) Population bomb as a political weapon: "Native Hawaiian" activist professor urges "her people" to double in 20 years rather than 50, in order to grab majority power sooner.

Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism, Black Nationalism, Indian Tribes, and Reparations -- [old bill numbers S.344/H.R.665] (The Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill) Sets a Precedent for the Balkanization of America

Hawai'i's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Affirmative Action Gone Berserk -- Racial Entitlement Programs in Hawai'i, and the Attempt to Create a Phony Indian Tribe to Defend Them

The Hawaiian Recognition bill (aka Akaka bill) is pork barrel ethnic politics at its worst. The primary purpose of the bill is to protect racial entitlement programs which otherwise will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

On February 23, 2000 the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S.Ct. 1044 (2000), ruled that it is contrary to the 15th Amendment for the State of Hawai'i to conduct racially segregated elections where only ethnic Hawaiians could vote for trustees of the state government agency "Office of Hawaiian Affairs." The decision explicitly identified "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" as racial categories, not political entities. Legal challenges are now underway to invalidate government programs exclusively for "Native Hawaiians" on the grounds such programs are government-sponsored racial discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. All sides agree these lawsuits will probably be successful, but defenders of race-based programs hope to moot (nullify) the Rice decision and the on-going lawsuits by passing the Hawaiian Recognition bill to arbitrarily declare that ethnic Hawaiians are an Indian tribe. For information about Rice v. Cayetano, see:

Over 160 Hawaiian racial entitlement programs are slowly but inexorably coming under attack in the courts because they are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. There are literally Billions of dollars (yes, with a B!!) in racially exclusionary programs benefitting ethnic Hawaiians. To see a list of many of these programs , and how much money was spent on each in year 2000 and a few immediately preceding years, go to:

Ethnic Hawaiians are deeply divided among themselves regarding whether to support or oppose the Hawaiian Recognition bill. Native Hawaiian Opposition to the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill is important, and it is growing. When the people who will allegedly benefit from legislation say they don't want it, everyone should listen carefully. Public statements in opposition, and photographs of protestors, are provided. See:

After 17 months of intensive advertising and community outreach, fewer than 5% of ethnic Hawaiians placed their names on a racial registry expected to be used as a tribal roll.

Akaka Bill Public Opinion Poll of March 2005 Shows 75% Opposed; and Previous Scientific Surveys Show Akaka Bill is Lowest Priority for Ethnic Hawaiians and All Hawai'i's People

Akaka Bill Scientific Survey Report July 5, 2005 -- 67% OPPOSED out of 1696 who responded when 10,000 were called -- 45% feel strongly enough to hold it against politicians who support this bill

The Hawaiian recognition bill needs amendments to ensure democratic due process. Currently the bill would allow a small group of powerful, wealthy institutions and their dependents to create a tribe authorized to speak on behalf of all 401,000 ethnic Hawaiians, even though a majority of them disapprove of creating such a tribe. The bill also would allow the tribal council to accept a settlement with the state and federal governments without submitting the terms of the settlement to the tribe's members for ratification; and it would allow a settlement to be approved by the state Legislature without a vote by Hawai'i's people. A set of amendments is proposed to deal with these objections and to ensure finality of a global settlement within five years. See:

Indian groups throughout America are claiming special rights to race-based control of "sacred places." In Hawai'i, the old pagan religion is being revived and used to support political claims for racial supremacy in land use policy, based on a sacred geneological family relationship among the gods, the ethnic Hawaiians, and all the lands of Hawai'i.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is a co-sponsor of the Hawaiian Recognition bill, in return for Hawai'i Senators Inouye and Akaka supporting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Arctic North Slope Corporation (Inupiat tribe) has contributed big bucks to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement in support of the Hawaiian Recognition bill.

People throughout the United States have good reason to oppose the Hawaiian Recognition bill. For a detailed analysis of why this bill should be of great concern to all Americans, see:

A careful, lengthy, point-by-point analysis of the bill by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan, updated January 2005:

Professor Conklin's Red-Pen Corrections and Comments on Speeches by Dan Akaka, Dan Inouye, Ed Case, and Neil Abercrombie When Introducing the Hawaiian Recognition Bill on January 25, 2005

Text and Analysis of Bush Administration Actions and Statements on Hawaiian Recognition Bill: December 6, 2001 Dept. of Interior Markup; September 6, 2002 statement by Secretary of Interior Gail Norton; DOJ at first blocks race-based funds and warns Senate committees regarding including "Native Hawaiians" in pending legislation but then backs off:

Both racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement are characterized by the same underlying attitudes: hostility toward the United States and racism toward people who have no Hawaiian blood. Public statements illustrating the core attitudes are provided.

In 1993 Congress passed a resolution of sentiment commonly known in Hawai'i as the "apology bill." The resolution was passed at the request of the Hawai'i delegation to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the monarchy in Hawai'i. The resolution gave an apology for the minor role of the U.S. in that event, using flowery language filled with factual inaccuracies. A recorded vote was taken in the Senate, but not in the House. Resolutions of sentiment usually pass unanimously, or with very little opposition. But this resolution was so outrageous that 34 Senators had the courage to take the "politically incorrect" step of voting against it. 13 of those Senators are still sitting in the Senate in 2005-2006. Hopefully they will understand why it is important to oppose the Hawaiian Recognition bill. For a spreadsheet showing the names and contact information for these 13 remaining members of the Honor Roll, see:

Map of Hawaiian islands showing some of the lands likely to be demanded by an Akaka tribe, where different laws would prevail and businesses might operate exempt from taxes and regulation. There are large and small land parcels, SCATTERED throughout the islands, making jurisdictional issues a nightmare. Almost every current business would eventually come under competition from untaxed and unregulated businesses located within easy driving distance.

If the Akaka bill passes, it would have disastrous effects on local businesses and local communities. Some of those effects are described here:

If the Akaka bill passes, it will severely damage the democratic and constitutional rights of ethnic Hawaiians, both those who join the tribe and those who do not. See:

Other nations have suffered grievously because of laws and government policies establishing racial supremacy. See:

Fiji, with a history similar to Hawai'i, enforces Native Fijian racial supremacy over descendants of Asian sugar plantation workers through a legal system resembling what Hawaiian sovereignty activists are seeking. See:

Attorney Bruce Fein, nationally recognized expert on Constitutional law, published three articles opposing the Akaka bill, between November 2004 and March 2005. The articles were entitled "The Pineapple Time Bomb"; "A Race-based Drift?"; and "E Pluribus Unum, Debating the Legality of the Akaka Bill." All three articles were entered into the Congressional Record by Senator Kyl (R. AZ) on March 17, 2005, along with Senator Kyl's own statement reaffirming his opposition to the Akaka bill. The actual pages of the Congressional Record can be seen, along with URLs for the original sources of the three articles and some closely related articles. Go to:

Testimony of Professor Rubellite Kawena Kinney Johnson (highly esteemed native Hawaiian kupuna) opposing S.147, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, delivered to U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for hearing on March 1, 2005

Attorney Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, Hawaiian sovereignty independence activist, supports the Akaka bill as a way of getting federal money while continuing to seek Independence.

The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i

Akaka bill -- would it be a unifying force for Hawai'i if it passes? The Akaka bill -- building a bridge to the Nineteenth Century.

Kamehameha vs. Akaka -- Kamehameha unified Hawai'i 200 years ago; Akaka bill's main purpose is to divide Hawai'i (includes history of Kamehameha Day holiday; lack of certainty about Kamehameha's birthdate within a range of 25 years; Battle of Nu'uanu Pali and Herb Kane's painting of it and Adair's political cartoon based on it; newspaper advertisement comparing Kamehameha's unification of a multiracial Hawai'i against divisiveness of Akaka bill)

Ken Conklin -- Personal background and anecdotes showing why the Akaka bill would be harmful to the unity of Hawai'i

"NATIVE HAWAIIAN" VICTIMHOOD CLAIMS -- what are they, why are they being asserted, and how can the bad statistics be explained? Advocates for race-based programs frequently justify them by asserting claims that "Native Hawaiians" have the worst statistics among all Hawai'i ethnic groups for education, income, unemployment, drug abuse, incarceration, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Such claims are asserted in the "findings" preamble of the Akaka bill and are included more extensively in the accompanying committee report. But such claims are rarely accompanied by the documentation that would allow researchers to verify them independently. Most economic and social "victimhood" statistics are probably due to the fact that "Native Hawaiians" on average are only 25 years of age -- 13 years younger than the average of other ethnic groups. Most health statistics are probably explained by the strange counting method which allocates full tally marks to "Native Hawaiian" victimhood for victims whose native blood quantum is very low -- about 3/4 of all "Native Hawaiians" each have more than 3/4 of their ancestry from Asia, Europe, or America; thus, most of their victimhood tally marks should be awarded to races other than "Native Hawaiian." See:

Akaka Bill Dialogs (collection of several series of published articles where supporters and opponents engage each other)


On July 13, 2005, U.S. Assistant Attorney General William Moschella released a letter to Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, identifying several important objections to the Akaka bill on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Moschella's letter came only a few days before the full Senate was scheduled to debate and vote on the bill, S.147. The letter, on official stationery, can be downloaded in pdf format from:

On June 22, 2005 the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a 13-page statement on official stationery strongly opposing the Akaka bill. The statement can be downloaded in pdf format from:

In September, 2003 Senator Kyl (R, AZ) sent a letter to his constituents explaining his reasons for opposing the bill. Complete text of that letter, and the reasons why he sent it:

Congressman Sensenbrenner (R,WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter in July, 2001 to Speaker Hastert asking that the bill either be killed or else referred to his committee for hearings because of grave concerns that it is unconstitutional.

In December 2001 A lengthy memo was sent by Senator Craig (R,ID), on behalf of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, to all the Senators severely criticizing the bill as unconstitutional and strongly rebuking Senator Inouye's stealth tactic of burying it inside the Defense Appropriations bill.

Connecticut Senators Dodd and Lieberman, and Attorney General Blumenthal, oppose having more (phony) tribes recognized. Logical consequence -- defeat Akaka bill, which would make tribal recognitions easier. Connecticut Attorney General's letter to Senator Inouye describes the bad consequences of tribal recognitions for states and local communities.

There have been numerous articles (and letters to editor) opposing the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill published in newspapers and magazines. Here are some of the most important articles, selected because they appeared in media of nationwide circulation or because they provide especially clear analysis. The articles include "A Bright Line on Race" editorial in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL of October 2, 2000; a commentary in THE NATIONAL REVIEW, September 6, 2001, by Roger Clegg, general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity; an article "Hawaiian Apartheid" was published in many venues by nationally syndicated conservative writer Michelle Malkin; "Hawaiian Sovereighty: 3 Alternatives, No Choice" by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.; "Akaka Bill unlikely to survive challenge" by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan; "A Race to Racism? Ascribe It To Tribe" by Honolulu attorney Paul M. Sullivan; A "debate" in the Washington Times of October and November, 2004; A "debate" about the unconstitutionality of the Akaka bill in Hawaii Reporter of December 2004 and January 2005 featuring State of Hawai'i Attorney General defending the bill and Washington Times columnist Bruce Fein opposing it. Full text of these articles, and their source citations, are available at:

Constitutional law expert Bruce Fein published a booklet June 1, 2005 under the auspices of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii: "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." Mr. Fein's essay is of special interest to scholars because of his analysis of the apology resolution of 1993 as well as the provisions of the Akaka bill. It can be downloaded in pdf format here:

Senator Kyl (R, AZ) obtained unanimous consent to print Mr. Fein's essay in the Congressional Record in three installments on three consecutive days: June 14, 15, and 16 of 2005. Each installment was introduced by brief remarks by Senator Kyl. The relevant portions of the Congressional Record are copied here: