Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians

Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians refers to proposed U.S. government policies to establish a formal government-to-government relationship with a Native Hawaiian governing entity, similar to the status held by many American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. This concept has been the subject of intense political debate, legislative action, and legal challenges for decades. Proponents argue it is a matter of justice and fulfilling federal obligations stemming from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, while opponents raise constitutional and political objections.

Historical background

The push for federal recognition is rooted in the 19th-century history of the Hawaiian Islands. Following the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which was backed by U.S. forces including the USS *Boston*, the islands were annexed by the United States via the Newlands Resolution in 1898. This annexation occurred without a treaty of cession from the Hawaiian government and led to the creation of the Territory of Hawaii. The 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, signed by President Warren G. Harding, established a land trust for Native Hawaiians, creating a precedent for a special political and legal relationship. The 1959 Hawaii Admission Act, which admitted Hawaii as the 50th state, included provisions regarding the Hawaiian home lands and mandated a plebiscite that did not offer independence as an option. Key historical studies, such as the 1993 Apology Resolution signed by President Bill Clinton, acknowledged the U.S. role in the overthrow and catalyzed modern recognition efforts.

Legislative efforts and proposals

The primary legislative vehicle for recognition was the series of bills known as the Akaka Bill, named for its longtime sponsor, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka. First introduced in 2000, the bill sought to create a process for the U.S. Department of the Interior to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity. It saw numerous revisions and hearings in committees like the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs but never achieved final passage, facing opposition from senators like Jon Kyl and the administration of President George W. Bush. Following legislative gridlock, the Obama administration pursued an administrative path. In 2016, the Department of the Interior, under Secretary Sally Jewell, issued a final rule allowing for a government-to-government relationship if a Native Hawaiian community reorganized itself. This rule followed extensive public hearings across Hawaii and the continental U.S.

Arguments for and against recognition

Supporters, including organizations like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, argue recognition is a necessary step toward reconciliation and self-determination, addressing historical wrongs documented in the Apology Resolution. They contend it would provide a legal framework to protect Native Hawaiian entitlements, such as those under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and allow for greater autonomy in managing assets and cultural resources. Opponents, which have included groups like the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, argue that a race-based sovereign entity within a state is unconstitutional, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment. Some also oppose it on political grounds, fearing it could lead to secession or undermine state authority, while some Native Hawaiian sovereignty activists, such as those in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, reject it as an inadequate compromise that forecloses on full independence.

Legal and political implications

Federal recognition would fundamentally alter the legal standing of Native Hawaiians. It could empower a recognized entity to negotiate with federal and state governments over land, natural resources, and cultural patrimony, similar to tribes operating under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It would likely impact ongoing litigation regarding the state's ceded lands and the management of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Politically, it would create a new domestic sovereign with a seat at the table on issues ranging from federal funding to environmental regulation. The 2000 Supreme Court case Rice v. Cayetano, which struck down Hawaiian-only voting for OHA trustees, underscored the legal vulnerability of race-based programs, adding urgency to the political recognition effort for its proponents. Subsequent cases have continued to challenge the constitutionality of programs benefiting Native Hawaiians.

Related sovereignty movements

The recognition debate exists within a broader spectrum of Hawaiian sovereignty activism. Some groups, like the Kingdom of Hawaii and Nation of Hawaii, advocate for full independence and the restoration of the Hawaiian nation, rejecting U.S. sovereignty entirely. Others seek forms of international recognition or a "nation within a nation" model akin to Native American tribes or Puerto Rico's commonwealth status. The 2014 ‘Aha Na‘i Aupuni, a state-funded effort to convene a constitutional convention for self-governance, exemplified these internal discussions. The movement also draws comparative inspiration from other Indigenous rights struggles, such as those of the Māori people in New Zealand and the First Nations in Canada, as well as the political status of Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Category:Native Hawaiian politics Category:Proposed federal legislation of the United States Category:Hawaii law