Akaka Bill facts for kids

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 was a proposed law, also known as the Akaka Bill. It was named after Senator Daniel Akaka from Hawaii, who first suggested similar ideas after the year 2000.

This bill aimed to create a way for the U.S. government to officially recognize Native Hawaiians. This recognition would be similar to how the government recognizes Native American tribes. However, the bill had some differences. For example, it would not allow Native Hawaiians to open casinos or get some other benefits that federally recognized Indian tribes receive.

The House of Representatives' version of the bill in 2009 would have stopped Native Hawaiians from taking their claims to court. It also seemed to make past land transfers legal, which might not have been fair for Indian tribes. But the Senate's updated version allowed Native Hawaiians to go to court.

In late 2009, a House Committee passed the bill. The next day, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved changes to their version. Senator Akaka later said that "misleading attacks" stopped the bill from passing in 2010.

What Was the Bill's Goal?

The main goal of the Akaka Bill was to "reorganize" a Native Hawaiian governing group. It wanted to confirm a special political and legal connection between the United States and this Native Hawaiian group. This would allow them to have a "government-to-government relationship."

The bill intended to reorganize a government similar to the historic Kingdom of Hawaii.

What Did the Bill Suggest?

The recognition proposed in the Akaka Bill was somewhat like the recognition given to federally recognized tribes in other U.S. states. However, there were key differences:

• It would stop Hawaiians from setting up casinos under current laws.
• It would prevent them from joining some programs and services that other Native American groups use.
• It would stop them from suing the United States for past wrongs in court.

Also, unlike other recognized tribes, the Akaka Bill did not require the same steps for tribal recognition. The Bureau of Indian Affairs usually requires seven specific things before recognizing a tribe. None of these were in the Akaka Bill.

Key Differences from Other Tribal Recognition

Here are some things the Bureau of Indian Affairs usually looks for, which were not required by the Akaka Bill:

• The group has been known as an American Indian group since 1900.
• Most of the group has been a clear community from historical times until now.
• The group has kept political power over its members as an independent group since historical times.
• The group has documents showing how they govern themselves and who can be a member.
• Members of the group are descendants of a historical Indian tribe.
• Most members are not already part of another recognized North American Indian tribe.
• Congress has not ended or forbidden the federal relationship with the group.

The bill suggested talks between the U.S. and the new Hawaiian government. The Hawaiian government could negotiate for land, rights, and resources. Usually, in such talks, Native American tribes give up their legal complaints against the U.S. in exchange for land, rights, and resources.

Who is a "Native Hawaiian" in the Bill?

The bill defined a "Native Hawaiian" as:

• Someone who is one of the original, native people of Hawaii.
• They must be a direct descendant of the original people who lived in Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893.
• These people also had to have lived and governed themselves in the Hawaiian islands.
• Or, someone who was eligible in 1921 for programs under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, or their direct descendant.

New Offices and Groups

The bill planned to create a "United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations." It also aimed to set up a "Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group." This group would help different government agencies work together on policies, but it would not include the Department of Defense.

A commission of nine members would be created to decide who fits the "Native Hawaiian" definition. They would also keep a list of adult "Native Hawaiians." This commission would need people with at least 10 years of experience in Hawaiian family history and the ability to read and translate Hawaiian documents.

Once this list was made, those on it would form a "Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council." This council would then create a permanent form of government. The bill said this new government should protect the civil rights of its citizens.

What About Land and Claims?

The bill said that issues like land transfers, government power, and historical wrongs against Native Hawaiians would be discussed in future talks. It also stated that the bill was not meant to create new lawsuits against the U.S. or Hawaii for past issues. It aimed to prevent existing lawsuits from using this Act for support.

The bill also said that Native Hawaiians could not run gambling businesses. It also stated that the Secretary of the Interior would not take land into trust for Native Hawaiians. It also clarified that a law called the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act would not apply to land transfers in Hawaii.

Who Supported the Bill?

Many groups and people supported the Akaka Bill, even though it changed over time.

• Former President Barack Obama
• Hawaii's Democratic Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye, and Representative Mazie Hirono.
• Hawaii's Democratic State Governor Neil Abercrombie.
• Hawaii's State legislature, which supported federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.
• Large Native American organizations like the National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
• The National Indian Education Association and the American Bar Association.
• The Japanese American Citizens League.
• Those who wanted to protect programs helping Native Hawaiians with health care, housing, education, and culture.
• The United States Commission on Civil Rights, which changed its mind and supported the bill in 2018.

Supporters believed the bill would protect groups like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Kamehameha Schools. Senator Akaka said the bill would help bring people together and respect Hawaii's native people and culture.

Mark Bennett, Hawaii's Attorney General, argued that the bill was not based on race. He said it simply recognized the special status of native peoples, which the U.S. Supreme Court had always done. He felt Hawaiians were asking to be treated like other native groups in the country.

Supporters also said that rejecting the bill would be unfair to Native Hawaiians. Senator Inouye pointed out that Congress had already recognized other native groups in America. He argued that not passing the bill would discriminate against Native Hawaiians.

Senator Akaka also stated that the bill would not lead to race discrimination. Instead, he believed discrimination would happen if the bill did not pass. He said Native Hawaiians are the original people of Hawaii and should not be treated differently from other Native Americans.

Some opponents argued that Native Hawaiians did not meet the requirements for other Native American groups. Governor Lingle and Attorney General Bennett responded that the bill did not aim to include Native Hawaiians in American Indian programs. They said it was unfair to suggest that native groups should be against each other.

They also explained that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was not meant for Native Hawaiians. It only applied to native people in the "continental United States." They believed the bill would finally recognize the losses Hawaiians had suffered, like the loss of their identity and self-governance.

In 2005, Senator Akaka said the bill would create a "government-to-government relationship" with the U.S., similar to other native tribal governments. He mentioned that it could potentially lead to independence, but that would be for future generations to decide. Later versions of the bill clarified that secession was not part of it.

In 2018, the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report. It found that the U.S. government does not have an official government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians. However, Congress has admitted its role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The report recommended that Congress pass legislation to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing group.

Who Opposed the Bill?

Many groups and individuals opposed the Akaka Bill for different reasons:

• Some believed the bill was unfair because it was based on race.
• Others thought the "tribe" created by the bill might protect corrupt leaders.
• Some felt that a school voucher system could help Kamehameha Schools serve all Hawaiian students, including non-Hawaiians, which would address discrimination lawsuits.
• Some worried it could start a process for a single racial group to separate from the United States.
• Those who believed the U.S. never legally took over the Hawaiian Kingdom argued the U.S. had no right to govern the territory.
• Some Native Hawaiian sovereignty activists opposed it because they felt it blocked their efforts to gain full independence from the U.S. government. They believed it ignored the Apology Resolution of 1993, where Congress apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein argued that the Apology Resolution was wrong. He said it wrongly suggested that the 1893 government was only for Native Hawaiians.

In 2006, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held hearings and recommended against the bill. They said it would "discriminate on the basis of race or national origin" and divide Americans into groups with different privileges. However, as mentioned, the Commission later changed its mind in 2018.

Some opponents believed that programs only for Native Hawaiians, like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Kamehameha Schools, were unfair and based on race. They saw the Akaka Bill as an attempt to get around the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano. This decision ruled that limiting voting in OHA elections to Native Hawaiians was unconstitutional.

A poll by the Grassroot Institute found that most Hawaii residents who responded opposed the Akaka Bill.

Some opponents were also unsure about the bill's language regarding casinos. While it said the new government could not run gambling activities, it left the door open for future talks on the issue.

In 2006, Senator Akaka gave many speeches to gain support for the bill. Opponents responded to his speeches and the arguments made by supporters.

Regarding the latest version of the bill, S.310, Akaka's website said the language had been public since 2005. However, opponents noted that the previous version, S.147, which failed to pass in 2006, did not include the changes now in S.310.

In 2007, Gregory Katsas, a government lawyer, stated that the bill would divide government power by race. He believed this would be a step backward for American history and create more problems than it solved.

Earlier Versions of the Bill

The Akaka Bill was introduced in different forms several times before 2009:

• In the 106th Congress (2000):

* S. 2899 * H.R. 4904

• In the 107th Congress (2001):

* S. 81 * H.R. 617 * S. 746 * S. 1783

• In the 108th Congress (2003-2004):

* S. 344 * H.R. 665 * H.R. 4282

• In the 109th Congress (2005-2006):

* S. 147 * H.R. 309 * S. 3064

• In the 110th Congress (2007):

* S. 310 * H.R. 505