Hawaiian Election hearing report

Ian Lind in Civil Beat runs down the arguments on both sides in the federal court hearing today on the legality of the Na‘i Aupuni election process, and motion of preliminary injunction seeking to put the election on hold.

After four hours of legal arguments on Tuesday by supporters and opponents of the current election for delegates to a Native Hawaiian political convention that both sides agree could be an important step toward some form of Hawaiian self-governance, federal Judge J. Michael Seabright said he will decide by the end of the week whether he will block the election from proceeding.

Seabright is presiding over a lawsuit brought by several opponents of the process that is widely expected to be a significant step toward Hawaiian political autonomy. The lawsuit is backed by Judicial Watch, a conservative Washington foundation, and the lead plaintiff is Kelii Akina, CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a local conservative, free-market educational group.

Tuesday’s hearing was request by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction that would put the election on hold until the issues being raised by the lawsuit can be decided. No trial date has yet been set, while ballots are due to be distributed to the list of certified voters on Nov. 1.

Seabright said he will rule on the injunction and scheduled another hearing for 10:30 a.m. Friday to explain the basis for it.

[…]

The election is opposed by Hawaiians on two ends of the political spectrum. Some Hawaiians like Akina, a political conservative, have opposed extending special status to Hawaiians. But the election process is also opposed by those Hawaiians who say they will not support anything less than full national independence. They also are against any process that would grant Hawaiians the same status as Native American tribal governments, which they see as limiting sovereignty.

[…]

Much of the legal wrangling during the hearing revolved around the issue of whether this election is truly a private affair among Hawaiians only, or whether its public funding and the participation of OHA, a state agency, mean that it is really a government function involving “state action” and subject to the constitutional protections against various forms of discrimination in voting and elections.