There have been tremors felt through the Hawaiian-rights landscape lately, surely portents of change ahead in 2017 and beyond. Just to recap:

>> An administrative route toward achieving federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political entity has been codified. It’s not exactly carved in stone, but it’s not something easily erased even by a political turnover in the White House.

>> A constitution for that political entity has been drafted, and a drive to raise money for a ratification vote is gearing up.

>> A new trustee — one who has long opposed the whole nationhood push — has been elected to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, where he has already aligned himself with the winning side in a turnover of leadership. These developments are already stirring controversy, on the board and among some beneficiaries, and more conflict is certain to ensue.

>> Solidarity among native peoples around their issues has become a practice nationally. The Dakota Access Pipeline protest, like the Thirty Meter Telescope demonstrations here, involved diverse indigenous participation (see story, Page E4).

These are likely to propel events forward into the new year, shifting the discussion around sovereignty into higher gear. But they are, according to someone on the journey for years, simply way stations on a much longer historical trek that veered in a new direction 16 years ago.

The real turning point in the Native Hawaiian rights movement, said former Gov. John Waihee, was none of these developments but the landmark Rice v. Cayetano ruling in 2000.

That decision struck down the Hawaiian-only voting restriction as unconstitutional. But it also contained the first indication from the U.S. Supreme Court that entitlements on the basis of race to a group lacking federal recognition could be a problem, Waihee said: That signaled a shift, given the history of federal trust relationships with Hawaiians.

Federal recognition became the goal, because Hawaiians now had to be seen as a political entity to withstand the court’s scrutiny. In the past, he said, the federal government had seemed to endorse some “give back” of benefits to Hawaiians.

For example, Waihee said, the lands “ceded” to the federal government by the Republic of Hawaii after the 1893 overthrow were given back to the state, imposing the condition that Native Hawaiians be among the beneficiaries. The federal government kept the land of other territories it has taken over, signifying that Hawaii was a special case, he said.

“For 20 years it was never a problem,” Waihee said. “What changed was the makeup of the court. Rice v. Cayetano went before one of the most conservative courts in the United States.”

Just one step

Efforts to get federal recognition through Congress failed, and in its last few years, the Department of the Interior under President Barack Obama has issued an administrative rule that establishes an alternative pathway for Native Hawaiians, one that’s parallel to recognition rules for other native groups.

Previously, “the rule for recognition for indigenous people within the United States specifically excluded Hawaii,” Waihee said. “That’s why this rule is important.

“So in a sense it’s like we hit a milestone, but the journey continues,” he said. “There are a lot more steps.”

Theoretically, the rule could be undone by the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump, he said, “but it’s not that easy a process.”

In February, a constitution was drafted at a convention held on Oahu. The next step would be a ratification vote, Waihee said, but the strategy is to raise funds privately for that effort to avert legal challenges.

In recent weeks the nonprofit Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and its Policy Center leaders have been planning an outreach campaign to educate the community about the constitution and help fundraise for ratification.

A grant issued through other nonprofits from OHA originally was meant to underwrite the constitutional convention, but that association between the state agency and a nation-building campaign was challenged in U.S. District Court by a group of plaintiffs led by Kelii Akina.

Akina, as a newly elected OHA trustee, voted with a 5-4 majority to name Rowena Akana as board chairperson on Thursday, ousting incumbent Robert Lindsey and sparking protest from Lindsey supporters.

Akina also is executive director of the nonprofit think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii; its website states that the group is “concerned that the state of Hawaii’s efforts to form and gain federal recognition of a race-based, sovereign nation are not in the best interest of Native Hawaiians nor the general population.”

Controversial election

Akina’s election has sparked an outcry from the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which adopted a resolution at its convention asserting that he should either resign as OHA trustee or leave his post at Grassroot.

His principal opponent in the election was 20-year incumbent Haunani Apoliona, who chaired OHA’s board for 10 years. Apoliona, a civic club member, agrees with the resolution. The philosophy of Grassroot runs counter to the mission of OHA, she said.

“The foundational question is if Kelii Akina has these principles he stands on … and that whole philosophy, from that position and his active personal involvement in attempting to undermine Native Hawaiians’ interests,” Apoliona added.

She pointed to the lawsuit, which has been dismissed because it became moot with the cancellation of the grant-funded delegate election to the convention, which was convened by unelected participants.

For his part, Akina emphasized that the plaintiffs agreed with the federal court, but emphasized that the case was dismissed without prejudice. In other words, if there is another constitutional conflict, he said, opponents will be back in court.

“When it comes to Hawaiian self-determinism, or the pursuit of independence or sovereignty, I encourage Hawaiians to get involved using our First Amendment right to express ourselves,” he said in an interview last week.

“But when it comes to using the funds of the public through a state office, we are limited and need to be certain we are adhering to the constitutions of both the state of Hawaii and the United States,” Akina added. “So that suit was about monies being used inappropriately by state agencies in order to pursue a private aim.”

On his campaign website, Akina said he is “completely committed to the protection of the primary Hawaiian entitlements as secured by law,” including the ceded lands and the Hawaiian homeland trusts.

“The priority for OHA needs to be the betterment of the Hawaiian people, and that means providing opportunities for housing, jobs, education and health care,” he added in the interview. “OHA’s own surveys show that their Native Hawaiian beneficiaries would rather funds be spent on those purposes than on pursuing nationhood.”

Short-term needs

Nevertheless, the nationhood drive remains in the forefront among issues. Zuri Aki, a recent graduate of the William S. Richardson School of Law, was a key participant in February’s convention and was the principal drafter of the constitution that is now headed for ratification.

Not everyone supports federal recognition, and Aki acknowledged that he had been among those who wanted independence above all outcomes, but now sees that short-term needs will be overlooked if Native Hawaiians hold out for that.

“The overthrow was an international wrong,” he said. “But in my studies, I’ve learned sometimes you can’t get everything you want. If independence is a dream, we can’t get that right now.

“Until then, we have to take care of ourselves within the system where we find ourselves.”