The election of the first Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees took place in 1980, following OHA’s creation in the 1978 Constitutional Convention. Its history over the decades since then has been tumultuous, and since the Rice v. Cayetano U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2000, any registered voter in Hawaii has been entitled to cast a ballot in trustee races.

Although the trustees are considered state offices and staffers are on the state payroll, most of its voting constituency is Native Hawaiian, and for an obvious reason. Programs authorized by trustees are financed by the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund, fed by a share of revenues from the former kingdom and crown lands ceded to the U.S. with annexation. The beneficiaries of the trust are those of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

Clearly, while this year’s races will have an especially broad impact on the state as a whole, the OHA election matters most of all to Native Hawaiians. The reason: OHA will have influence on decisions made concerning whether and how the cause of Hawaiian sovereignty advances.

This week, OHA’s sitting board of trustees weighed in officially on that cause, submitting comments in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s investigation of a possible administrative path toward federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

That investigation included the recent statewide series of hearings that drew emotional testimony, much of it from community members who opposed the "nation within a nation" model of sovereignty that the DOI could help enable. They said that this would foreclose on their prospects for winning an independent status for a restored Hawaiian nation.

OHA’s official position, however, favors Interior’s proposal to craft a rule re-establishing "a government-to-government relation- ship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community." That, according to the written testimony, "is the most viable action that could be taken to protect and expand existing trust assets, federal programmatic funding, federal consultation rights and other self-determination rights under federal law."

OHA certainly can’t speak for all Hawaiians, but it’s hard to deny that the office holds a powerful microphone and a significant share of influence. A position has been taken, but depending on the makeup of the next board, its statement could change.

However voters come down on this issue, they ought to recognize that the platforms of the candidates run the gamut, especially among the 16 hopefuls vying for one of three at-large seats. The roster includes advocates for every position: restoration of the kingdom, securing federal recognition — or no special status for Native Hawaiians at all. Voters owe it to themselves to sift through all the rhetoric and find out where the candidates stand.

This is probably the principal issue in the OHA election, but it’s not the only basis for sizing up the candidate field. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to oversee the trust, so any skills or experience candidates bring to that task should count a lot.

The good news is that a new law will help to clarify that process for voters. Lawmakers in 2013 passed Senate Bill 3, taking effect with the 2014 election, winnowing the list of names voters will confront in the general election. For races in which there are three or more contenders for a seat, their names will go on the primary election ballot so that only the top two vote-getters will advance to the general.

The new rule affects both the race for the Oahu seat — which has attracted four candidates — as well as the at-large contest.

The final vote in past races was splintered among many candidates, which meant winners were elected by a small plurality, giving incumbents the advantage. This time, the leading challengers at least will have more time to campaign, get out their message and boost their name recognition in a process that’s ultimately more democratic.

But that enhancement won’t matter unless the voters pick up the baton, and run with it.