State to appeal court’s ruling on DHHL funding
The state Thursday filed an appeal of a court decision requiring the state to sufficiently fund administrative and operating expenses for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
A March ruling by Circuit Court Judge Jeannette Castagnetti ordered the state to fulfill its constitutional duty by appropriating sufficient general funds for DHHL’s operations.
The appeal will not affect the $17.1 million that Gov. David Ige proposed and the Legislature approved for the department’s fiscal 2015-2016 operating budget or the $23.9 million appropriated for the following year, according to a news release from the attorney general’s office.
But Attorney General Douglas Chin said the court decision raises questions about separation of powers and what expenses are appropriately included in DHHL’s budget pursuant to the state Constitution.
“Some believe this year’s appropriation is too much, while others feel it is still not enough,” Chin said in a written statement. “A decision from the state Supreme Court should help provide more direction in future years and may avoid more lawsuits down the road.”
The litigation, commonly referred to as the Nelson case after its lead plaintiff, Richard Nelson III, began in 2007 when he and five other Native Hawaiian beneficiaries sued the state, saying it failed to appropriate sufficient sums for DHHL as required by the Hawaii Constitution.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
One response to “State to appeal court’s ruling on DHHL funding”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nelson is not the definitive law suit in this matter. The state’s constitution had not yet been written when in the admission act the 5f paragraph unconstitutionally appeared to grant solely federal powers to a state agency that did not yet exist, the DHHL. Funding of the federal reservations known as homelands is either a federal responsibility or the responsibility of the homesteaders themselves through protection as to land use afforded inherently by existing federal law. the hitch is that the state and especially city and county governments cannot swallow the idea that homesteaders can use their land without local government or state government approval as to use throgu coercion of conformity with zoning and permitting codes. This is caused by the ali’i trusts intervening so their monopoly on land use persists. Doug Chin is capable of breaking away from the status quo but lacks the political will to do so, as no one dare challenge the Bishop’s golden rule – he who has the gold rules.