It’s been nearly two decades since the nation’s high court handed down the Rice v. Cayetano decision. A Hawaii island rancher, Freddy Rice, had sued the state over its handling of Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections, the voter rolls having been restricted to those of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that barrier in 2000, enabling Hawaiians and non- Hawaiians alike to vote in OHA elections. Months later, non-Hawaiian plaintiffs in Arakaki v. State of Hawaii won a ruling that favor opened eligibility to all candidates, regardless of ethnicity, to run for the OHA Board of Trustees.

Even after all this time, voters have a tendency to pass over the OHA part of the ballot, unfamiliar with the candidates themselves and often convinced the agency’s issues don’t affect them. This year as much as any, there is reason to scan the list carefully and find worthy people to serve — especially those who could bring fresh perspectives to the board.

As for the former issue, it is tough to keep up with the biennial election swarm, but there are resources to help. One is the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s online election guide (elections.staradvertiser.com/2018-hawaii-primary-election-candidates); scroll down to find links to questionnaire responses from those who responded to the newspaper’s query.

Ka Wai Ola, the OHA publication, has columns by sitting trustees and is another way to catch up on the issues they confront. Examining these resources should help persuade skittish voters that OHA’s function really does affect them, whether they’re Hawaiian or not.

OHA disburses money in grants that benefit socioeconomic goals from education to health. It has influence in various land and resource- management issues, whether through various court challenges it pursues or through playing a formal role in policymaking.

A key debate in this year’s campaign, of course, is the controversial Thirty Meter Telescope planned for construction at the summit of Mauna Kea. Some candidates speak plainly about their position, but voters may need to seek out more information from them to be clear about their position.

But there are many other concerns in which OHA trustees have a voice, not the least of which is they way they spend. That attracted the attention of the state auditor, who released a scathing report in February, drilling down on the way trustees have used various funding sources. The auditor studied OHA’s $49.9 million budget approved for the 2016 fiscal year.

In general, the money used for various programs benefiting Native Hawaiians is garnered from the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund and from ceded lands revenue — money raised from the use of assets such as airports and the University of Hawaii.

What the auditor found damning, though, was the part that went out in a less accountable way — through grants issued directly by the trustees, not the allotments for projects that had gone through a vetting process.

In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, according to the report, “OHA spent nearly double as much on discretionary disbursements ($14 million) as it did on planned, budgeted and properly publicized, vetted and monitored grants ($7.7 million).”

It would appear that these people have forgotten their fiduciary duty — if they ever grasped the concept at all.

Further, the agency does spend around $3.2 million annually in state general funds — taxpayer money. Primarily that’s for salaries; it would be wise to make sure those elected to oversee staff keep tabs on managers and hold them accountable.

To put it mildly, OHA trustees have a spotty record in that regard. Voters would be wise to check out the candidates and decide which really have the drive and capability to do the job.

It may not be the people who are standing at the helm now.