Column: Native Hawaiians should control their own assets

The assent of Brett Kavanaugh as a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court has opened an old controversy regarding his involvement in the Rice v. Cayetano decision of 1999. Anyone who voted prior to that decision remembers being asked the question, “Are you Hawaiian?,” before being given an Office of Hawaiian Affairs ballot.

While the idea of separate political party ballots is understandable, having an ethnicity-based ballot issue still seems so unusual to the average voter in Hawaii that, to this day, the OHA candidates in the primary election garner only 50-60 percent of the popular vote.

Many people seem uncomfortable, if not completely taken aback, by how little those of Hawaiian ancestry have regarding direct control of the assets that rightfully belong to them.

These assets, such as the 220,000 acres of Hawaiian Homelands and the $600 million held by OHA, represent both an inherited estate and legal compensation for those of Hawaiian ancestry. Hawaiians are a distinct Polynesian people who have the legal right to specific assets designed to benefit them and to perpetuate their unique Hawaiian cultural.

Judge Kavanaugh’s probable confirmation to SCOTUS highlights the central question of how long the Hawaii state government can maintain sole control over assets that are distinctly ethnic set-asides.

But the bigger question is: Should it? The long-term answer must be no.

These assets, to avoid an inevitable court challenge just as in Rice v. Cayetano, must be controlled by the Native Hawaiians themselves. To this end a federal process must be undertaken following the precedent set by the Alaskan Native Claims Act of 1971, which would give those of Hawaiian ancestry shares in a federally chartered Native Hawaiian corporation encompassing the land base of Hawaiian Homelands and the assets of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Any internet search for Alaskan Native corporation will bring up multiple examples of its structure, assets, goals and dividends — all of which achieve greater scope and stewardship of native Alaskan assets than anything that OHA or the state Department of Hawaiian Homelands is empowered to accomplish.

Most importantly, by uniting different native Alaskans in economic sovereignty, the indigenous people have acquired the best chance of preserving their unique cultures. This same benefit can be accomplished for Native Hawaiian culture, whose preservation and perpetuation should be of primary concern for all the people of Hawaii.

Securing Hawaiian assets into a Native Hawaiian corporation would protect these assets for generations to come and transform native Hawaiian people from spectators of their inheritance, into shareholders and directors of their own assets, which matches the goals their Hawaiian benefactors were hoping to achieve.

The Native Hawaiian corporation approach also has the best chance of legislative success where previous such efforts have failed. It relies on the established precedent and success of the Alaskan Native Claims Act. It is a just answer to a past wrong against an indigenous people and is a free-market solution to empower individuals.

In short, it is a Jeffersonian key to the American system of government whose passage, being preceded by strong popular support, would be bipartisan.

Chartering the establishment of a dynamic and productive Native Hawaiian corporation would generate new jobs and new housing solutions along with increasing revenue, just as their counterparts are doing for the Alaskan economy.

The constitutional republic of the United States doesn’t mitigate against cultural diversity, but present transcendent truth that those of Hawaiian ancestry can and should appeal to in their common pursuit of happiness.

Paul Mossman, a remodeling contractor and Native Hawaiian, is a former candidate for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee.