HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser Hawai'i Poll

Poll Graphics
Tax money for OHA, voting trustees
Views of the Rice vs. Cayetano decision

"There's a lot of questions that still need to be answered."
- Mary J.K. Kalaikai
Kapahuhu resident

Although most Native Hawaiians disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rice vs. Cayetano case, many accept the legal basis for the court’s decision, according to The Honolulu Advertiser Hawai‘i Poll.

Native Hawaiians disagree by a 2-1 margin with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that non-Hawaiians should be allowed to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Some said they fear that non-Hawaiians will vote against the interests of Hawaiians.

"I feel they (non-Hawaiians) might have more prejudices," said poll participant Bryan Pate, 37, of Moanalua Gardens, who is self-employed. "It’s a total heart matter. It’s our culture. We take it a little more seriously."

The Hawai‘i Poll is the most comprehensive survey of Native Hawaiians ever conducted for The Advertiser.

The poll, conducted by Ward Research of Honolulu, was a random survey of 401 adults of Hawaiian ancestry. The margin of error from the results is 4.9 percent, meaning that 95 percent of the time, if the entire adult Hawaiian population were sampled, their responses would be within 4.9 percent plus or minus of those obtained in the poll.

On the Rice vs. Cayetano issue, 60 percent of the Hawai‘i Poll participants disagreed with the decision, and 32 percent agreed.

Of those who disagreed, 47 percent said they did not accept the court’s reasoning, while 45 percent said they did accept that a state cannot constitutionally restrict voting in an election to people of a particular race.

There were Hawaiians, generally those with less Hawaiian blood and those not registered to vote in OHA elections, who were more comfortable with the idea of non-Hawaiians voting for OHA trustees.

"I believe it gives necessary input into the system. I believe the outside influences are important," said part-Hawaiian banker and rancher Lance Dunbar, 55, of Kainalu, Moloka‘i.

Some who were polled said they would go a step further and refuse to restrict the users of Hawaiian land to Native Hawaiians.

"We’re losing our Hawaiian culture," said Mary J.K. Kalaikai, 47, a caregiver who lives in Kapahulu. "I regretted not talking to my grandparents about it, but they’ve placed in me the aloha for the land and the people."

Kalaikai said she would have ceded lands turned over to Hawaiians, but feels they should then be shared with people of all ethnic groups.

She said she favors some kind of self-government for Hawaiians, but remaining part of the United States: "There’s a lot of questions that still need to be answered."

The Hawai‘i Poll reveals a recognition of the fine distinctions of the law by many in the Hawaiian community, but also turned up notable divisions based on age, education and percentage of Hawaiian blood.

In the Rice vs. Cayetano case, Big Island rancher Harold "Freddie" Rice argued it was unconstitutional for the state to prohibit him from voting in OHA elections even though he has no Hawaiian blood.

The Hawai‘i Supreme Court is still reviewing how to apply the ruling, but in the future, it means all Hawai‘i voters will be able to vote for OHA board members.

An overwhelming majority of Hawaiians surveyed when the poll was conducted April 18-28 had heard of the Rice vs. Cayetano case. Older and better-educated Hawaiians and OHA voters were substantially more likely to be familiar with it.

There were significant differences in whether Hawaiians agreed or disagreed with the ruling based on their percentage of Hawaiian blood and whether they were OHA voters, although a majority of Hawaiians in every category said they disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

"I believe it’s a fair statement that Hawaiians and their supporters tend to stand by the idea that Hawaiians ought to navigate their own canoe and their own future," said OHA chairman Clayton Hee.

Those with half Hawaiian blood or more opposed the ruling by more than 2 to 1, but as blood quantum went down, so did disapproval of the decision. Those with one-quarter or less Hawaiian blood disapproved of the Rice vs. Cayetano decision by a narrow margin.

The results were similar for OHA voters, who strongly disapproved; nonvoters disapproved by a bare majority. Among the 60 percent who said they disagreed with the ruling, there was an even split between those who accepted the constitutional principle that the state can’t prohibit voting for politicians seeking positions in a state agency.

The Hawai‘i Poll also asked the OHA race-based voting question without mentioning Rice vs. Cayetano. This time, a majority of certain categories of Hawaiians opposed the concept of Hawaiians-only voting for the office.

Pollsters noted that some of OHA’s money comes from the state treasury and taxes paid by all.

Respondents to the poll were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposition that non-Hawaiians should be allowed to vote in the elections since they help support OHA. Hawaiians generally continued to say that only Hawaiians should vote for OHA, but the vote was much closer.

Those with more than a quarter Hawaiian blood were willing to retain Hawaiians-only voting, but Hawaiians whose blood quantum was less than 25 percent strongly opposed it.

Hawaiians who don’t vote in OHA elections appear much more liberal in their approach to voting, saying non-Hawaiians should be allowed to vote for OHA trustees, while registered OHA voters want to keep the balloting restricted to those of Hawaiian blood.