Gov. Linda Lingle is taking a beating from Native Hawaiians in the legal dispute over ceded lands, but she has little choice other than to defend the state's right to manage its resources for the benefit of all citizens.

The ceded lands are 1.2 million acres of former Hawaiian crown lands passed to the state in the 1959 Admissions Act and comprise nearly all state lands, including the airport and the University of Hawai'i.

The act specified betterment of Native Hawaiians as one of five purposes the lands should be put to, along with public education, farm and home ownership and general public improvements.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled in January, however, that the state can't sell or transfer any of the lands until Hawaiian native claims are reconciled — a process that could take decades while restricting the state's ability to address other priorities in the act.

Hawaiians excoriated the Lingle administration for requesting a review of the state ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which took the case and has scheduled oral arguments on Feb. 25.

In a Nov. 24 rally at the Capitol, some Hawaiian protesters shouted for Lingle's impeachment and an attorney representing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the lawsuit has accused her of taking an "immoral position."

The harsh tone of the criticism is unfair.

Lingle, who inherited the lawsuit from the Cayetano administration, recognizes that Hawaiians have "strong moral claims" to compensation for lands taken after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, but disputes the state Supreme Court's view that the state's title to ceded lands granted by the Admissions Act was effectively nullified by a 1993 congressional resolution apologizing for the overthrow.

Sen. Daniel Inouye told colleagues at the time that the measure was "a simple resolution of apology" and had "nothing to do" with Hawaiian land claims.

Lingle believes land claims must be sorted out via the Akaka bill in Congress and has made several trips to Washington to lobby for the measure despite opposition from conservatives in her Republican Party.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling was extraordinary in the way it interpreted federal laws to strip the state of sovereign rights.

It's little wonder that 29 other states worried about their own sovereign rights joined Hawai'i in seeking a U.S. Supreme Court review, and that the court considered it of sufficient national interest to hear the case.

Hawaiians are worried the court might erode their rights beyond the ceded lands issue, and it's a shame the dispute has gotten this far.

Reasonable people should have been able to reach a settlement that allowed the state to sell lands when necessary to meet the purposes of the Admissions Act, but with the understanding that it would do so with restraint until Hawaiian claims were resolved.

It's not as though the state planned a fire sale of ceded lands; the 1994 OHA lawsuit now before the Supreme Court involved a sale of 1,500 acres on Maui and the Big Island for affordable housing — one of the mandates of the act — with OHA getting one-fifth of the proceeds.

The case poses huge practical implications for the state, and Lingle isn't in a position to stand down now; even if the Akaka bill passes next year, it could take decades to reconcile Hawaiian land and sovereignty claims.

Hawaiians have no recognized leadership to negotiate with the federal government and objected to setting a 20-year deadline for settling the issues in the Akaka bill. Many Hawaiians oppose the Akaka bill altogether.

No state can operate effectively with its ability to manage its resources in indefinite limbo.


David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. His columns are archived at www.volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog, Volcanic Ash, at volcanicash.honadvblogs.com.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. His columns are archived at www.volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.