On Friday February 10, 2017 a notice was published by the legislature of the State of Hawaii announcing that a hearing would be held on Tuesday February 14 on the bill HB118-HD1. Text of the bill is copied below. On that same Friday February 10 Ken Conklin submitted testimony through the Legislature’s website, long ahead of the requirement that testimony must be submitted at least 24 hours before a hearing; and Conklin immediately received the robot-generated confirmation that the testimony had been received. Conklin’s testimony is copied below.

However, after the hearing was held and the public file of written testimony was posted on the Legislature’s “status” webpage for this bill, Conklin’s testimony was not included. Might the omission have been an accident? No! It was clearly not an accident, because exactly the same thing happened with Conklin’s testimony on a different bill, HB1297, whose hearing was announced and held on the same dates, and in the same committee.

The committee is the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs. The chairman of the committee is Kaniela Ing, a youthful far-left Hawaiian sovereignty activist whose views might be described as supporting race-based political sovereignty and racial entitlement programs at taxpayer expense. Ing despises Conklin’s views, and the feeling is mutual. Conklin’s testimony was by far the strongest submitted, so it’s no surprise that Ing censored it.

The bill HB118-HD1 has two main purposes corresponding to the committee chairman’s personal vendetta against an honorable man and the chairman’s racialist viewpoint. (1) The primary purpose is to single out a newly elected board member of the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs and make it illegal for him to serve on or be a candidate for the board. The bill has the appearance of being a good-government bill intended to prohibit the election of anyone who is a registered lobbyist. But in fact there is only one person now serving on the OHA board or who was recently a candidate for the board who is a registered lobbyist. He just happens to be the head of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a genuine good-government think tank; and in that capacity he occasionally lobbies the legislature seeking government transparency and accountability, offering libertarian analysis of economic issues, etc. He is an opponent of race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians — a policy which OHA has spent tens of millions of dollars and seventeen years supporting — a policy which the chairman of the legislature’s committee on Hawaiian Affairs also supports. The committee chairman, in cahoots with a group of Hawaiian racialist institutions, therefore launched a vendetta to oust the newly elected OHA board member, and is using the issue of being a “lobbyist” as a way to pursue their vendetta. (2) The committee chairman also inserted into the bill another provision, in line with his racialist views, which would impose a racial requirement that candidates for election or appointment to the board must be racially Hawaiian. But that requirement, which was formerly a part of the Hawaii state Constitution, was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000. Either the committee chairman is too young to know the history of that event and has no advisor to tell him about it; or else he does know the racial restriction on candidacy is unconstitutional but nevertheless he recklessly wants to enact it.

Nearly all the testimony was in support of the bill. Conklin’s was the ONLY testimony that made any mention of the unconstitutionality of the bill’s racial restriction on candidacy for the OHA board; so by disappearing Conklin’s testimony the chairman and the entire committee could safely claim to be unaware of it. Nearly all the testimonies were very brief and merely supported the fake purpose of getting rid of lobbyists as though that was the real purpose of the bill; but the two testimonies placed all the way at the bottom of a very long file of testimonies make it clear that the bill’s primary purpose is a vendetta against the newly elected OHA board member who opposes racialism and seeks an audit of the board’s corrupt contracting and expenditures.

Upon seeing that his testimony had been disappeared from the public files on two bills before the same committee, Conklin sent an email on Tuesday evening to Speaker of the House Joe Souki, and to all House members, providing copies of both of the disappeared testimonies; asking that they be inserted in the public files where they should have been all along; and asking that whoever was responsible for their censoring should be reprimanded. By Wednesday afternoon the public files of testimonies had been updated for both of the bills to include Conklin’s testimony, near the top, in the rightful place where it probably belonged in the order of when the testimonies were submitted.

The “status file” for this bill, posted on the Legislature’s website, shows that on Tuesday February 14, with Conklin’s testimony still missing from the public file and perhaps therefore also not being seen by the committee members, the committee “recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Ing, Gates, Creagan, DeCoite, LoPresti, Takayama, Thielen; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and Excused: none.”

Then on Friday February 17 the status file says “Reported from OMH (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 510) as amended in HD 2, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to JUD.”

Putting together the status reports for Tuesday February 14 and Friday February 17, it’s clear that the bill was amended and the amended bill HD2 was approved by the committee on Tuesday. At that time Conklin’s testimony was not included in the public file and probably had not been made available to the members of the committee because the chairman had disappeared it. But Conklin’s was the only testimony pointing out that the racial restriction on OHA candidacy had been ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000. So there are two possibilities:

(A) If committee chairman Kaniela Ing had in fact prevented committee members from seeing Conklin’s testimony and if the members were unaware of the bill’s unconstitutionality, then Ing’s deception is responsible for committee members violating their oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. In this case the committee has an obligation to (1) pass a motion of no-confidence in chairman Ing for deliberately misleading (i.e., lying to) them; and (2) ask the entire House to pass a resolution of censure against Ing for suppressing public testimony; and (3) to rescind the committee report and the referral advancing the bill to the next committee.

OR

(B) If the committee actually did have access to Conklin’s testimony before passing the amended version of the bill, or if any committee members were aware of the unconstitutionality even without reading Conklin’s testimony, then the committee members are just as guilty as Kaniela Ing for knowingly and intentionally passing an unconstitutional bill, in violation of their oath of office.

The public file of testimony on this bill HB118-HD1 is 128 pages long, occupying 55 Megabytes, takes a couple minutes to download even with high-speed internet, and is available at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2017/Testimony/HB118_HD1_TESTIMONY_OMH_02-14-17_.PDF

—————

Here is full text of the first version of the bill HB118-HD1 (first version other than the short-form content-free placeholder bill which this version HD1 filled with content) on which testimony was submitted:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. Section 13D-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:

Ҥ13D-2 Qualifications of board members. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and is:
(1) [qualified] Qualified and registered to vote under the provisions of section 13D-3[, and];
(2) [where residency on a particular island is a requirement, a] A resident on the island for which seat the person is seeking election or appointment[.], if residency on a particular island is a requirement; and
(3) Not registered as a lobbyist within one year of filing nomination papers.
No member of the board shall hold or be a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments in accordance with Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of the State; nor shall a person be eligible for election or appointment to the board if that person is also a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments. The term “public office”, for purposes of this section, shall not include notaries public, reserve police officers, or officers of emergency organizations for civilian defense or disaster, or disaster relief.”

SECTION 2. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

————–

Here is full text of the amended version HB118-HD2 approved by the committee on Tuesday February 14, 2017 — very tiny changes not affecting either the personal vendetta or the unconstitutional racial restriction on candidacy.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. Section 13D-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ13D-2 Qualifications of board members. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and is:
(1) [qualified] Qualified and registered to vote under the provisions of section 13D-3[, and];
(2) [where residency on a particular island is a requirement, a] A resident on the island for which seat the person is seeking election or appointment[.], if residency on a particular island is a requirement; and
(3) Not currently registered as a lobbyist with the state ethics commission.
No member of the board shall hold or be a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments in accordance with Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of the State; nor shall a person be eligible for election or appointment to the board if that person is also a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments. The term “public office”, for purposes of this section, shall not include notaries public, reserve police officers, or officers of emergency organizations for civilian defense or disaster, or disaster relief.”

SECTION 2. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

————–

Here is full text of Ken Conklin’s testimony on the first version of the bill, HB118-HD1. This testimony was either hidden from committee members by chairman Kaniela Ing, or else committee members had access to it and chose to ignore it when they approved a bill whose racial restriction on candidacy was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000:

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

I’ll begin my testimony to a committee on Hawaiian affairs with a sentence in Hawaiian language.

Hupo loa ke kanaka po’o o keia komike, i ho’okomo i keia pila HB 118 HD1.

Although this hearing is set for Valentines Day, I have no love for this bill nor for its sponsor. Who is to blame for this bad bill?

The chairman of this committee is, shall we say, badly misguided for introducing this bill, whose contents display an astounding level of ignorance about the history of litigation regarding candidacy for OHA trustees.

One of the major provisions in this bill is flat-out unconstitutional — a fact litigated and ruled by two federal courts. The other major provision might also be unconstitutional, although it has not yet been litigated; but it is certainly immoral if not illegal.

The following members of this committee also deserve blame for rubber-stamping this bill when they voted on February 3 and February 7 to pass this bill as amended: Ing, Gates, Creagan, DeCoite, LoPresti, Takayama, Thielen; no Noes and no reservations. You committee members really must exercise greater vigilance in monitoring the work of your very youthful and reckless chairman. He might be excused because the massively publicized litigation on this issue happened when he was a mere prepubescent boy; but if he’s going to be a committee chairman then he should compensate by having a knowledgeable advisor. Most committee members have no such excuse — if you’re older than 40 and have lived in Hawaii for at least 18 years then you will surely remember the tumultuous events of year 2000.

What’s one major bad thing about this bill?

Lines 3,4,5 on page 1 say “No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and …”

That racial restriction on candidacy has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course this committee could rescue that provision by redefining the word “Hawaiian” to mean “citizen of Hawaii” rather than the racially exclusionary meaning requiring at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood.

I would welcome such a redefinition. Please do it! But of course you won’t; so let me continue. Here’s the story.

In year 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court by vote of 7-2 ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that there can be no racial restriction on who can vote in the election for OHA trustees.
Later in year 2000 the U.S. District Court in Honolulu, Judge Helen Gillmor presiding, ruled that there can be no racial restriction on who can run as a candidate for OHA trustee. The case was CV 00-00514 HG-BMK Arakaki et. al. vs. State of Hawaii et. al, and OHA as intervenor. I was honored to be among the multiracial group of 13 plaintiffs including 3 Native Hawaiians. We won.

Governor Cayetano ousted all nine OHA trustees on grounds they had been illegally elected. In the election of November 2000 I ran as a candidate for OHA trustee, along with 95 other candidates for the 9 seats. There were at least a dozen so-called “non-Hawaiians” [Hawaii citizens with no native blood] among the 96 candidates; and one of them, Charles Ota, won the Maui seat.

Judge Gillmor’s civil rights racial desegregation decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was upheld by the three-judge panel, with the final judgment filed on July 1, 2003 by Honolulu clerk Walter Chinn.

The judgment concludes: “… The State is ordered to permit otherwise qualified non-Hawaiians to run for office and to serve, if elected, as trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Section 5 of Article XII of the State Constitution and HRS § 13D-2 violate the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, to the extent that they require persons running for OHA trustee positions and serving, if elected, to be Hawaiian.”
What’s the other thing wrong with this bill?

The other major new provision of this bill might very well also be unconstitutional. It says “No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the [OHA] board unless the person is … Not registered as a lobbyist within one year of filing nomination papers.”
To the best of my knowledge there is only one person serving as an OHA trustee or who was recently a candidate for OHA trustee who would be no longer eligible to be OHA trustee under provisions of this bill. I guess your committee chairman has a vendetta against him, and is (ab)using his power as a committee chairman to pursue that vendetta.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution says “The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

So even if this bill might somehow escape being ruled unconstitutional as a bill of attainder, it would clearly not be able to oust the victim of your chairman’s vendetta from his OHA trustee position where he will serve for nearly four more years; because passing this bill after the victim has already been elected and is serving would be an “ex-post- facto” law.

My dear committee members: Does this testimony seem disrespectful? Then consider where the disrespect originated. Introducing this bill, with a major provision already ruled unconstitutional, is disrespectful to the judiciary. Advancing this bill is disrespectful to the oath all legislators take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Using the power of a legislature’s committee chairman or member to press a vendetta attempting to oust an elected official without impeachment and trial on charges of misbehavior, or denying voters the right to decide whether a candidate should be elected despite what some might regard as flaws, is disrespectful to the will of the public who elected him and disrespectful to the whole concept of democracy and due process.

Trash this bill. It has already tarnished your reputations, but you can mitigate the damage.