The much-needed bill for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians has gone through a flurry of last-minute and significant changes that have created an added hurdle to its smooth passage into law.

Critics may object to the changes themselves, and to the way they were put into place.
The bill’s chief sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, should have brought key members of Gov. Linda Lingle’s leadership team into discussions of the “substitute amendment” negotiated with the Obama administration far sooner than he did.
Not surprisingly, the state objected. And that’s a big problem: It’s essential that state officials support the push for passage, because discord at the top level will be exploited by the bill’s opponents, who have already pounced on this discord as an excuse to kill the legislation.
The amendment was added to what’s popularly known as the Akaka bill and passed out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs yesterday. A companion measure passed a U.S. House Committee on Wednesday, but Hawaiçi senior Rep. Neil Abercrombie stripped out the amendment after hearing of objections from the Lingle administration, which only received the amendment on Monday.
The amendment contains major changes that should have been fully vetted in advance.
They include language equating the relationship between a reorganized Hawaiian nation and the federal government with the way an Indian tribe relates to the U.S. That will rile Native Hawaiians who never describe themselves that way.
At the center of the state’s protest are some more substantive changes. The amendment would give sovereign rights to Hawaiians up front, whereas past bills required negotiations with the state and federal governments to happen first.
Also, the bill now no longer addresses future claims that Hawaiians may make against the state or federal government — it leaves any definition or limitation on claims for separate legislation.
Also, there is new language refining how one qualifies as a member of a Native Hawaiian nation, to include cultural practices as well as ethnic heritage. Department of Justice lawyers favor keeping the recognition bill separate so that legal disputes over the claims language won’t endanger the main legislation, an Akaka spokesman said.
Finally, lawyers maintain that defining Hawaiians in broader terms helps make the case that Hawaiians are a distinct people with national history, language and culture. This leaves the future government less vulnerable to constitutional attacks as a race-based entity, he said.
Akaka now pledges to fully involve state officials in the necessary discussions of these changes. That’s good. Of course, involving them at the beginning — three months ago — would have been better.
The bill is seen as having its best chance of being passed under a Democratic federal administration, but that can’t be taken for granted. It’s been a long road to get this far; there’s no room for mistakes now.