A U.S. Commission on Civil Rights advisory panel, which this year got several new members who are opposed to Native Hawaiian federal recognition, voted 8-6 yesterday to not take a position on the Akaka bill.

The vote was seen as a victory for supporters of the bill, named after its sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i. Akaka bill opponents had been hoping the Hawai'i State Advisory Committee would go on record against the bill.

In July, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission added 14 new members to the 16-member Hawai'i advisory committee, including several outspoken activists against Native Hawaiian federal recognition.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dominated by Republicans and independents, is on record against the bill, but the Hawai'i advisory committee has favored federal recognition.

The purpose of the Hawai'i committee is to advise the Washington-based commission on civil rights matters. Since being reconstituted, it has spent the bulk of its time looking at the issue of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

Those who oppose the bill wanted a vote yesterday to send a message to Washington, D.C., where the U.S. Senate has not yet heard the measure. The House of Representatives approved the bill last month.

But those who favor the Akaka bill said there had not been a careful enough analysis done on the issue to make a decision.

Of the 12 new appointees who voted, which included Democrats, Republicans and independents, six voted for a vote on the Akaka bill and six were opposed.

Both of the two holdovers who voted on the issue opposed a vote on the Akaka bill.

One member of the Hawai'i committee was not present, and Chairman Michael Lilly did not vote, saying he did not need to.

Akaka bill supporters, including the four members of Hawai'i's congressional delegation, have criticized the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, charging it with trying to stack the local committee to reverse its longstanding support for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

CONFLICTING TESTIMONY

The Civil Rights Commission staff in Washington directed the advisory committee to hold a series of briefings statewide to seek input on the bill. The panel received conflicting testimony during meetings held in September.

Lilly said he did not expect the issue to come up again with the current makeup of the committee.

A contingent of committee members led by H. William Burgess, a leading opponent of federal recognition, pushed to have a vote on the issue yesterday. Burgess pointed out that scores of people had testified at public meetings across the state.

"This committee has spent the time," he said. "You've heard enough to be able to decide today."

But Robbie Alm, another committee member, said he believed current members needed to have more time to analyze the data if it wanted to make a recommendation. Alm also said he believed the discussion was a futile one.

"I think, frankly, that the Civil Rights Commission has made up its mind," Alm said.

'WASTED THEIR TIME'

In arguing against a vote, several committee members said the Akaka bill is a political issue and not one dealing with civil rights.

Burgess rejected that argument. "This bill is about civil rights. What could be more important than a bill that could deprive the citizens of a part of this state?"

Committee member Vernon Char said he felt obligated to vote up or down on the matter. "We're charged with a duty, we should all stand up," he said.

Committee member James Kuroiwa Jr. said he was disappointed that no vote on the Akaka bill was held. "You get all these people come to voice their opinion and we're not getting their voices forward," he said. "It's like they wasted their time coming out and giving their position."

Supporters of the Akaka bill see federal recognition as a first step in rectifying the wrongs inflicted on Native Hawaiians when U.S. citizens helped with the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. They also believe federal recognition is needed to stave off legal challenges that have been mounted against Hawaiians-only programs such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs established by the federal and state governments, programs they also believe are needed to rectify the impacts of the overthrow.

POLAR OPPOSITES

Some opponents of federal recognition, however, say programs reserved for the benefit of Hawaiians discriminate against non-Hawaiians and that a separate Native Hawaiian entity could lead to a divided Hawai'i. Other opponents of the bill believe it does not go far enough in addressing the wrongs committed against Hawaiians.

OHA Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona, whose agency has been a key target for Burgess and others opposed to Hawaiians-only programs, said she was pleased by the committee's decision yesterday to not take a position on the Akaka bill.

Apoliona noted that earlier in the day, committee members had decided to focus on the disparity in criminal rights and fair housing. "Those are civil rights issues," she said. "I think now they can get on with their priorities and do their job as a civil rights advisory committee."

Committee member Linda Colburn said she's hopeful that she and her colleagues will now be able to put aside their differences and tackle some of those other issues.

"I think it's a more constructive use of our energies," she said. "There's a lot of talent at this table, and to have it grinding away at impasse time and time again is a waste of that talent."

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.