141 F. Supp. 3d 1106
D. Haw.2015Background
- Act 195 (Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 10H) created a Native Hawaiian Roll managed by a state commission; qualified registrants are defined by ancestry and certain attestations; OHA registrants were added to the Roll by statute without needing attestations.
- Nai Aupuni is a private nonprofit that planned a November 2015 delegate election and convention using the Roll; it received a grant routed through the Akamai Foundation from the state-created Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) but had an autonomy clause in the grant/fiscal-sponsorship agreements.
- The Roll contained ~122,785 names; parties stipulated ~62% of the Roll came from OHA registries (no Declaration One/Two required) and ~38% from the commission’s registration process (attestations required).
- Six plaintiffs (Native Hawaiian and non‑Hawaiian residents) sued seeking to enjoin the registration procedures and the Nai Aupuni election, alleging violations of the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the First Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- The district court held a preliminary-injunction hearing and denied plaintiffs’ motion, concluding plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits and other Winter factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nai Aupuni delegate election is state action subject to the Fifteenth Amendment and Voting Rights Act | The Roll-based election excludes non‑Native Hawaiians and thus is a racially discriminatory public election | The election is private (run by Nai Aupuni/Election-America), funded but not controlled by OHA/state; it does not select public officials or decide public law | Held: Election is private, not a state election; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on Fifteenth Amendment or VRA claims |
| Whether Roll registration requirements (Declarations One–Three / ancestry verification) violate Equal Protection/§1983 (state action asserted) | The attestations and ancestry-based qualifications discriminatorily exclude non‑Hawaiians and burden rights to equal protection and due process | Even if some state action exists in creating the Roll, the Roll is a classificatory tool; state interest in facilitating Native Hawaiian self‑governance is legitimate and classification can meet scrutiny (Mancari or strict scrutiny analysis) | Held: Plaintiffs not likely to succeed; court found insufficient state action for §1983 liability and, in any event, limitations are at least rationally related or narrowly tailored to compelling interests in facilitating indigenous self‑organization |
| Whether requiring Declaration One (affirming unrelinquished sovereignty) and similar attestations compel or chill speech in violation of the First Amendment | Declarations condition participation and thus compel political speech or exclude dissenting viewpoints | Many OHA registrants were included without attestations; plaintiffs could have registered via OHA or removed themselves; no evidence Roll inclusion compelled specific political views | Held: Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on First Amendment claims; no compelled-speech violation shown and inclusion on Roll does not equate to compelled registration or endorsement |
| Whether immediate injunctive relief is warranted under Winter (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) | Plaintiffs argued constitutional violations and irreparable harm to voting and speech rights, warranting an injunction halting the election | Defendants argued lack of state action, insufficient likelihood of success, plaintiffs’ delay, disruption to a large private self‑governance process, and availability of narrower remedies | Held: Motion denied—plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable balance of equities, or that public interest supports an injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary-injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (OHA elections treated as state action)
- Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (private primary functioning as effective public election implicated Fifteenth Amendment)
- Mancari (Morton) v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (Indian preferences analyzed as political/unique-status classification)
- Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (state-action "nexus" analysis)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (receipt of public funds does not automatically convert private conduct into state action)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (government subsidies do not alone create constitutional responsibility for private actions)
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182 (decisional law on compelled disclosure/registration and First Amendment implications)
- Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (Voting Rights Act applies to votes for public/party office)