Note

A proposal of the 1978 Constitutional Convention adding a section 7 defining the terms "Hawaiian" and "native Hawaiian" was not validly ratified. Kahalekai v. Doi, 60 H. 324 (1979). In view of the holding, the revisor has deleted the section and renumbered section 8 as section 7 under the authority of Resolution No. 29 of the 1978 Constitutional Convention.

Cross References

Miscellaneous rights of the people, see chapter 7.

Law Journals and Reviews

Beach Access: A Public Right? 23 HBJ 65.

Native Hawaiian Cultural Practices Under Threat. I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 1.

Pele Defense Fund v. Paty: Exacerbating the Inherent Conflict Between Hawaiian Native Tenant Access and Gathering Rights and Western Property Rights. 16 UH L. Rev. 207.

Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission: The Affirmative Duty to Consider the Effect of Development on Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights. 16 UH L. Rev. 303.

The Reassertion of Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Within the Context of Hawai`i's Western System of Land Tenure. 17 UH L. Rev. 165.

Private Hopes and Public Values in the "Reasonable Beneficial Use" of Hawai`i's Water: Is Balance Possible? 18 UH L. Rev. 1.

Cultures in Conflict in Hawai`i: The Law and Politics of Native Hawaiian Water Rights. 18 UH L. Rev. 71.

Customary Revolutions: The Law of Custom and the Conflict of Traditions in Hawai`i. 20 UH L. Rev. 99.

The Backlash Against PASH: Legislative Attempts To Restrict Native Hawaiian Rights. 20 UH L. Rev. 321.

Case Notes

Appellants' contention that native Hawaiian rights were exclusive and possessory was unsupported in the law. 76 F.3d 280.

Native Hawaiian rights protected by section may extend beyond the ahupua`a in which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner. 73 H. 578, 837 P.2d 1247.

Descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited islands prior to 1778 who assert valid customary and traditional Hawaiian rights under §1-1 entitled to protection regardless of their blood quantum. 79 H. 425, 903 P.2d 1246.

Section requires county planning commission to "preserve and protect" reasonable exercise of customary or traditional native Hawaiian rights to the extent feasible when issuing special management area use permits. 79 H. 425, 903 P.2d 1246.

While unreasonable or non-traditional uses of land by non-owner Hawaiians not permitted, western concept of exclusivity as owner's property right not universally applicable in Hawaii; State however retains ability to reconcile competing interests under this section. 79 H. 425, 903 P.2d 1246.

If property is deemed "fully developed," i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always "inconsistent" to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.

It is the obligation of the person claiming the exercise of a native Hawaiian right to demonstrate that the right is constitutionally protected. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.

To establish the existence of a traditional or customary native Hawaiian practice, there must be an adequate foundation in the record connecting the claimed right to a firmly rooted traditional or customary native Hawaiian practice. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.

Where defendant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support claim of the exercise of a constitutionally protected native Hawaiian right and knowingly entered landowner’s property which was fenced in a manner to exclude others, trial court properly concluded that defendant was unlawfully on property in violation of §708-814(1). 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.

Where to be entitled to intervention, appellee organization was required to show that gathering of opae was customarily and traditionally practiced on the subject land and that some of organization’s native Hawaiian members exercised those rights, the record contained sufficient evidence to establish those requisites; [individual] appellee did not show that appellee’s interest was "personal", i.e., that it was clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, where appellee did not assert that appellee or other native Hawaiians had engaged in any activities that might be protected under this section. 79 H. 246 (App.), 900 P.2d 1313.