IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

PATRICK BARRETT,
		Plaintiff

	vs.

STATE OF HAWAII,
BENJAMIN J CAYETANO,
in his official capacity as the GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII,
		Defendants

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND FOR INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought to remedy unlawful and unconstitutional 
discrimination. Defendants, under color of law or the State of 
Hawaii, have established and have maintained state constitutional 
provisions which impermissibly establish and provide governmental 
benefits and entitlements based upon the race of the recipient in 
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 
42 U.S;C. Secs. 1981 and 1983.

2. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the validity and 
constitutionality of Article XII of the Hawaii State Constitution, to 
the extent that it adopts, creates or provides for the adoption or 
creation of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and, Office of Hawaiian 
Affairs and further establishes Native Hawaiian rights all of which 
are expressly intended to provide governmental benefits, services, 
entitlements and other emolument to a limited number of Hawaiian 
citizens based solely upon their race and to the exclusion of those 
Hawaiian citizens who are not a member of the preferred race. 
Alternatively, Plaintiff would show that the agencies created and the 
powers assumed or asserted by Defendants under the provisions of 
Article XII of the Hawaii State Constitution are individually 
violative or the United States Constitution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and other 
relief arisinq under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. Plaintiff is statutorily authorized to bring this 
action by 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983. Because Plaintiff's claims 
raise "federal questions," the jurisdiction of this Court is founded 
upon 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1931 and the 
Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because all 
Defendants are residents of this District and the events giving rise 
to this claim occurred in this District.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

5. The Plaintiff is a resident and taxpayer of the State of Hawaii.

Defendants

6. Defendant, STATE OF HAWAII, is a State which is responsible for 
the enactment and/or enforcement of legislation which impermissibly 
infringes upon the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiff and 
other similarly situated.

7. Defendant, BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, is a resident and the Governor of 
the State of Hawaii. As the Chief Executive Officer of the State of 
Hawaii, he is sued in his official capacity only.

THE RICE DECISION

8. In February of this year, the United States Supreme Court held, in 
Rice v. Cayetano,_____U.S. ______, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 1055 (2000) that 
the definitions of "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian," as used in 
Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution, are racial classifications. 
Accordingly, this Article, in that it provides for governmental 
benefits, services, entitlements and other emoluments to a limited 
number of Hawaiian citizens, based solely upon their race, violates 
the Equal Protection Clause to the United States Constitution. 
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

First Claim for Relief - Article XII is Unconstitutional

9. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set forth fully.

10. Article XII of the Hawaii State Constitution

("Article XII") was implemented as part of the State's constitutional 
convention of 1978 and subsequent adoption of an amended state 
constitution. No predecessor provision(s) of the same or similar 
nature existed within Hawaii's Constitution prior to creation and 
inclusion of Article XII in 1978. No compelling governmental interest 
was identified to justify differential treatment of Hawaiian citizens 
based upon race in order to justify such racial discrimination in the 
adoption of Article XII. Moreover, Article XII was not narrowly 
tailored to address a specific, identified, compelling governmental 
interest.

11. Article XII establishes, maintains, and/or extends the power and 
authority of the Hawaiian Homes Commission ("HHC"), the Office of 
Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") and Native Hawaiian gathering rights. These 
entities and entitlements are defined as being for the exclusive 
benefit of two racially defined classes of Hawaiian citizens: "Native 
Hawaiians," defined as those descendants of the "races inhabiting the 
Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" of not less then 50 percent of 
"Hawaiian blood" and "Hawaiians," defined as those with any "Hawaiian 
blood." Such use of race to provide governmental benefits, services, 
entitlements and other emoluments, within Article XII of the State 
Constitution, to a limited number of Hawaiian citizens based solely 
upon their race violates the Equal Protection Clause, unless the 
state proves a compelling governmental interest in such racial 
preferences and, as well, a narrowly tailored program for 
implementing such defined interest. Based upon Article XII, 
Defendants have promulgated and enforced various statutes, rules, and 
regulations which have extended the racially discriminatory reach and 
effect of the agencies and authority created or maintained under 
Article XII.

12. Because Defendants' use of race in this manner cannot survive 
strict scrutiny, Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution and all state 
laws, regulations, and governmental rules emanating therefrom are 
void, as a matter of law.

13. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, Plaintiff is entitled 
to a declaration that Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules emanating therefrom 
are void as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution.

14. Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction barring 
Defendants, or any other agent of the State of Hawaii, from creating, 
maintaining, implementing, or otherwise granting preference to any 
person or class based upon Article XIl of the Hawaii Constitution.

SECOND CLAIN FOR RELIEF - OHA is Unconstitutional

15. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set forth fully.

16. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA"), created pursuant to 
Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution, is a state agency that 
receives millions of dollars of state legislative appropriations from 
general tax receipts as well as revenues from activities conducted on 
state owned land.

17. OHA uses significant public funds for the exclusive benefit of 
two racially defined classes of Hawaiian citizens: "Native 
Hawaiians," defined as those descendants of the "races inhabiting the 
Hawaiian Island previous to 1778" of not less than 50 percent of 
"Hawaiian blood" and "Hawaiians," defined as those with any "Hawaiian 
blood." Such use of race to provide governmental benefits, services, 
entitlements and other emoluments to a limited number of Hawaiian 
citizens based solely upon their race violates the Equal Protection 
Clause, unless the state proves a compelling governmental interest in 
such racial preferences and, as well, a narrowly tailored program for 
implementing such defined interest.

18. Because Defendants' use of race in this manner cannot survive 
strict scrutiny, even if Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution is 
not void in its entirety, those provisions of Article XII, and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing OHA are void, as a matter of law.

19. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, Plaintiff is entitled 
to a declaration that Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing OHA are void as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution.

20. Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction barring 
Defendants, or any other agent of the State of Hawaii, from creating, 
maintaining, implementing, or otherwise granting preference to any 
person or class under the authority of OHA.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF - HHC is Unconstitutional

21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set forth fully.

22. The Hawaiian Homes Commission ("HHC") maintained and expanded 
pursuant to Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution, is a state agency 
that controls approximately 12% of the public lands of Hawaii and 
receives millions of dollars from activities conducted on those lands.

23. HHC uses such public lands and funds for the exclusive benefit of 
two racially defined classes of Hawaiian citizens: "Native 
Hawaiians," defined as those descendants of the "races inhabiting the 
Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" of not less than 50 percent of 
"Hawaiian blood" and "Hawaiians," defined as those with any "Hawaiian 
blood." Such use of race to provide Hawaiian citizens based solely 
upon their race violates the Equal Protection Clause, unless the 
state proves a compelling governmental interest in such racial 
preferences and, as well, a narrowly tailored program for 
implementing such defined interest.

24. Even though HHC may have been created and maintained by 
Defendants pursuant to an agreement with, or requirement by, the 
United States, there was, even at the time of adoption of the 
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, no compelling governmental interest 
for the patent racial preferences which the Act provides and 
requires. Moreover, even if such a compelling governmental interest 
existed at the time, the Act and resulting practices are now narrowly 
tailored and, accordingly, violative of the Equal Protection Clause 
of the United States Constitution.

25. Because Defendants' use of race in this manner cannot survive 
strict scrutiny, even if Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution is 
not void in its entirety, those provisions of Article XII, and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing HHC are void, as a matter of law.

26. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, Plaintiff is entitled 
to a declaration that Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution and all 
State laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing HHC are void as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution.

27. Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction barring 
Defendants, or any other agent of the State of Hawaii, from creating, 
maintaining, implementing or otherwise granting preference to any 
person or class under the authority of HHC.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Hawaiian gathering rights are Unconstitutional

28. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set forth fully.

29. The creation and maintenance of the Hawaiian gathering rights 
pursuant to Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution; is a state 
exercise of police power that requires private land be used for 
public purposes, without a compelling governmental purpose nor just 
compensation to private land owners.

30. Such public invasion on private property is available as an 
exclusive benefit to two racially defined classes of Hawaiian 
citizens: "Native Hawaiians," defined as those descendants of the 
"races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" of not less 
than 50 percent of "Hawaiian blood" and "Hawaiians," defined as those 
with any "Hawaiian blood." Such use of race to provide governmental 
benefits, services, entitlements and other emoluments to a limited 
number of Hawaiian citizens based solely upon their race violates the 
Equal Protection Clause, unless the state proves a compelling 
governmental interest in such racial preferences and, as well, a 
narrowly tailored program for implementing such defined interest.

31. Because Defendants' use of race in this manner cannot survive 
strict scrutiny, even if Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution is 
not void in its entirety, those provisions of Article XII, and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing Hawaiian gathering rights are void, as a matter of law.

32. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, Plaintiff is entitled 
to a declaration that Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution and all 
state laws, regulations and governmental rules creating and 
implementing Hawaiian gathering rights are void as violative of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

33. Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction barring 
Defendants, or any other agent of the State of Hawaii, from creating, 
maintaining, implementing, or otherwise granting preference to any 
person or class under the authority of Hawaiian gathering rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:

A. Enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from further 
using public funds in a racially discriminatory manner and further 
prohibiting Defendants from continuing to operate any State program 
or agency which is created by, or based upon, Article XII;

B. Enter a judgment declaring Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution 
void in its entirety or, alternatively, enter a judgment declaring 
the creation and maintenance of OHA, HHC, and for Native Hawaiian 
gathering rights void and enter a permanent injunction consistent 
therewith;

C. Grant Plaintiff at least nominal damages and any other damages, if 
any, proved at trial;

D. Allow Plaintiff's attorney's fees and all other legally 
compensable costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C Sec. 1988, and any other 
applicable authority; and

E. Grant Plaintiff any other just or equitable relief deemed appropriate.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 3, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN W. GOEMANS
WILLIAM S. HELFAND
TRACY B. GLENN
MAGENHEIM, BATEMAN & HELFAND,
P L.L.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PATRICK BARRETT