One of the great challenges in history, I think, is the"why not?" question. Once something happens, proximate causes and long-term roots are usually pretty easy to tease out. But explaining the failure of a cause, an idea, a proposal, is more challenging. Particularly when it seems like a reasonable idea to most, a minor adjustment fixing a festering problem.

At the end of the last Senate session, Hawaii senators Akaka and Inouye clashed with the leadership, the result of which was a commitment by the Republicans to bring the Akaka Bill to the floor for a vote,"up or down" as we say now. It hasn't happened and though Senate Majority Leader Frist's office has reiterated his commitment to the deal, there are now not one but six Republican holds on the bill. House Republicans are also beginning to move to organize opposition, though they don't have the Senate's procedural options of hold or filibuster. Both sides admit that the bill will probably pass if it does come to a vote, unless it gets really bad amendments attached.

The objections to the bill are interesting: the bill itself establishes a process by which a Native Hawaiian governing body can be elected and can begin negotiating status with the US government. The objections, therefore, mostly fall into the"we don't trust the negotiators to protect our interests, so we'll bind their hands now" category:

• Gambling: Nevada's senator raised this one pretty quickly. I will just note that Hawai'i does not have legal gambling, and so most Hawaiians go to Nevada to gamble. Also, one of the largest Native Hawaiian communities in the country is in Las Vegas. Obviously, if gambling were legalized in Hawai'i, Nevada would suffer, at least some. More to the point, the bill already contains language that limits the likelihood of legalized gambling under tribal sovereignty.
• Military Preparedness: Sure, Hawai'i has some very important military installations, and I could see some concern about land use and access. But does Congress seriously think that any future administration would give up bases or training facilities instead of negotiating some sort of trade?
• Liability shield: well, why not? Every other major industry has one, now; why not the federal government? Seriously, though, the Akaka bill allows issues of compensation to be negotiated, not adjudicated.
• Draw money away from existing Native American funds and programs: again, the language in the bill, and the clear intent of Congress is to not let this happen. This should be a non-issue.
• Racial Divisiveness: Instead of" creating new racial category," we should all be melting into one...

  "God created us all in his image and he draws no distinction between us. I think it's an affront to God to draw distinctions among us based on image." -- Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

  The recognition of sovereignty doesn't create a new racial category: it includes a new group of people in an existing legal category, sovereign native. Yes, lineal descent is how membership in the new sovereignty is defined, but that's also how personal property and citizenship is usually passed down, and nobody calls the right of inheritance"racist."
• Constitutionality: since the Supreme Court ruled that Hawaiians weren't recognized as a racial category under the law (Rice v. Cayetano which our current Supreme Court nominee argued on behalf of the Hawaiians, and lost) some have argued that it would be unconstitutional to recognize Hawaiians. That's absurd: the ruling only acknowledged the lack of existing legal standing; it never precluded Congress from recognizing them in the future. Some have even argued that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to do this, but it's been doing it with North American tribes for centuries.
• Effects on Hawai'i, particularly law enforcement and on relations with non-Native residents: While I'm touched by the concern showed by representatives from Oklahoma and Nevada, they're not the ones I voted for. Law enforcement issues are part of the negotiated items, and how those work will depend a great deal on the status of the Hawaiian Homelands properties, which is also a negotiated item. Some have argued for a referendum on sovereignty, clearly hoping it will fail [note: the language of the question asked is biased:" could" not"would" would be more neutral; like the objections noted here, the poll clearly assumes that the Native Hawaiians are extraordinary negotiators who will win every point]. Hawai'i is the most diverse state in the nation, and hasn't had a really stable ethnic mix for about two centuries: we're adaptable, and anyone who says that the status quo is the best we can do is ignoring the fact that status rarely stays quo for long.
• Apology to other Native groups: I can't figure out if this is supposed to be a poison pill to tick off those who fell the US shouldn't apologize for anything or a heartfelt move towards historic reconciliation. Either way, it's irrelevant.

I'm ignoring the Hawaiian independence objections, because nobody in Congress seems to be representing them. I strongly suspect that the bill will get shunted aside again by the nomination hearings, etc., which raises the question of how Akaka and Inouye will respond: the bill itself has strong Democratic support, but I doubt that it's an issue over which Democratic officials will go to war over. A single senator or two can do an awful lot of procedural damage, though, and after six years, Akaka is losing patience with his colleagues.

As I've said before, I think this bill is a good compromise, which will preserve Native Hawaiian institutions and rectify the ambiguity in the position of Native Hawaiians under US law. I also think it quite remarkable that the Republican leadership would let their Senators reneg on an agreement by blocking the floor debate and vote.