Talk:Hawaii Admission Act

Is that registered voters statistic accurate?

The article states: "Out of a total population of 600,000 in the islands and 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast..."

Where did that 155,000 statistic come from?

Not only are ALL those statistics remarkably vague and imprecise, especially when the turnout statistic can be calculated using the accompanying JPG showing the results, but that on the face of it they show a significant discrepancy with the State of Hawaii's own statistics for the year 1959, which can be found at:

    http://elections.hawaii.gov/resources/registration-voter-turnout-statistics/

Primary elections 1959: Registered voters: 174,274 Turnout: 147,078. General elections 1959: Registered voters: 183,118 Turnout: 171,383.

Did people in Hawaii have to re-register for each and every election/plebiscite?

It gets worse. In 1960 there was a census. After that census was over the Census Bureau prepared this document:

    https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p25-221.pdf

showing its estimate of the number of people of voting age (which at the time was 21) in all 50 states in 1960.

Check out the stat for Hawaii: 321,000.

That's more than double that 155,000 figure; and significantly above even the two State of Hawaii ones for the territory elections that same year.

Not that Hawaii appears to be alone in that regard. See, for example, the stats in:

    https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/us-elections/national-voter-turnout-federal-elections-1960a2014

That in turn affects the boast made in the article: "the highest turnout ever in Hawaii". Whether that claim is true or not I will leave to others to decide, but 140,744 out of 321,000 represents only about 44% of the number of people who COULD have voted. That is NOT exactly a statistic one ought to be boasting about. 122.149.83.102 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing on Motives is unsourced

The claims about the reasons lawmakers were really supporting civil rights for african americans need to be sourced. Claims about the anti-Asian motives of Ms. Campbell need to be reconciled with the claim in the provided source that she is a native Hawaiian. Mrdthree (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

The statehoodhawaii.org webpage makes a bunch of uncited claims and provides no authors WP:USERG. The claims associated with it are editorializing unless published elsewhere WP:OR. http://statehoodhawaii.org/2009/05/12/the-statehood-plebiscite/ Mrdthree (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

This page lacks an explanation of what the Hawaii Admission Act is and what it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AerinZero (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This page needs more information about native Hawaiians and the Statehood decision.

(I agree. Also, a link to the bill, what was the vote in Congress, What day was the law signed, etc. None of the basics are presented, we get straight into the critique of the decsion. That section is really good, but the more basic information is sketchy. Not good)

Who was on the "Hawaii Statehood Commission"? How was the decision made? (Lorrin Thurston was the chairman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honolulu_Advertiser)

Did native Hawaiians have a voice in the statehood decision? There seems to be no evidence of a public referendum on the 1959 decision, only a 'approval' vote after the decision was made.

There is mention of a plebiscite in 1940 as well as some controversy about US soldiers and US citizens being allowed to vote in that decision. In addition, in the 1940 plebiscite the voters were not given the option of choosing to be an independent nation. The territory was redefining its status, and according to Article 73 of the UN Charter the voters should have been given three options: statehood, territorial status, or independence. (Martin)

The UN Charter wasn't signed until 26 June 1945, and so is irrelevant with respect to the 1940 plebiscite. By then, Hawaii had been an organized territory of the US for some 42 years. As such, resident US citizens were free to vote, and members of the Armed Forces have typically voted wherever they are billeted when on organized US soil. In any case, Article 73 isn't the most relevant UN document, Resolution 1541 is. By the time it was adopted, Hawaii was already a state.Cmholm (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is especially important to address the sentiment of the native Hawaiians when discussing the statehood decision. On the NARA site there is a mention of petitions and letters from Hawaiians. And, according to other sites, there is strong evidence that native Hawaiians did not want statehood at all.

In 1897 the annexation of Hawai'i (as a territory of the US) was protested by native Hawaiians in the form of the "Petition against the Annexation of Hawaii Submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1897 by the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Islands". There are 21,169 signatures of Hawaiians on this petition, from all of the islands -- this was more than half of the Hawaiian population at that time. The petition can be viewed on microfilm at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Sources: NARA http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/1999/nr99-103.html Honolulu Star Bulletin http://starbulletin.com/1999/08/10/news/story8.html http://starbulletin.com/2005/07/18/news/story1.html

HCR180 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2002/Bills/HCR180_.htm

Controversy over vote http://hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E1496000730/

Alexandria Martin http://www.fiu.edu/~harveyb/hawaiianstatehood1.html

http://aurora.wells.edu/~fweinberg/aloha.htm

Susurrus 07:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)sshawhan

Perhaps this discussion should be reorganized under the monarchist movement in hawaii. Mrdthree (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to statehood

It is almost certainly correct that the majority of ethnic Hawaiians opposed annexation in 1897. However, at the time less than a quarter of the people traced Hawaiian lineage. When Hawai'i became an organized territory of the US, it became open to relocation by any legal resident of the US, who could then legally vote in local elections. With the loss of independence, demographics became destiny, an issue Tibetans struggle with today.

The United Nations didn't exist during the 1940 plebiscite. UN resolution 742 of 1952 regarding non-self-governing territories didn't spell out placing independence on plebiscite ballots (an oversight rectified by Resolution 1541 in 1960), and was non-binding on members.

cmholm 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)cmholm

It is almost certainly correct that the majority of ethnic Hawaiians supported statehood in 1900. Both of the first two representatives, Kuhio and Wilcox, worked very hard to gain statehood, and the organizations that were previously anti-annexation changed position and worked towards integration with the United States on equal terms.

I think trying to place argument, in line, without references or citations is poor form - I've taken the liberty of removing the unreferenced material. --JereKrischel 07:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was best. I attempted to correct what I saw as glaring inaccuracies in the argumentative text as I found it in the article, and neglected to add my citations. I have no idea what the native pov was in 1897. I worded the initial paragraph above hoping to reduce native nationalists repeatedly editing the main article by conceding a point that is difficult to (dis)prove, while showing that their remaining arguments didn't hold water. I read these sorts of things in the local Maui newspapers so often that I overlooked the fact that that section of the article was blowing npov out of the water to begin with.

---cmholm 04:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)cmholm

Should this link to Legal status of Hawaii?

I see there's a page Legal status of Hawaii, which seems relevant. Should this page link to it? Normally, I'd add a link myself, but I don't know anything about this subject and the alleged controversy. Espertus (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawaii Admission Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215152944/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/48C3.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/48C3.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)