Hawaiian Kingdom was only minority indigenous FWIW at the time it was taken by the US.

The plantations also pre-date the US taking them over.

  The elites promoted the sugar industry. Americans set up plantations after 1850.[44] Few natives were willing to work on them, so recruiters fanned out across Asia and Europe. As a result, between 1850 and 1900, some 200,000 contract laborers from China, Japan, the Philippines, Portugal and elsewhere worked in Hawaiʻi under fixed term contracts (typically for five years). Most returned home on schedule, but many settled there. By 1908 about 180,000 Japanese workers had arrived. No more were allowed in, but 54,000 remained permanently.[45]

At the time US took it over, those oppressed by plantation elites included the Filipino, Chinese, and other minority groups who were segregated and pitted against each other. Despite this, the Hawaiians have chosen a racist program that only lets one of the oppressed minority groups claim the Hawaiian Homelands land grants that help relieve homelessness. This despite the fact the "Hawaiian Homelands" are on state lands and not on reservation lands under which constitutional provisions like equal protection might not apply.

For quite awhile, Hawaii was also the only state in the Union I know of with explicitly racist voting laws. It was not until the year ~2000 (Rice v Cayetano) that the rest of the races on the plantations (including again chinese, filipino, etc) could vote for all the public offices (hilariously in that case RBG showed her racist colors and dissented, denying equal voting rights guaranteed under the 15th amendment).

▲ vkou an hour ago | parent [-]

The elections they were not allowed to vote in was for a board that managed the interests of native Hawaiians.

Those interests were the management of lands that were taken during the annexation, and later returned.

The situation is a bit more complicated than you are painting it. It is generally recognized in the civilized world that descendants of people who owned land have a claim to it, and people who aren't descendants generally don't get a say in its management.

---

There may be a US-specific legal reason for why that was the 'correct' SCOTUS decision, but there is no universal moral reason for why someone who is not a member of a polity is entitled to vote for the leadership of a polity that they don't belong to, and that has no power over them. In this case, there are two separate, overlapping polities - one is the state, and another is a subset of people in a state. One has power over all state affairs, the other only over the property of the polity. Non-members getting voting rights over the latter is like giving me a say in Zuckerberg's estate planning just because I live in his zip code.

	▲	mothballed 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The Hawaiian Homelands are owned by the state, not the indigenous. And the office managing these affairs is a public office. The ethnic Filipinos, Chinese, whites, etc own that land as much as anyone else, and own that office as much as anyone else. The public owners grace the Hawaiians with a racist policy allowing their exclusive use at the expense of denying persons within the jurisdiction of the state equal protections under the law. But only at the graces of the other races allowing it, and at the grace of all races voting for the office managing these affairs. I think you are thinking of something like a reservation where the Hawaiians would own that land. I'm of the opinion there is quite the chance, just like their racist voting policies were struck down, that someday someone of the wrong 'blood' applies to use that state land and they will challenge their denial under 14th amendment. So far I don't think anyone has bothered, but it is certainly on my bucket list for when I'm retired and have the time for a pro se case.