Most, but not all, formal sovereignty proposals focus on short-range, interim governmental structures, recognizing that given Hawaii's profound economic and political integration into the United States, to have any hope of success or support, any long-term solution must be developed incrementally with the approval of the United Nations. As most groups are focused on some manner of international legal solution, many (but not all) proposed structures are based on the kingdom that existed in 1893, the logical basis being that the undoing of the 1893 overthrow might legally necessitate a return to the pre-overthrow government that existed before 1893. Many groups do include some long-range ideas in their proposals, but it can be said that the immediate focus of the sovereignty movement is generally upon the immediate problem of overcoming what they see as American occupation and/or colonization of the islands.
Since April 30, 2008, members of a group calling themselves the Hawaiian Kingdom Government have occupied the grounds of the Iolani Palace in Honolulu. Led by Mahealani Kahau, who has taken the title of "Queen", and Jessica Wright, who has taken the title of "Princess," they have been meeting each day to conduct government business and demand sovereignty for Hawaii and the restoration of the monarchy. They have been able to occupy the grounds by repeatedly applying for a public-assembly permit.

On July 27, 1973, the then President of ALOHA, Maxwell, sought reparations from the U.S. government for the government and crown lands claimed by the Republic of Hawaii in 1894, transferred to the U.S. government in 1900, and then transferred back to the State of Hawaii in 1959. He specifically demanded the return of Kahoolawe, saying, "Our kupuna [elders] saw it first." He informed the Maui County Council in late 1973 that his organization's "primary objective [was] to seek land or money reparations from the United States Congress".
It is unclear if ALOHA is still an active organization.
Because there was strong sentiment that the second purpose had been largely ignored, part of OHA's charter was to address this issue. Originally, OHA trustees were to be elected only by Native Hawaiians, but in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that this restriction was unconstitutionally race-based. As a result, OHA trustees are now elected by all registered voters in the state.
The OHA Board of Trustees has historically been known for factional infighting that some believe hamper its mission for helping Native Hawaiians.
Ka Lahui opposes the "Akaka Bill" proposed by Senator Daniel Akaka that recognizes Native Hawaiians as a first nation on par with Native Americans and Alaskan tribes, as the group (along with most other sovereignty organizations) sees it as a poor compromise, and believes that the ramifications in terms of international law outweigh the bill's benefits.
Kanahele made headlines again in 1995 when his group gave sanctuary to Nathan Brown, a Native Hawaiian activist who had refused to pay federal taxes in protest of the illegitimacy of the U.S. presence in Hawaii. Kanahele was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to eight months in federal prison, along with a probation period in which he was barred from the puuhonua and from participation in his sovereignty efforts.
Following his release from prison, Kanahele became involved in more specific aspects of nationhood, such as the development of independent banking systems, and the cultivation of relationships with other nations. He holds the seat on the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) formerly held by sovereignty pioneer Kawaipuna Prejean, and has worked closely with Hawaii's current governor, Linda Lingle.
In 1993, Blaisdell convened Ka Hookolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, the "People's International Tribunal", which brought indigenous leaders from around the world to Hawaii to put the U.S. Government on trial for the theft of Hawaii's sovereignty, and other related violations of international law. The tribunal found the U.S. guilty, and published its findings in a lengthy document filed with the U.N. Committees on Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs.
of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal, the current government of the state is illegal, and that residents owe it no fealty or taxes. He advocates a process of decolonization, resulting in a totally independent government that would include all non-Hawaiians living in Hawaii. He uses other island nations who are achieving decolonization throughout the Pacific as his primary model.Laenui has regularly analyzed Hawaii's historical, political, and economic situation on his talk shows, which air on radio and on community-access cable channel Ōlelo TV.
Sai co-founded a Hawaiian title company, Perfect Title, which stated that all land transactions since the overthrow of the monarchy were invalid if superseded by legitimate pre-existing claims; some clients refused to make mortgage payments and lost their property. In 1997, the offices of Perfect Title were raided, and the company was barred from filing any documents with the state Bureau of Conveyances for 5 years, effectively shutting the company down. A jury on December 1, 1999, unanimously found Mr. Sai guilty of attempted theft of title to a house (value approximately $300,000) for his role as an accessory to a man and woman who used his Perfect Title services to attempt to invalidate a foreclosure on their house. For his felony conviction, David Keanu Sai was sentenced to 5 years probation and a $200 fine on March 7, 2000. His appeal was denied by the Hawaii Supreme Court on July 20, 2004.
Sai claimed to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom in a case brought before the World Court's Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, in the Netherlands (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom; Honolulu Weekly item) in December 2000. Although the arbitration was agreed to by Lance Paul Larsen and David Keanu Sai, with Larsen suing Sai for not protecting his rights as a Hawaiian Kingdom subject, his actual goal was to have U.S. rule in Hawaii declared in breach of mutual treaty obligations and international law. The arbiters of the case affirmed that there was no dispute they could decide upon, because the United States was not a party to the arbitration. As stated in the award from the arbitration panel,in the absence of the United States of America, the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not. To take either course would be to disregard a principle which goes to heart of the arbitral function in international law.
Some with a different perspective of the historical record (see "Opposition" below) sharply disagree with the apology, questioning its accuracy and validity.
The U.S. government apologizes:
There has also been something of a backlash against the concept of ancestry-based sovereignty, which critics maintain is tantamount to racial exclusion. In 1996, in Rice v. Cayetano, one Big Island rancher sued to win the right to vote in OHA elections, asserting that every Hawaiian citizen regardless of racial background should be able to vote for a state office, and that limiting the vote to Native Hawaiians only was racist. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor and OHA elections are now open to all registered voters. In reaching its decision, the court wrote that "the ancestral inquiry mandated by the State is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment for the further reason that the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve....Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality".
Of further concern is the implication that claims for hereditary political power are connected to land claims. Proponents of sovereignty assume that if they can show that American presence at the time of the 1893 Revolution was unjust then it automatically follows that the United States owes enormous reparations in cash and land to Hawaiians.
There were three kinds of land in 1893: private lands, Crown lands, and Government lands.
No private lands were seized as a result of the 1893 Revolution. 
Crown lands in 1893 belonged not to any individual or to any group of individuals but to the “office” of the Sovereign. In 1893, The Government of the Republic of Hawai'i provided explicitly that the former Crown lands were Government lands. The Crown lands in 1893 were the last remnant of lands seized by Lili'uokalani's royal predecessor Kamehameha I in aggressive warfare. People who believe that title to the land today is invalid because it is founded on conquest may be hard put to explain why Lili'uokalani's claim was not equally invalid.
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government lands in 1893 were controlled ultimately by the Legislature. Private individuals had no powers, rights or privileges to use government land without Government authorization or to decide how it was to be used. If Hawaiians had any rights or powers regarding Government land, they had only the political right and power to participate in controlling the Government. Most ethnic Hawaiians then had no power to lose; they were a minority in Hawai'i and most of them could not even vote. As the term “sovereignty” suggests, what was at stake in 1893 was political power over the government and hence over the Government Lands and the Crown Lands (which had come under control of a government commission in 1865). Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i. People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality.
Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i.
Although the Apology Resolution passed 65 to 34 in the U.S. Senate and by a two-thirds voice vote in the House, and without much public notice outside Hawaii, the Akaka Bill has generated a higher profile for the issues involved. An organized opposition now challenges the accuracy of historical claims and constitutionality of legislation they view as racially exclusive.
Opponents have called into question the accuracy of the Apology Resolution in that it appears to have been adopted without careful examination of the purported “history” which it recites.
When the Apology Bill was debated on the Senate floor, Senator Slade Gorton asked Senator Inouye:
“Is this purely a self-executing resolution which has no meaning other than its own passage, or is this, in [the proponent Senators'] minds, some form of claim, some form of different or distinct treatment for those who can trace a single ancestor back to 1778 in Hawai'i which is now to be provided for this group of citizens, separating them from other citizens of the State of Hawai'i or the United States?
What are the appropriate consequences of passing this resolution? Are they any form of special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawai'i?”
Senator Inouye replied:
“As I tried to convince my colleagues, this is a simple resolution of apology, to recognize the facts as they were 100 years ago. As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleagues from Washington knows, from the time of statehood, we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that....I can assure my colleagues of that. It is a simple resolution.”
Although there was some controversy as to the accuracy of the second quote, research done by DeSoto Brown of the Bishop Museum, who was originally doubtful, was able to prove its authenticity. A further discussion of the two articles written by DeSoto Brown have been discussed on the Honolulu Advertiser discussion boards
)
)