What makes you think those stats are screwed up? Is it just that only 70 Hawaiian births in 1961 were to nonresidents seems suspiciously low? Well, it was 88 in 1960 (0.51%) and only 384 in 2002 (2%), despite the vast increase in transportation options since then. Either this process of reporting nonresident births as resident births has continued into the 2000s, or just not that many late-stage pregnant women get on a plane or boat for Hawaii.
The number is lower than 70 when you consider that 50 of those were women who lived in Hawaii but gave birth in a different county from where they wee considered a resident.
I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means not a resident of the US. But the Table in the Vital Statistic manuals says it means not a resident of the county where the birth was registered.
The number of births in Hawaii is not outrageously high for it’s population size. According to DL the number should be high because it would include both actual births in Hawaii plus foreign births registered as Hawaiian births.
Here’s population and number of births for several states.
For 1960
South Dakota - 683,000, 17,630
Montana - 679,000, 17,258
Idaho - 671,000, 17,022
Hawaii - 642,000, 17,202
North Dakota - 634,000, 16,594
For 1961
South Dakota - 693,000, 17,530
Montana - 696,000, 17,196
Idaho - 684,000, 16,736
Hawaii - 659,000, 17,578
North Dakota - 641,000, 16370
For 1962
South Dakota - 705,000, 17,092
Montana - 698,000, 16,610
Idaho - 692,000, 16,192
Hawaii - 684,000, 17,982
North Dakota - 637,000, 15,690
Or Hawaii is still masking foreign births by claiming them as domestic.