LPHI Signs Multi-State Amicus | LPNH Judicial Committee Appeal
- Abbra Green
- Jul 11
- 4 min read
The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Hawaiʻi voted on July 8 to join a joint amicus brief filed with the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee in the appeal to the New Hampshire disaffiliation. Six affiliates signed at the time of filing on July 10.
This is a natural continuation from our Resolution Affirming Affiliate Autonomy and Due Process, which the Executive Committee adopted unanimously on June 24. The resolution set out the principles that govern the relationship between the National Committee and state parties. The amicus applies those principles.
Affiliate Autonomy at Stake
On May 25, 2026, the newly-installed LNC voted to revoke the affiliate status of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. The vote occurred in a session lasting under thirty minutes. LPNH received no advance notice. The motion carried no list of particulars with no investigation. The notice of revocation was issued by Chair McMahon on June 4.
The precedent matters to every affiliate in the country. If a state party can be removed at will, without notice, without charges, and without process, then affiliation itself is a courtesy the LNC extends and can withdraw at any time. Our affiliate has spent decades building under the Libertarian Party name in Hawaii. Our validity should not hinge on such loose parameters.
The Arguments Before the Judicial Committee
The amicus brief was joined by Hawaii and five other affiliates. It takes no position on the internal affairs of LPNH. It addresses only the procedural due process model the LNC established in 2021.
Following an earlier dispute in New Hampshire, the LNC formed an investigatory committee in June of 2021 chaired by Pat Dixon, to examine the events surrounding then-Chair Joe Bishop-Henchman's interference in the affiliate. The committee's final report, issued August 30, 2021, followed an exact process that included interviews of the parties involved, review of the record, enumerated findings, and specific recommendations. The founding motion explicitly charged the committee to "set forth a model of investigating internal matters."
In the five years since, affiliates have relied on that model. The May 25 vote discarded it. When an LNC member moved from the floor to form an investigatory committee before disaffiliation, the motion was rejected. When it was moved to require a report enumerating specific violations, that failed too. Our own Chair, Austin Martin, warned the body from the floor that the action was a disciplinary measure taken without notice or opportunity to respond. The vote was cast despite the warnings on the record.
Approved Unanimously
The amicus asks the Judicial Committee to reverse the disaffiliation, or in the alternative to order a Dixon-style investigation as the appropriate remedy. Either result would end up restoring the process the LNC promised its affiliates in 2021.
I presented the motion to join the amicus on July 5. Voting was conducted through July 8, when the motion was carried. The vote will be entered in the record at the next regular meeting of the Executive Committee. Despite our nod to formality, under our bylaws, the Chair holds standing authority to sign on behalf of the affiliate in matters of this kind. The formal ballot was not required. It was taken anyway because our Chair anticipated pushback.
Responses Back & Forth
The morning after the amicus was filed, JC Chair Ken Moellman replied that the brief would not be considered as filed. He cited Rule 2.5 of the JC's Rules of Appellate Procedure and directed each signing affiliate to produce bylaws excerpts or meeting minutes documenting the authority of its Chair to sign. Read more on that exchange and the procedural problems with such a demand.
Martin pointed out that Rule 2.5 by its own text governs petitions, not amicus briefs. An amicus initiates nothing. It only informs the committee that will decide a case already in front of it. For the Judicial Committee to decide whether a Chair may speak is a form of review the Party Bylaws do not authorize. Article 5, Section 5 protects affiliate autonomy from the National Committee and any other committee of the Party. That includes this one.Moellman conceded the point.
An Even Worse Theory
He acknowledged Rule 2.5 applies only to petitions, but pivoted to a different theory. Under Rule 7.1, sustaining members may file amicus briefs. Because state affiliates are neither members nor sustaining members but a separate class under the Bylaws, Moellman now argues that no organization can file an amicus at all. Individual sustaining members of the six affiliates could refile in their personal capacity, provided each proves sustaining membership.
The problem was not the specific rule cited, but the underlying instinct to shut affiliates out of a proceeding that will decide affiliate rights. Rule 7.1 in its current form is the result of a recent amendment to what was previously Rule 5.1. The old rule permitted "members" to file amicus briefs. The amendment added a single qualifier, "sustaining." Nothing in that amendment however excluded affiliate parties from filing.
Moellman’s take ignores hierarchical authority. The bylaws provision governing appeals is Article 5, Section 6, which states that the Judicial Committee
"shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and submit evidence and argument."
That right is conferred by the Bylaws, and therefore supersedes 2.5, 7.1, 5.1 and any other subordinate rule. A committee rule cannot and must not restrict a bylaws-level right.
State affiliates and their members are literally the most "interested persons" in a disaffiliation case, because the precedent it sets affects the security of every affiliate's status. If disaffiliation becomes reality for an affiliate, state membership on the individual level is also dissolved. The drafters wrote more broadly in this section because they were deliberately referencing a broader class.
Moellman's latest take is that "interest" indicates having a "direct stake in the dispute", and that affiliates are not directly affected, but indirectly. "As repeatedly noted, we are not accepting amicus briefs from any organizations. As repeatedly noted, sustaining members have the ability to file an amicus brief."
State parties across the country have been passing resolutions on this very subject for a month. Wisconsin, Oregon, Delaware, Maine, Hawaii, and more have already spoken through resolutions, and the affiliate count is climbing. We will keep our members informed as the appeal moves forward. In the meantime, we thank the affiliates who have joined us so far in defense of the principles that protect every state party and their rights.
Read the amicus brief here:
Comments