Ballots are in the mail, and Question 2 is the one most people will skim and guess on. It asks whether counties should be allowed to sell “RISE” bonds, short for resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity: “Shall the Hawaii State Constitution be amended to direct the legislature to authorize the counties to issue resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds to fund public improvements in designated districts, repaid solely by future growth in property tax revenues within those districts, not by increasing real property tax rates, where such bonds are excluded from the counties’ debt limit and are subject to accountability and oversight requirements as may be provided by law?” The Libertarian Party of Hawaiʻi urges a No vote. We read the full amendment, SB3219 HD3 CD1, and it does not match the ballot question voters will see. The ballot says the bonds will be paid back from growth in property tax revenue, not higher tax rates. It also says they come with accountability and oversight. In the amendment itself, the “no higher rates” promise is missing. It appears only in the findings at the front of the bill, which are not part of the constitutional amendment. The words “accountability” and “oversight” do not appear are also missing from the amendment. The ballot says only that such rules may be provided by law, so a future legislature could decide to write none. The biggest change is the debt limit. Hawaiʻi’s constitution caps county debt at 15 percent of a county’s assessed property value. Question 2 adds RISE bonds to the list of debt that does not count toward that cap. Other bonds on the list count as excluded only to the extent they are actually repaid from their dedicated source, and the bill’s findings say the same will hold for RISE bonds. The amendment itself drops that condition and excludes the bonds outright. It sets no ceiling, requires no public vote and has no expiration date. Supporters say the money comes from new development, but the findings also say it comes from rising values of existing properties in the district. If your home gains value inside one of these districts, the tax on that gain goes to bondholders instead of the county budget. Those costs stay while the revenue is spoken for. The Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi warned that if a development does not deliver as advertised, the government remains on the hook. The amendment is silent on what happens to a county’s budget and credit when a district falls short. Hawaiʻi Public Radio reports that tax increment bonds in Paradise, California defaulted after a wildfire destroyed much of the town in 2018. The campaign for Question 2 is selling something much smaller than the amendment. It is run by RISE Together Hawaiʻi, a committee that Pacific Resource Partnership formed in August. PRP is a consortium of the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters and more than 250 contractors who employ them. Its ads, “Next Time” and “Road Between,”show crumbling roads, old bridges and pipes, and a young mother driving over potholes to deliver medicine to hospice patients. The amendment allows any public works, public improvements, or “other actions necessary for housing and community development,” and it defines community development to include buying land and buildings for projects that advance “a community’s values, culture, and vision.” Civil Beat notes the financing could also go to dams and power facilities, with a nod toward cellular service. The ads also never mention the Honolulu rail line, even though lawmakers pointed to development around the rail as the reason for the bill. The committee, “RISE Together Hawaiʻi” has raised $1.8 million, with $1.5 million from the carpenters’ union and the rest from Operating Engineers Local 3, the Hawaiʻi Realtors PAC and the Hawaiʻi Laborers Union PAC. The people paying for the ads build housing, roads and bridges for a living. Hawaii News Now reported that the measure covers roads, bridges and water systems that housing developers have until now paid for upfront. The legislature’s study recommended passing this amendment first and then loosening the existing tax increment laws. That would allow districts that are not connected, let money from wealthier areas pay for projects elsewhere, and capture some state-level tax revenue. The ballot leaves most of the critical details out of the question presented. Voters are being asked to approve the first step of a plan even though the later steps sit in the bill’s findings rather than the actual statute. Counties already have the ability to do this kind of financing, but the attorney general says the constitution needed a change first. The debt limit is written into the constitution, and a statute can’t override it. Housing in Hawaiʻi is expensive because of slow permits, restrictive zoning, layered land use rules and the compliance costs that follow. Counties can resolve every one of those issues better without a constitutional amendment or a bond. Vote No on Question 2 The governor and the county mayors are all urging a Yes vote, while Chairman Austin Martin suggests changing zoning laws instead of borrowing, calling it “a free and practical approach”.They are asking voters to exempt county borrowing from the limit that constrains it, based on a ballot summary that promises oversight the amendment does not contain. Vote No on Question 2. Ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m. on November 3.

The Hawaii Elections Commission that oversees Chief Election Officer Scott Nago has not met in four months. On October 16, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard why. Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay petitioned the court to order the Office of Elections to provide the staff support that Hawaii requires. The hearing was set to private after its livestream on the State YouTube account, but thankfully a good citizen captured it on screen recording: The commission last met on June 10. Members agreed to return on June 24, but then-Chair Michael Curtis canceled that meeting without a commission vote. McKay told the court she asked the office for support nine times between July and September. Two requests were refused in writing and seven went unanswered. This is the same chair we reported shutting down testimony and blocking motions to remove Nago. The body that hires and fires Nago is now sidelined entirely, and a Justice noted it owes him a public performance review within two months of the general election. Moving Goalposts In July, the office said only a chair could call a meeting, or the commission had to vote first. With no chair, they knew that was impossible. Days before the hearing, its position became that five commissioners must request support. The court called it substituting one impossibility for another, and specifically told counsel it seemed the office was doing whatever it could to prevent a meeting. The office holds every commissioner’s private email address. Its counsel said it will not release them without commission agreement or a court order, calling them sensitive. Commissioners do not have state email addresses. Counsel also admitted the office did not forward meeting requests sent to the general commission email, even though the commission voted in 2024 to share all correspondence with every commissioner. The Attorney General Problem In January we reported that the Attorney General’s office represents both the accused and the commissioners. The AG invoked privilege to close discussion of the lawsuits against Nago and Curtis, and it tried to manage the Sunshine Law complaints filed against the commission, including Commissioner Cushnie’s. Every time the office’s counsel was asked why staff had not acted, the answer led back to the commission’s lawyer. Staff were told by commission counsel not to distribute commissioner correspondence. Asked why no one had emailed the commissioners to ask if they wanted a meeting, counsel said staff consulted commission counsel and that it “wasn’t called for.” Asked why the office couldn’t send that email the same day, he said it was not the office’s place and that it had consulted counsel for the commission. He identified that counsel as a deputy attorney general assigned to the commission. So the lawyer whose client is the commission advised the office that was refusing the commission’s request for support, and the commission has not met in four months as a result. One Justice called it “unheard of” for a lawyer to take this role and noted nothing in the record shows the lawyer obtained the client’s consent. Another Justice asked whether there is a conflict of interest between the Office of Elections and members of the commission. Counsel said he could not speak to the details. The court questioned why the deputy attorney general was not in court, given that the commission was joined as a party in the court’s October 5 order. The Concessions Under questioning, the office’s counsel agreed that scheduling a meeting is not board business and would not violate the Sunshine Law. He agreed a simple email asking commissioners whether they want a meeting would work, but no such email has gone out in four months. He said the office would not send one without a directive from the court. A justice asked, “Why do you need a direction?” and added that staff support “doesn’t necessarily mean sitting on your hands.” In March, Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chairman Martin called for a chair who respects the law and Robert’s Rules of Order, urging them to adopt basic rules of procedure. At the hearing, the office again questioned whether the commission validly adopted them. A justice noted the commission has operated under them since February and its own lawyer never objected. Cushnie pointed out that under Robert’s Rules, any commissioner can call a meeting when there is no chair. McKay’s closing statements noted that commission minutes show it ran without a chair from 2004 to 2007. What Comes Next The court took the matter under advisement. The general election is November 3. The commission’s open items include the unresolved reconciliation findings from 2024 and the federal voter roll dispute, which we have covered since January. We will keep you updated.

Region 1 sent Austin Martin to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) specifically to provide oversight. He did the job well. He blew the whistle on a breach of members’ personal data that forensic investigators later confirmed, a Treasurer’s admission of undisclosed conflicts, and a lawsuit against the Party’s former Chair that directors were not allowed to read before it was filed. The LNC answered with two censures, a gag on his list access, and now a 236-page report (counting linked content) from a Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) demanding his resignation. The SIC adopted it October 15, voting 4 to 0 on nine of its ten specifications and 3 to 1 on the tenth. The full LNC votes October 20 at 8:00 PM ET. Amanda Griffiths, whose name appears in the statements charged, sat on the committee and voted on them. The accused investigate their accuser. Exhibit A: Martin’s Beliefs The SIC’s appendix points readers to austinmartin.exposed, a public website whose name announces the verdict. This is the bulk of the page count. This was not attached as its own file, but as a website that can presumably be edited after adoption. The site says, “generated August 7”, five weeks before the SIC existed, and names no author. It is built as a prosecutor style brief, with a loose one-line justification under each exhibit. One such exhibit (A.4-III-2) is a July 20 post: “Anyone defending socialism, communism, or Antifa at all in the LP should be understood to be one of them. Expose them. Do not let them hide.” The claim for including this is that it contributes “negatively to party culture and values of tolerance for diverse libertarian perspectives.” Holy infiltration Bat Man! Saying socialism doesn’t belong in the Libertarian party violates the Party’s tolerance for libertarian perspectives? Socialism and communism rest on taking property by compulsion. Calling that anti-libertarian is not a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. It is the Non-Aggression Principle in action. Another exhibit (A.4-III-3) is literally a prayer posted to his personal X account: “Father God, please turn your attention to the members of the LNC, who abuse and do harm to those who seek to do good. They persecute without cause... If they can be saved, I would have you save them... and help me not to sin in my fury against them.” The justification for this one is a “religious invocation calling for divine retribution” that “fails to contribute positively to LNC culture and values.” A Christian asked God to save his opponents and to keep him from sin, and the SIC dossier calls that misconduct. It gets worse. On August 5, 2026, Martin replied to another user who objected that Martin’s prayer was “unbiblical”. Martin responded with Biblical quotes: “Can you even read, or are you just making it up? ‘Remember that I stood before you to speak good on their behalf, to turn away your wrath from them. Therefore... do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger.’ Jeremiah 18:20-23 ‘Cover their faces with shame, Lord, so that they will seek your name. May they ever be ashamed and dismayed; may they perish in disgrace. Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord—that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.’ Psalm 83:16-18 ‘Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath.’ Romans 12:19 Asking for salvation for enemies or their removal as an obstacle is wholly biblical and proper. I have not asked God to “kill” anyone by praying for deliverence from the brood of vipers. We all need Jesus, as we all barely understand what we are doing.” ~ Exhibit BL.4.1-28 This quote is included as a violation of Bylaws Article 4.1 (the non-aggression principle). Its note says the passages call for enemies to be “overthrown” and to “perish in disgrace,” and that Martin “distinguishes between asking God to ‘kill’ and praying for their ‘removal as an obstacle,’ suggesting the latter is the operative request.” Quoting a Bible verse that tells believers to leave vengeance to God is literally presented as evidence of the initiation of force. Exhibit BL.4.1-7 is a September 2025 reply on X: “The use of force is not always wrong. The philosophical justification of its use is always based on the facts of the circumstances.” The website’s note on this one says the post “contradicts the Statement of Principles requirement (Bylaws Art. 4 Sec. 1) that Party members certify opposition to initiating force to achieve political or social goals,” and calls it “an endorsement of force contrary to foundational Party membership criteria.”, but the sentence quoted never mentions initiating anything at all. Neither exhibit is among the ten charged specifications, which was probably good for the self-preservation of the SIC. However these are prominent inclusions in the report and is a major source on which the SIC relied to "investigate" unspecified “complaints” against Chairman Martin. Pity Party: Hurt Feelings on Display What’s so “damaging” to the organization? This LNC claims it is “one that no reasonable person would serve on, because they would be ‘abused’ so regularly.” They claim Martin’s opinions and duties create “a hostile work environment.” One member “regretted having run”. In case you can't tell yet, those are feelings. The Code the SIC enforces bans conduct “that may be perceived by others” as harassment, so the offended party decides what counts as “harassment”. See the problem? On this committee the offended parties are also the judges. Martin has been criticizing exactly this problem for over a year, which is now being also being framed as a violation of policy. Martin has previously been banned without process, appeal, votes, or due process from nearly all public-facing party forums due to the same dynamics. If he criticizes the administration of a group as one of its directors, the criticism is counted as a violation summarily without trial, and just like that, a quarter of the LP is censored without recourse. Anyone who complains about it gets the same treatment. This is the dynamic that led Martin to describe his colleagues as “speech-nazis”, a descriptive label, not a mere pejorative. The SIC knows the rule it is breaking. Their Conclusion says “vigorous disagreement, sharp criticism of leadership, and dissent from the majority” are ordinary features of a governing board, and that the Code “does not prohibit any of them.” It even describes criticism of the New Hampshire disaffiliation as “protected dissent.” Then it adopts a dossier that treats a question about a compromised LNC as undermining the organization while claiming his religious views and his opposition to socialism is intolerance contrary to libertarianism. The same pattern shows up with the term “extreme prejudice.” The report quotes Martin saying, “I didn’t threaten violence. I promised to forcibly remove you,” but then says he was “not willing to clarify”. He explained it in public as permanent removal from the Party, “I did not call for physical violence. I called for removal,” and as “finality of judgement with no chance for appeal.” When asked by the SIC, he told them the missing word they are trying to read into his language is “terminate.” (40:05) Martin’s interview is on LPHI’s YouTube channel. The dossier skips his explanations pretending they do not exist. The report says he resumed the language “within weeks” of taking his seat, though he had used it with the same meaning for months (Exhibits BL.4.1-4, BL.4.1-5, BL.4.1-6, and BL.4.1-14 show the phrase in September and October 2025). McGee, The Unprincipled Little Man McGee chaired the SIC. He is the LNC Secretary who moved the Code of Conduct Martin is charged under. As Secretary he receives complaints, and he told Martin during the interview that he never received the ones Martin sent. He keeps the records the report relies on and holds the sealed key to every complainants’ name. If the LNC adopts his report, he becomes one of its two trial managers, alongside Griffiths. Griffiths works with and lives near Kyle Davis, (accused of breaching the LNC data and attempting to acquire LPHI data). She and Davis are close friends and associates. Together, they led the attempted hijacking of the 2025 Hawaii Convention to try to remove Martin as Chair. Griffiths handled Chair McMahon’s motion to form the SIC. She voted on October 8 to cut Martin’s list access while the investigation was taking place. Griffiths is also named as a target/victim in the report. Additionally, one of the two outside members attended only two of fourteen interviews and missed Martin’s. Nobody on the SIC recused themselves from the adoption vote. He asked McGee for one example of him attacking someone’s immutable characteristics. McGee answered: “You haven’t attacked anyone’s immutable characteristics from what I can tell.” (15:27) Three days later, McGee signed a Conclusion claiming the opposite. By McGee’s own standard, truth is the distinction between ad hominem attacks and descriptions, but the report never asks whether the labels Martin used fit the people he applied them to. In September 2025, in the Roos appeal, McGee told the Judicial Committee that the LNC is not bound by the Statement of Principles, that it is not “a self-executing disciplinary code,” and that treating it as one “could have dangerous future implications.” The brief even warned that leaders could be “censured for misstating a fact in a press release or even a personal remark.” A year later, he chairs a committee that charges Martin over personal remarks on personal social media, and uses the membership pledge as a disciplinary code to accomplish it. Martin told the committee McGee “swore up and down” the Code would not be used to police members’ opinions. (35:06) The Statement of Principles bind Martin, but not anyone else on the LNC. We agree that Article 4 binds every LNC member, but McGee argues the opposite as long as it’s convenient. Rush Job On October 11, the day before the SIC heard from Martin, Chair Evan McMahon called a special meeting for October 16 to act on a report that did not yet exist. Martin was never sent the call, because staff had dropped him from the lists, which the LNC’s technology chief later called an administrative error. Region 1 Alternate Sonja Feintech raised a point of order citing the five-day notice rule, and McMahon ruled the meeting void. On October 15, he called a new one for October 20. Click here to register to view the meeting over Zoom. If Martin does not resign, the SIC asks the LNC to take three steps at its October 20 meeting. First, adopt the four charges and ten specific counts against him, and order him to appear for trial November 21 at 5:00 PM ET “to show cause why he should not be disciplined, up to and including suspension and removal from office.” Second, adopt the SIC’s report. Third, suspend his right to post on the LNC email lists and to vote on National Committee business from the day he is notified until the case ends, with the Region 1 Alternate exercising both. The report goes far beyond a list of charges. It states that Martin “has violated” the rule against attacking board members and describes conduct without charges as “also considered” violations. It asks the LNC to treat it as “evidence toward the severity” of his violations, even though the LNC is not asked to vote on it. If the report passes, every member who votes yes goes on record behind those findings before any hearing begins, and Martin will be tried by a body that has already adopted them. The Seat Belongs to Region 1 Bylaws Article 7, Section 8 says a Regional Representative “may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties that constitute the subject region.” The report points to no bylaw that lets the LNC remove a Representative. Its only authority is a consent clause in the Region 1 Agreement that Martin signed as LPHI Chair, which it treats as an act of “affiliate parties” through the “creation and/or signing” of the Agreement. Region 1’s Chairs withdrew that consent, 10 to 0 with one abstention, “to the full extent the Agreement allows.” Martin told the committee this during his interview: “The LNC does not have power to remove region reps.” (58:36) Removal is not an option the LNC holds. Cutting off his communication is in effect the same as suspension, and the consent behind it is narrow. According to the report, the Chairs agreed to suspension during the investigation, and only “if necessary to protect the LNC from breaches of fiduciary duty.” The investigation is over, one charge is fiduciary, and none involves Martin’s voting record. LNC Chair McMahon ruled in September that a motion to suspend Martin’s email was out of order “as a suspension of a member’s right without due process,” according to Region 1’s resolution. The October 8 ballot then limited his forwarder access with no charges, no notice, and no hearing, and passed with twelve votes. Griffiths had said in July that list access should not be revocable “at any time without any process”, but she voted for it anyway. Policy Manual §1.02(7), as Feintech quoted it, requires email notice to every member, and the voided October 16 meeting showed what happens when a member is dropped from the lists. The LNC cannot silence a Region’s voice without voiding its meetings. The Bylaws leave one avenue, which is Region 1, and their chairs have spoken up. They chose Martin, loud and clear. As Chairman of the 2026 Special Convention, Martin allowed dissenting minority opinions to be heard. Call to action Contact entire.lnc@lp.org and your LNC Regional Representative before the October 20 vote at 8:00 PM ET. Demand that they vote no on adopting the report, restore Martin to every LNC list, and answer Region 1’s resolution in a meaningful way. You can also register to attend their Zoom meeting. LPHI’s members overwhelmingly approved Martin as their Chair. Region 1 elected him unanimously. We’re not going anywhere.

On September 12, 2026, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii adopted a complete revision of its bylaws and a new party platform at a special convention held in Hilo, Hawaii. The bylaws passed 11 to 1 with one abstention, above the 10 votes needed for two-thirds. The platform passed unanimously. This win came after much effort. At the 2023 State Convention, the outgoing Executive Committee asked the party to “fix the bylaws”. When the proposed revisions reached the floor of the 2025 State Convention on August 30, the body postponed both the bylaws and the platform and called a special convention to take them up again. The Bylaws & Platform Committee kept working through the rest of 2025 and into 2026, held its meetings on video so members could follow along, and delivered its final reports to the Executive Committee on July 20, 2026. Fourteen credentialed members took up the reports in the Mokuʻola room at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel. The convention opened at 11:21 a.m. and adjourned sine die at about 2:25 p.m. The bylaws passed before lunch and the platform passed after it. Watch the Special Convention The New Bylaws Read the full text on our Bylaws page. The largest structural change is the creation of a State Committee. The Executive Committee is now the four elected officers, and the State Committee adds county chairs and, when needed to keep the total odd, one at-large member. That structure supports a new article on county affiliates which sets the requirements for recognition, requires financial reporting to the State Treasurer, and gives affiliates written notice and at least 30 days to fix a deficiency before any disaffiliation vote. The bylaws also now cover special conventions and allow in-person, electronic, or hybrid meetings. Membership and discipline now follow defined rules. Members join at the Sustaining or Lifetime level and affirm the non-aggression principle. An anti-infiltration policy lets the party defend itself against coordinated efforts to undermine it, and no adverse action can be taken without notice, a chance to respond, and a recorded vote. Discipline starts with a good-faith attempt at resolution and moves to written notice and a hearing where the accused may present evidence and bring counsel. Any penalty needs two-thirds of the entire State Committee. Emergency suspensions lapse after 30 days without a hearing, and members may appeal. Future amendments require 60 days of notice and a two-thirds vote. The New Platform Read the full text on our Platform page. The convention adopted the new platform as a complete substitute for the 2015 platform. The old document had seven planks. The new one has thirteen, and it restates the party's philosophical foundation more clearly around the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. Every subject from 2015 carries forward, with some consolidated where they overlapped. The platform adds new planks on freedom of speech, privacy rights, the right to self-defense, medical freedom, parental rights and educational choice, community autonomy, environmental policy, and foreign entanglements. It draws on Hawaii's own history, including mālama ʻāina in the environmental plank and respect for traditional Hawaiian medicine. The omissions clause remains, so silence on an issue is never read as approval. Mahalo Thank you to the members of the Bylaws & Platform Committee: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Ken Schoolland, and Bryce Thon, with Silas Martin assisting on formatting the final reports. Thank you also to every member who sent feedback on the drafts and to everyone who made the trip to Hilo. We also thank Don Johnston, a member of the party since the mid-1970s, who sponsored a major portion of the day's proceedings. The new bylaws took effect when the convention adjourned, and were sent promptly to the Hawaii Office of Elections. Support our efforts toward a freer Hawaii:

By: Nick Zehr Every ten years, Honolulu residents get an opportunity that receives surprisingly little attention: the chance to reconsider the basic rules governing the City and County of Honolulu. The Revised Charter requires a Charter Commission every decade to review City government and propose amendments for voters. Unlike ordinary legislation, these amendments change Honolulu’s foundational governing document. Once adopted, they can shape City government long after the officials who proposed them have left office. That makes the Charter review especially important from a libertarian perspective. A city charter should not simply be a wish list of things we would like government to accomplish. It should establish the rules governing government itself: defining its powers, protecting individual rights and property, maintaining transparency, restraining spending and extraordinary authority, and ensuring citizens have meaningful ways to hold their government accountable. I participated in this Charter Commission cycle with those principles in mind. What I Proposed I submitted ten proposed Charter reforms centered on a straightforward question: How can we better constrain government and protect individual liberty? My proposals addressed eminent domain, citizen initiative and referendum, emergency powers, special funds, rail debt and spending, zoning and permitting, City land transactions, the Salary Commission, government transparency and public records, and recall of elected officials. Although these proposals addressed different parts of government, they shared several themes: stronger property rights, greater citizen control, fiscal restraint, transparency, due process, and meaningful limitations on government authority. Many did not survive the Commission process. Instead, Honolulu voters will receive 20 Charter questions covering everything from food subsidies and new government offices to ranked-choice voting, housing policy, privacy, public hearings, and government administration. So what do those amendments look like through a libertarian lens? Rather than simply asking whether a proposal sounds beneficial, I think several questions are more useful: Does it expand or constrain government power? Does it protect individual liberty and property? Does it increase compulsory spending? Does it treat individuals equally under the law? Does it improve transparency or accountability? And, perhaps most importantly, does this policy really belong permanently in the City Charter? Here is how the final ballot looks when viewed through those principles. Question 1: Food Security Fund This amendment would create a sixth Charter-mandated special fund and increase the share of estimated property-tax revenues dedicated to special funds from 2.5% to 3%. Food security and a resilient local food system are worthwhile goals, particularly on an island. The libertarian concern is the mechanism: permanently earmarking taxpayer revenue for government programs, grants, and subsidies. A limited-government alternative would focus on removing regulatory, land-use, processing, and other barriers that make it difficult for local farmers and food producers to compete. Question 2: Guiding Principles & Values This proposal replaces the Charter's preamble with language recognizing relationships with the ʻāina, Native Hawaiian cultural values, stewardship, transparency, and accountable government. Because the amendment does not itself change governmental powers or duties, it is primarily philosophical rather than regulatory. Transparency and accountability fit comfortably within limited-government principles. The question worth watching is whether broad concepts such as governmental stewardship could eventually influence how City authority is interpreted. Question 3: Native Hawaiian & Cultural Stewardship This amendment creates an Office of ʻŌiwi Resources and Cultural Stewardship within the Mayor's office, along with a Cultural Advisory Council. There is a legitimate role for properly managing cultural and natural resources already controlled by government. The libertarian concern is institutionalizing another permanent government office, advisory body, and set of programs in the Charter. Something can be culturally valuable without necessarily requiring another permanent bureaucracy. Question 4: LGBTQIA+ Commission This amendment establishes a nine-member LGBTQIA+ Commission authorized to advise City government, recommend policies and legislation, serve as a liaison, and employ staff. Libertarianism strongly supports equal individual rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The philosophical issue is whether those rights are better protected through neutral laws applying equally to individuals or through permanent government institutions representing particular demographic groups. The latter expands the institutional scope of City government even when the underlying objective of equal treatment is consistent with individual liberty. Question 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Beginning in 2032, Honolulu would replace its current municipal primary/runoff system with ranked-choice voting for Mayor, City Council, and Prosecuting Attorney. This presents an interesting libertarian question. Ranked-choice voting can give voters greater freedom to support minor-party and independent candidates without necessarily losing the ability to express a preference among the remaining candidates. That could be particularly meaningful for Libertarian voters who routinely confront the "spoiler" argument. The tradeoffs include additional ballot and tabulation complexity and whether an instant runoff is preferable to the existing system. Question 6: Constitutional Rights & Immigration This amendment would require HPD policies protecting constitutional rights regardless of immigration or citizenship status and generally restrict assistance with federal immigration enforcement to situations required by law or court order, with verification of the requesting agency's authority. From a civil-libertarian perspective, requiring police to operate under clearly established legal authority and protecting constitutional rights regardless of status are significant principles. The countervailing issue is federalism and whether the Charter should restrict otherwise lawful cooperation between local and federal law enforcement. Question 7: Housing Availability This is one of the most interesting changes from the original proposals. Earlier versions of P170 contemplated an empty-homes tax targeting properties not occupied by owners or long-term renters. That raised substantial concerns involving taxation, property rights, and government attempts to dictate the productive use of privately owned homes. That tax did not make the final ballot. Instead, the amendment declares increasing housing availability and preserving available housing to be City policies. The language that deserves particular scrutiny is the declaration that encouraging the use of existing housing for City residents constitutes a "compelling governmental interest." Increasing housing supply can absolutely align with libertarian principles when accomplished through zoning reform, faster permitting, greater density, ADUs, mixed-use development, and greater freedom for property owners. The concern is whether declaring a broad "compelling governmental interest" could later be used to justify more intrusive interventions into private housing decisions. Question 8: Affordable Housing Revolving Fund This amendment clarifies that repayments, interest, earnings, and proceeds from the existing Affordable Housing Fund return to the Fund. There are really two separate libertarian questions here. One can oppose government housing subsidies while simultaneously recognizing that if the Fund already exists, recycling money returned to it may be more fiscally responsible than continually requiring additional taxpayer resources. This proposal therefore deals less with creating a new program than with how an existing one manages its money. Question 9: Eliminating a Second Property Hearing This proposal eliminates a separate public hearing for City real-property transactions while retaining public consideration and testimony when those transactions reach the City Council. This is the kind of government reform that often receives too little attention. Transparency matters, but more process does not automatically mean more accountability. If two proceedings substantially duplicate one another, eliminating one can reduce administrative expense and delay while preserving meaningful public oversight. Question 10: Housing Functional Plan This amendment requires a ten-year Housing Functional Plan, updated at least every five years. A libertarian critique is straightforward: it adds another government planning mandate. The counterargument is also worth considering. Honolulu already has a housing bureaucracy and housing programs. Requiring that government to publicly articulate its long-term objectives can make an existing institution more transparent and measurable rather than necessarily expanding its substantive authority. Question 11: Grants to Nonprofits This amendment would allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund and Climate Resiliency Fund to award grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations. Those nonprofits may perform valuable work. But government funding of private organizations raises a different question: should taxpayers be compelled to finance organizations selected by government officials? Expanding the number of special funds authorized to make such grants expands that relationship between government and private organizations. Question 12: Outside Funding for Special Funds This proposal allows several Charter special funds to receive federal, state, philanthropic, and other authorized funding. Not all outside funding is equivalent. Voluntary philanthropic contributions can reduce dependence on Honolulu taxpayers. Federal and state grants, however, remain taxpayer money and can encourage local programs to expand in response to outside funding that may not remain available indefinitely. The libertarian implications therefore depend heavily on the source and conditions attached to the money. Question 13: Historic Preservation This amendment expands the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund to include historic preservation and allows money to be spent restoring and maintaining historic buildings, sites, archaeological resources, and culturally significant objects. Preserving historically significant resources can unquestionably provide public value. The limited-government question is whether that objective justifies expanding the permitted uses of a permanently funded government program. Again, something being valuable does not automatically mean government should fund it. Question 14: Maintenance Funding This amendment increases from 5% to 10% the amount of the existing Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund that may be used for operation, maintenance, and management of property acquired through the Fund. There are competing fiscal principles here. Allowing additional spending deserves scrutiny, but government should also maintain property it already owns rather than continually acquiring assets without adequately maintaining them. Responsible stewardship of existing government property can itself be a form of fiscal responsibility. Question 15: Office of Data & Innovation This amendment would establish an Office of Data and Innovation responsible for City data standards, digital privacy, artificial intelligence, and innovation. Creating another permanent Charter-level office raises the obvious question of bureaucratic expansion. But the other side involves increasingly important civil-libertarian concerns. Government possesses enormous amounts of personal information, and artificial intelligence will increasingly affect how that information is processed and how government decisions are made. Strong privacy protections, transparency, and limitations on government use of AI are legitimate checks on state power. The question is whether accomplishing those goals requires permanently establishing another City office. Question 16: Permanent Residents on City Boards This amendment would allow lawful permanent residents to serve on most City boards and commissions. Importantly, this does not give noncitizens voting rights in City elections. It concerns eligibility for appointed boards and commissions. From an individual-liberty perspective, removing an unnecessary restriction on voluntary civic participation has a straightforward rationale. The competing argument is that exercising governmental authority, even through appointed positions, should remain tied to citizenship. Question 17: Board and Commission Quorums This amendment excludes vacancies and non-voting members when calculating quorum and allows most actions to be approved by a majority of members actually present and voting. This is largely an administrative reform. Vacant seats should not necessarily prevent otherwise functioning boards from conducting business. Removing artificial procedural barriers can make existing government less cumbersome without expanding its underlying authority. Question 18: Human Resources First Deputy The First Deputy of Human Resources would become an appointed position rather than a civil-service position. This creates a genuine accountability tradeoff. An appointed deputy gives elected leadership greater managerial flexibility and makes it easier to hold senior officials accountable. Civil-service protection, however, provides insulation against patronage and political interference. The question is which protection matters more for this particular senior management position. Question 19: Charter Commission Support This amendment requires the City Clerk to provide technical and secretarial support to future Charter Commissions. Because the Charter Commission already exists and convenes every ten years, this primarily determines how an existing government function receives administrative support. It neither substantially expands nor constrains City authority. Question 20: Impeachment Accountability This amendment would make certain elected officials ineligible for City office for two years following impeachment or resignation after an impeachment petition has been filed. Accountability following an actual impeachment has an understandable rule-of-law rationale. The more troubling issue from a due-process perspective is treating resignation following the filing of a petition similarly to an actual impeachment. An accusation is not a finding of wrongdoing. Government accountability matters, but so does the principle that consequences should follow established findings rather than allegations alone. What Didn't Make the Ballot? The final 20 questions tell only part of the story. Perhaps equally important is what Honolulu voters will not be considering. There is no major Charter amendment strengthening private-property protections against eminent domain. There is no substantial expansion of citizen initiative or referendum powers. There is no significant new limitation on emergency powers. There is no broad reform of zoning or permitting. There is no sweeping taxpayer protection addressing public debt or major infrastructure spending. There is no major reform of recall. And despite Honolulu's housing affordability crisis, relatively little on the ballot directly addresses the regulatory barriers preventing additional housing from being built. That reflects a philosophical difference over what a Charter should accomplish. Some see the Charter as a place to establish programs, funds, commissions, offices, and governmental objectives. I approached the process differently. What Should a City Charter Do? Once every ten years, we have an opportunity to ask a question much bigger than whether we support a particular government program: What rules should govern the government itself? From a libertarian perspective, a strong Charter does not need to promise government solutions to every social problem. It should clearly define government authority, protect individual rights and private property, guarantee due process, restrain extraordinary powers, require transparency, protect taxpayers, decentralize decision-making, and provide citizens meaningful mechanisms for holding government accountable. The remaining space should belong to civil society. Individuals. Families. Businesses. Farmers. Charities. Neighborhoods. Churches. Community organizations. And voluntary associations of every kind. Reasonable people, including libertarians, can weigh several of these amendments differently. The value of applying libertarian principles is not creating a party checklist. It is asking the same fundamental questions consistently: Does this proposal protect liberty? Does it constrain government or expand it? And is government actually necessary to accomplish its objective? Local politics rarely receives the attention of national politics, but decisions involving our homes, property, businesses, taxes, roads, police, land use, and neighborhoods often affect our daily lives much more directly. Once every ten years, Honolulu gets an opportunity to rewrite some of those rules. We should pay attention. If you intend to vote this year and live in the City and County of Honolulu, please consider the these principles as you vote on the charter amendments. Liberty begins locally. So should accountability.

DISTRIBUTED WITH THE CALL Program & Standing Rules Special Convention of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii Convened by direction of the 2025 State Convention pursuant to the motion adopted August 30, 2025; held in conjunction with a General Membership Meeting and limited in purpose by this call. DATE Saturday, September 12, 2026 PLACE Hilo Hawaiian Hotel · Room Mokuʻola #1, 71 · Banyan Drive, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 HOURS Credentialing opens 10:30 a.m. Call to order 11:10 a.m. Adjournment sine die estimated 4:30 p.m. A SPECIAL RECOGNITION Don Johnston Major Sponsor of this Special Convention The Executive Committee gratefully acknowledges Don Johnston, lifetime member of this Party, and a lifetime member of the National Libertarian Party since 1980, whose contributions in April and July of this year have carried much of the cost of this special convention. Of his membership here he writes: "LPH since 1974 or 75 (too old to remember exact date but mayoral candidate Don Smith signed me up, mentored by Dale Pratt and Mike Rossell)." His gift arrived with a single instruction: to support Libertarian candidates, community meetups, social media and communications outreach, and the growing of the message of liberty. The Executive Committee intends to report back to him on the progress of each. In February 2025, our newsletter asked members for any historical information for the Party's records. Mr. Johnston replied promptly and at length. He wrote of the chairs and officers of the Party's first decades, and of a membership that once numbered in the hundreds. He recalled headquarters that moved from a downtown office to Kapiʻolani Boulevard and at last to South King Street. He remembered conventions in the late 1970s that he helped coordinate at the Maryknoll campus, the Pacific Club, the Ala Moana Hotel, and the Honolulu Club, and the presidential candidates and writers who came through Hawaii in those years. He served at-large on the LPHI Executive Committee and stood for the State House in 1992. Governor Waiheʻe afterward appointed him to a school advisory council, where he was the only Libertarian among thirty-eight appointees. He was elected chair and served seven years. "The LPH has an exceeding rich history from its inception to the 1990s that needs to be included… There are still some early era members around that have more records and recollections than I do. Unfortunately, this is the first time in decades that there appears to be an effort to reach out to them before they are no longer with us." Don Johnston, Lifetime Member of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii The body of this special convention is asked to join the Executive Committee in thanking him. Program & Order of Business Fixed by the Executive Committee under Article VI, Section 3 of the Bylaws. The hours shown are for the convenience of members and are not binding. When an item is disposed of, the special convention proceeds immediately to the next without waiting for the hour shown. The Chair may adjust the hour, length, or timing of the recess to avoid interrupting a vote in progress. The hours for the opening of credentialing and call to order are fixed. Business still pending upon adjournment sine die falls to the ground. Time Item 10:30 am Credentialing opens 11:10 am Call to order, Welcome Report of the Credentials Committee, standing rules, Chair's announcements & sponsorship recognition 11:30 pm Bylaws Committee report; consideration of proposed revision 1:00 – 1:30 pm Recess 1:30 pm Resume bylaws consideration; adoption vote Upon disposition of bylaws consideration Nicholas Zehr: Platform Committee Report Upon conclusion of report Platform consideration and adoption vote 4:30 pm Estimated Adjournment Standing Rules Recommended by the Executive Committee and distributed with the call to be moved for adoption at the opening of the special convention, requiring a two-thirds vote. The special convention is free to amend or reject them. RULE 1 Authority & Scope These rules govern the proceedings of this special convention. They supplement the Bylaws and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.); where they conflict with the Bylaws, the Bylaws control. They expire upon adjournment sine die. Any rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote, but suspending Rule 2, 3, 11, or 12 does not remove the limit that rule restates. RULE 2 Business Limited to the Call Business is limited to the items stated in the call: consideration of the proposed bylaws revision and consideration of the proposed platform. Motions incidental to the conduct of the special convention, such as recess, adjournment, and questions of privilege, are not business within the meaning of this rule. RULE 3 Credentials & Voting Credentialing opens at 10:30 a.m. and will remain open throughout the special convention. Members arriving after the call to order may be credentialed and seated without interrupting business. A member is entitled to be credentialed who has signed and upholds the Party Pledge and whose dues are current. Only members physically present may be credentialed and may vote. The Credentials Committee shall report the number of members credentialed and present. The report is adopted by the special convention and thereafter governs eligibility to vote. Persons who are not credentialed members may observe the proceedings but may not speak or vote except by permission of the special convention. RULE 4 Recognition & Debate A member seeking the floor shall rise, state their name, and await recognition. Debate is limited to two minutes per speaker and two speeches per member on the same question, with no second speech until all who wish to speak once have done so. RULE 5 Time Limits Debate is limited in the aggregate as follows: sixty minutes on the bylaws revision, including all amendments to it; twenty minutes on the proposed platform, including all amendments to it. These limits are in addition to the per-speaker limits in Rule 4 and may be extended by a two-thirds vote. RULE 6 Committee Presentation The Bylaws & Platform Committee shall present its reports through designated reporting members, each of whom may speak up to ten minutes in presentation. Presentation time does not count against debate limits, and a motion made by direction of the committee requires no second. The reporting member shall be recognized to speak last on the main question of the report that member presented, immediately before the vote. This is a right of recognition only and does not close or limit debate. RULE 7 Consideration of the Bylaws Revision The proposed revision is a single main motion to substitute a complete set of bylaws, adopted or rejected by one vote requiring two-thirds of the members present and voting (Article VIII, Section 1). The revision is considered as a whole, and amendments to any Article are in order while it is pending. Once the Chair has stated the question on the revision, it remains the pending question until it is adopted or rejected, except that the special convention may recess or adjourn. RULE 8 Amendments in Writing Any amendment other than a motion to strike a word or phrase shall be submitted to the Chair in writing, signed by the mover, before being stated by the Chair. The Secretary shall maintain the text of all adopted amendments. RULE 9 Voting Voting shall be by voice or rising vote as determined by the Chair. Any member may demand a rising vote. A counted rising vote shall be taken when the Chair is in doubt, when ordered by majority vote, or when demanded by any member on the final vote on adoption of the bylaws revision or on the final vote on adoption of the platform. The Secretary shall record the count of every counted vote. RULE 10 Consideration of the Platform The proposed platform is a complete substitute for the platform now in force and shall be considered as a whole. Amendments are in order before the vote on adoption. Adoption requires two-thirds of the members present and voting (Article VI, Section 3.B(1)) and effects the deletion of the platform now in force, for which Article VI, Section 3.B(2) requires one third or more. RULE 11 Order of Business The Executive Committee has fixed the official program and order of business for this special convention under Article VI, Section 3, and it accompanies the call. The sequence of items in the program is the order of business, and a motion to take items out of that sequence requires a two-thirds vote. The hours shown are for the convenience of members and do not fix the time at which any item is taken up. When an item is disposed of, the special convention proceeds immediately to the next item. RULE 12 Adjournment Business pending at adjournment sine die falls to the ground. Any matter not disposed of may be placed before a subsequent General Membership Meeting or Convention called and noticed by the Executive Committee. RULE 13 Electronic Devices & Recording Members shall silence electronic devices. Recording for personal use is permitted. The official record of this special convention is the Secretary's minutes as approved. Issued by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii.Questions regarding credentialing, dues, or documents: lphisecretary@gmail.com

On July 5th, 2026, the Libertarian National Committee unanimously adopted the Resolution on Tribal and National Sovereignty. We covered it on this blog and were proud to do so. Now, party leadership is telling our members to mobilize behind a group whose goal is increase permanent federal control of land. Hawaiʻi will not be taking the bait. We’ve been sold this trade before. The resolution acknowledged the inherent sovereignty of Native American tribal nations and the Hawaiian Kingdom and affirms that sovereignty came first and outranks the jurisdiction Washington would claim. It grounded that in the federal government's own admission, Public Law 103-150, the 1993 Apology Resolution, where Congress conceded the 1893 overthrow was illegal and that the Kingdom never relinquished its claims. The resolution closed by encouraging Libertarians to explore how best to empower these nations and the Hawaiian Kingdom to reclaim their independence. That is a truly libertarian position. Liberty is inherent, not a gracious offering granted by the government. Letter From LNC Vice Chair National Vice Chair Amanda Griffiths and Region 9 Representative Alex Flores issued a joint statement to subscribers on the reduction of Bears Ears National Monument, pointing members to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for demonstrations and possible legal action. The exchange that followed can be read on the LNC Public List. SUWA is a Salt Lake City nonprofit, not a tribal organization. Its signature project is America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which would designate roughly 8 million acres of Utah land as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System “for the benefit of present and future generations of people in the United States”. Wilderness designation is the most restrictive classification the federal government applies. Once land goes in, it rarely comes back out. It requires no sale, transfer, or return to private native hands. That’s the whole point. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii platform takes a blunt and bold stance on such actions. Plank 1 says the proper role of government is protecting property rights from force and fraud, and that the government should not become a forceful aggressor against those rights. Then it goes further. Where any individual or agency, public or private, has violated a right to property, the platform says the property should be restored to its rightful owner. Restored. Not designated, co-managed, or held in trust by the party that took it. Plank 2 opposes government action granting monopoly privileges to favored persons at the expense of competition, and our preamble opens on “a world where individuals are sovereign over their own lives”. Mere days after telling the world that sovereignty predates and supersedes federal jurisdiction, the national Party is asking members to volunteer in support of a federal land grab. Hawaii Must Break the Cycle Hawaii knows all too well about what happens when native peoples trade in sovereignty. We have receipts going back almost two centuries. The Māhele of 1848 was sold to us as protection. The system included written deeds and secure titles proposed as a modern system that would keep Hawaiians on Hawaiian land. By the time the Kuleana Act of 1850 finished its work, native Hawaiians held less than one percent of it, and foreigners had taken most of the rest inside one generation. Annexation was worse. No treaty of cession ever passed the Senate, so Congress used a joint resolution instead, and roughly 1.8 million acres of Crown and Government lands transferred with no Hawaiian consent and no compensation. Congress admitted all of it in 1993. Then came the “fixes”. Prince Kūhiō brought home the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1920, and with it came roughly 200,000 acres of mostly marginal ground plus a 50 percent blood quantum rule that Congress added. More than 29,000 people sit on that waitlist today, and people die on it every year. Statehood added the ceded lands trust in 1959, which mainly produced decades of litigation over who owes what to whom. The attempted Akaka Bill spent twelve years trying to convert an independent national claim into a domestic dependent one, and plenty of Kanaka killed it year after year because they saw exactly what it was. Every one of those arrangements was sold to Hawaiians as help and ended with less Hawaiian control over Hawaiian land. The pattern is undeniable history. It is the reason Kanaka should not touch federal “recognition” with a ten foot pole. The national party should not be telling our members to line up behind an organization whose stated institutional goal is to seize millions of acres. We Support True Sovereignty We are not indifferent to what happened at Bears Ears. Land was taken by force from the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Ute, and Ute Mountain Ute peoples, and a president moved a line on a map without asking any of them. That is wrong. The libertarian remedy is to transfer the title and give the land back. If the five nations want it held in common, that is their call to make as owners. A monument designation is a fluffy proclamation, revocable by the next pen that touches it. An advisory commission is nothing but a chair at a table the federal government owns. Neither one is sovereign. These options are both merely custody agreements with a fancy label attached. We support the July 5th resolution, and take its closing charge for independent sovereignty seriously. Here is what we would like to see of the LNC: Don't direct members to any outside organization without researching and disclosing that organization's actual policy program. Help the five nations at Bears Ears advocate for the return of title rather than the restoration of a federal designation. Stop using the word sovereignty to sell federal custody. Hawaii knows the difference intimately. For our Kanaka reading this: nothing coming out of Washington under the banner of recognition has ever come without a price attached to it. Hawaiians cannot make deals with the same government that took the land in order to get the land back. Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono. Help us promote sovereignty and liberty in Hawaii:

Bottom Line Up Front: Two laws signed in 2025 put the State of Hawaiʻi behind the payments owed under new power purchase agreements (Act 191) and opened HECO's grid to independent producers starting in 2027 (Act 258). Act 258 requires the Public Utilities Commission's wildfire liability cap rules to carry the Governor's approval. Green appointed the PUC chair in January 2026 and re-nominated a second commissioner. That is two of three seats. Green placed the wheeling bill on his intent-to-veto list, then signed it after the PUC said it would cancel a pending inquiry. A super PAC funded by the carpenters union and more than 250 contractors reported more than $12.46 million on hand and was on television for Derek Kawakami within a week of his entry into the lieutenant governor's race. Green's political consultant and his business partner each maxed out to Kawakami. Their third partner used to run the organization funding that super PAC. Part one followed the money into the Governor's campaign account. A Honolulu banker with a seat on the board of a Japanese megabank introduced Green to JERA. Green signed a Strategic Partnering Agreement in Tokyo in October 2025. JERA has now filed notice seeking approval for a $2 billion LNG plant on Oʻahu with no competitive bidding, justified in part by a savings figure the state itself withdrew. JERA employees, construction trades, Hawaiian Electric executives and Central Pacific Bank officers all appear among the Governor's donors. Governor Green is running for reelection against three Democratic challengers who have reported raising nothing at all. His campaign filed a disclosure on July 6 showing $2,015,884.94 in the bank. That race was decided before ballots went out. The lieutenant governor's race has been poured into by some of the same individuals and entities. The Two Laws Two statutes signed in 2025 made a $2 billion foreign-owned power project viable in Hawaiʻi. Neither one mentions JERA. Act 191, SLH 2025 requires the Department of Budget and Finance to enter into step-in agreements for payment obligations under certain power purchase agreements. It establishes the Power Purchase Costs Trust Fund, gives independent power producers a beneficial interest in the collected revenues, and appoints the electric utility as the department's billing, collection and payment agent. Payment by the department begins no later than two days after it notifies the utility. After Lahaina, the obstacle to new generation in Hawaiʻi was the credit worthiness of the only buyer. Act 191 substitutes the state's balance sheet for that buyer's. Budget and Finance is an executive department and its director serves at the Governor's pleasure. Act 258, SLH 2025 authorized electric utilities to securitize up to $500 million in infrastructure resilience costs. It required the PUC to open a rulemaking setting an aggregate cap on utility liability for economic damages from a covered catastrophic wildfire. Starting in 2027, HECO must let independent producers use its grid to deliver power directly to customers for a fee. An unbounded wildfire exposure on the incumbent utility prices every counterparty contract on the islands. Cap it and the market becomes underwritable, including for a producer who never touches a transmission line. The wheeling provision explains JERA's posture. A producer that can sell across HECO's wires directly to customers does not need HECO to agree to buy anything. That is the context for the company's June 2026 move toward owning its own generating entity. Both statutes open with the same legislative finding, close to word for word: that it is imperative to enable development of affordable clean energy resources, that generating units are being retired, and that replacement resources are urgently needed. They moved through one session and read as one instrument. Bankrolling Both Ends The commission's liability cap rules are subject to the Governor's approval. The PUC is a quasi-judicial body. Its rules do not ordinarily route through the fifth floor for a signature, but this one does by statute. Green has already demonstrated what that leverage looks like in operation. He placed SB 897 on his intent-to-veto list, citing the commission's pending inquiry into wheeling between government entities. He signed the bill after the PUC said it would cancel that inquiry. A docket at an independent commission was disposed of in the course of a veto negotiation, and it was reported as a routine detail of the signing. The body that will rule on JERA's application has three seats. Green appointed Chair Jon Itomura on January 14, 2026, for a term running to 2032. Commissioner Colin Yost was first appointed by Governor Ige, then re-nominated by Green and confirmed to a term ending in 2030. Commissioner Naomi Kuwaye is the only one still serving the term Ige gave her. Two of the three hold their current seats because Green put them there. The Governor signs the statutes that set the terms of entry. He approves the rules that cap the liability those terms depend on, and appoints the majority of the panel that rules on the application. Bankrolling both ends of that arrangement costs a fraction of what the arrangement is worth. The Committee Pacific Resource Partnership is a joint venture of the carpenters union and more than 250 contractors. It funds a super PAC that reported more than $12.46 million on hand entering this year. Within a week of Kauaʻi Mayor Derek Kawakami entering the race, that committee was on television for him. Kawakami has raised $578,690 this cycle. Representative Della Au Belatti has raised $88,517, and $50,000 of that is a loan she made to herself. Independent expenditure committees operate under no contribution limits. They accept unlimited sums from unions, corporations and other organizations, then spend that money on advertising so long as they avoid formal coordination with the candidate. On the energy deal now before regulators, Kawakami told Civil Beat that LNG could serve as a temporary bridge away from imported oil. The Governor's Preference Green has issued no endorsement. On July 21 he went on Hawaii News Now and made his preference known anyway, calling Kawakami a very good candidate. He was less generous about Belatti. Green asserts that any partner he has needs to be ready to work with him. He noted that she had described herself as a watchdog on him, then asked, "watch what?" A governor expressing doubt about the one candidate promising oversight tells voters something useful about what he expects from his administration. Belatti answered the next day. She said she worries about working people being drowned out by interest groups supported by dark money. Hawaii News Now noted that she was referring to the PRP-operated committee spending on behalf of both Green and Kawakami. The Consultants Green's own political consultant, Andy Winer, has given Kawakami the $6,000 maximum. So has Jesse McCollum, his partner at the Wayfinder Group. The two co-founded the lobbying firm in December 2025 with John White, who previously led Pacific Resource Partnership. Asked at launch to name the firm's clients, Winer said they were still working on that. Winer spent six years as chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz before leaving for Strategies 360, a firm Civil Beat has described as diminished since its bankruptcy filing. He has since played a lead role in advising Green. The governor's consultant maxes out to the candidate the governor declines to formally endorse. That consultant's business partner does the same. Their third partner previously ran the union and contractor organization whose committee is buying advertising. Both Sides of the Ledger When Civil Beat reviewed his contributions in March, the money had mostly arrived in August and September 2024, when he was preparing to run for Ron Kouchi's state Senate seat. His largest donors gave $4,000, the ceiling for a legislative race. The lieutenant governor ceiling is $6,000. Civil Beat characterized the Senate declaration as a placeholder until he announced for lieutenant governor. He reported $296,985 raised for the period and $256,333 on hand. The Resort Group, master developer of the Princeville Resort, appears through Jeffrey Stone, Chynna Stone, Kendall Kim and H. Burkley Showe. Developer Stanford Carr and his wife Kathy gave $2,500 each. Eleven senior employees of the architecture and engineering firm Bowers & Kubota gave $10,000 collectively. Shioi Construction's chairman gave $2,500. Highridge Costa's Mohannad Mohanna and Michael Costa gave $2,500 each. Kobayashi Group principals gave $4,000 among them. Ironworkers Local 625, the Central Pacific Bank State Political Action Committee and the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters are all on the list. The carpenters were also, formally, undecided. Asked in March, the union's political director said it had taken no position on the lieutenant governor's race. PRP's Andrew Pereira declined to discuss Kawakami's future and said the organization wanted a candidate with honesty, integrity and a record of public service. However, the committee did not wait for an official position. For a Better Tomorrow entered the year with $12.46 million on hand and had put about $75,000 into television by April 1, plus an undisclosed sum for producing the spot, reaching close to $200,000 by April 20. Belatti has raised $88,517 and $50,000 of it is her own loan, leaving $38,517 from other people. Winer and McCollum gave Kawakami $12,000 between them. Her entire filing is under one percent of what the committee held in January. The Filings Three names in this story appear in the Hawaiʻi State Ethics Commission's public lobbyist registry. JERA Americas is represented by Blake Koshiro through Capitol Consultants of Hawaii, covering the full period from the Tokyo signing through the PUC filing. Pacific Resource Partnership registered Nathaniel Kinney and Andrew Pereira. What Voters Are Being Asked to Accept A $2 billion project with no competitive bidding. A state guarantee of the payment obligations, enacted before the project reached the commission. A liability cap the Governor personally signs off on. A regulatory panel he seated. A savings figure the state itself withdrew. An advisor with a foreign bank board seat and no disclosure obligation. A statewide race shaped in large part by a committee funded by the people who would benefit the most from the project. Ballots are out. Read the candidates' filings carefully before voting.

Bottom Line Up Front: Governor Green signed a Strategic Partnering Agreement in Tokyo on October 6, 2025, alongside Japan's Energy for a New Era (JERA)'s global CEO. A Honolulu banker introduced Josh Green to JERA, Japan's largest power company. JERA has filed notice that it is now seeking approval for a $2 billion power plant on Oʻahu. Green has taken more than $17,000 from JERA-affiliated individuals across 2024 and 2025. JERA employees, construction unions, Hawaiian Electric personnel, and bank executives all appear among his donors this cycle. Civil Beat reported in October that Governor Green was introduced to the company by Central Pacific Bank Chairman Emeritus Paul Yonamine, described as a booster of business ties between Hawaiʻi and Japan and a volunteer advisor to the governor on Japan affairs. Hawaii Business Magazine has quoted him as the governor's special adviser on energy matters. At the time, Paul Yonamine was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Central Pacific Financial Corp., and Executive Chairman of its subsidiary, Central Pacific Bank. He also sits on the board of directors of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation as an outside director under Japan's Companies Act, appointed in 2019. SMBC holds more than $1.8 trillion in assets. Yonamine is its only director from outside Japan. SMBC is one of the three Japanese megabanks that dominate liquefied natural gas project finance. It has financed JERA before, joining JBIC, the Asian Development Bank, MUFG and Societe Generale on a JERA gas plant in Bangladesh. The agreement Green signed in Tokyo commits the State of Hawaiʻi to "leverage JERA's relationships with leading U.S. and Japanese financial institutions." Yonamine is a volunteer. He files no financial disclosures with the State Ethics Commission. He registers as no one's lobbyist. No recusal requirement applies to him. He retired from both the CPF and CPB Boards of Directors on November 6, 2025, one month after the Tokyo signing, but kept the seat in Tokyo. Green's Campaign Contributions Green's campaign filed its disclosure with the Campaign Spending Commission on July 6, covering January 1 through June 30. It reports $69,444.12 raised in six months and $1,924,055.64 in the bank. The governor spent more than he raised and still finished with two million dollars. His three Democratic challengers reported raising nothing at all. JERA executives have been giving to Green since 2024. Henry Curtis of Ililani Media documented more than $17,000 in contributions from JERA-affiliated individuals across 2024 and 2025. The largest came from Erik Montague, JERA's Vice President of Development, who gave $6,000 across four contributions. Montague is named in the Strategic Partnering Agreement as JERA's Strategic Coordinator, the company's designated liaison to the State of Hawaiʻi. The campaign recorded four contributions from James Vigil, Senior Management Executive Advisor and a board member of JERA Americas. Vigil served as Senior Managing Executive Officer for Business Development at JERA in Tokyo before relocating to Honolulu in January 2022. He gave Green’s campaign $1,000, $2,000, $125, and $250. Fourteen Hawaiian Electric executives gave this cycle on January 15. In a single day, the campaign logged $8,850 from HECO and Hawaiian Electric Industries personnel. President and CEO Scott Seu gave $5,000 this cycle alone. Joseph Viola is senior vice president for regulatory affairs. Rebecca Matsushima is vice president for resource procurement. Both gave on January 15. Regulation and procurement are the fight over this project. The same day, construction trades also maxed out their contributions. The Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters PAC gave $6,000. The Hawaii Laborers PAC gave $6,000. Later in the spring HPM Building Supply, Island Structural Contracting, BKF & Associates and GPRM Prestress each gave $6,000. Contractors and trade PACs account for roughly $36,000 of the total. These industries have a reason behind their interest. JERA's proposal projects more than 1,100 temporary construction jobs over three to five years and roughly 170 permanent ones. The bank in the middle of the Japan deal gave $8,000. Central Pacific Bank executives contributed across six entries, led by Chief Financial Officer David Morimoto at $4,500. On June 30, the campaign recorded $1,500 from Nozomi Heenan, listed as Chief of Staff at Paul Yonamine LLC. The Agreement Green signed The Strategic Partnering Agreement in Tokyo on October 6, 2025, alongside JERA's global CEO. The recitals say moving away from petroleum could relieve Hawaiʻi consumers, "saving them an average of at least $340 annually." In March, Matthias Fripp, an electrical engineer who taught at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa for a decade and now directs global research at the pro-decarbonization think tank Energy Innovation, told legislators that the spreadsheet behind the figure had omitted the cost of the natural gas itself. At the March 12 briefing, Fripp testified that a series of errors "collectively inflated the supposed benefits of LNG by up to $1.2 billion". The Energy Office called that incorrect, and in all caps, in a March 13 Instagram post. State Chief Energy Officer Mark Glick told the Star-Advertiser that critics had a fundamental misunderstanding of the models. The newspaper sent him a screen recording. He confirmed the flaw days later while insisting the study was accurate anyway. The office retracted the scenario on March 19 and republished the revised study in May, leaning now on a scenario whose net present value it raised from $150 million to $651 million. On those revised numbers, Hawaiʻi Natural Energy Institute Director Rick Rocheleau says the savings work out to less than a penny per kilowatt-hour. The final recital commits the parties to advancing "the Hawaiʻi State Energy Office's Alternative Fuel, Repowering and Energy Transition Study dated January 2025." The agreement bound the State to advancing the study that collapsed five months later. Initiative (f) calls for "regulatory reforms including, but not limited to, new State directed procurement process for power ..." Nine months later, Hawaiian Electric told the Public Utilities Commission that the JERA arrangement is a pre-packaged deal from a foreign-owned company presented as the only choice. The utility wrote that there is no bidding and no competition for what would rank among the largest infrastructure projects in state history. HECO is not disinterested. It had talked with JERA about working together, the talks fell apart, and its own filing seeks expedited approval to add up to 500 megawatts of firm generation through its RFP instead. The agreement creates no legally binding obligations except two sections. One is confidentiality, which bars disclosure of technical and financial details without written consent, and further provides that neither party may so much as name the other in any public announcement without prior written consent. A sitting government signed away its ability to unilaterally speak the name of its private counterparty with a $2 billion public-infrastructure arrangement. The other binding section sets a five-year term, Hawaiʻi governing law, and routes every dispute to Hawaiʻi courts. Initiative (m) commits the parties to establishing "a coalition of willing partners in Hawaiʻi," specifically energy utilities, IPP power generators, and project developers. Instead, four months later The Coalition for Hawaiʻi's Energy Future surfaced on February 26, 2026 with more than 50 members, and they were health centers, farm bureaus, Aloha United Way, Native Hawaiian leaders, cost-of-living nonprofits. Not the industry bloc the SPA describes but a validator coalition in favor of a fossil fuel campaign. Henry Curtis of Life of the Land, an intervenor against the project who has done the most thorough reporting on it, reported that the coalition was created by JERA. There is no binding commitment to build anything, invest anything, or deliver any savings to any ratepayer. The $2 billion, the five recommended thermal facilities, the coalition, the workforce program, none of it binding. The only thing that is binding is the parties' mutual obligation to keep each other's secrets and to seek permission before naming each other in public. The agreement designates the State's point of contact as Mark Glick, the same official whose office produced the study, denied its error, and conceded only after enough push back. Hawaiian Electric Company Glick has described a timeline. The administration first held talks with JERA in 2023, when the U.S. Department of Energy announced plans for regional hydrogen hubs. Hawaiʻi was not the right fit for a hub, Glick said, but JERA returned that summer to discuss LNG after the Maui wildfires. Those fires had dealt HECO a devastating financial blow and raised the specter of massive liability and potential bankruptcy. According to Glick, JERA said it was interested in investing in Hawaiian Electric and helping cover that potential liability as part of an overall LNG plan. "Post-Lahaina, it became much more serious interest," Glick said, adding that his office then viewed the proposal in an entirely different light. JERA's capital is substantial. When the state was negotiating, Hawaiian Electric Industries' entire market value hovered around $2 billion. JERA's proposed investment was roughly the price of the whole company. A foreign company offered capital to a utility drowning in wildfire liability. In January 2026, fourteen of that utility's executives gave the governor money on a single day. Six months later, once JERA proposed owning its own generating company rather than selling power to HECO, the utility began calling the deal a no-bid contract. Oʻahu ratepayers pay the highest electricity prices in the country. They are being asked to underwrite a thirty-year commitment justified by a number the state has since erased, through a process with no competitors, by an administration funded in part by the people who would build it. What the structure needs is competitive bidding. It needs analysis produced by someone other than the agency reporting to the official who already signed. The money behind this deal did not stop at the governor's campaign. Part two will be published soon and it follows the same donors, and the same consultants, into the Lieutenant Governor race.

The Bylaws & Platform Committee has closed out its work for the year, and it is a milestone worth celebrating. This committee has prepared a full bylaws revision and a new platform draft for the upcoming Special Convention. Both committee reports have been adopted and sent to the Executive Committee. Our current bylaws say very little about how revisions are supposed to happen. To keep the work sound, the committee leaned on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to create a Bylaws & Platform Committee Guide for its structure and its process. Every motion, report, and handoff followed that framework. You can watch the full July 20th committee meeting below: Bylaws & Platform Committee Accomplishments Over nearly three years of refinement and meetings, the committee produced two finished products. The first is a complete bylaws revision, written to fill the gaps in the current 2015 bylaws and to give the party a clear framework going forward. The second is a new platform draft that expands and sharpens the party's stated principles. The committee has adopted both the Bylaws Committee Report and the Platform Committee Report. They were sent to the Executive Committee on the evening of July 20, 2026 shortly after adjournment. Click on the links to view the reports: Minutes Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting DATE: Monday, July 20, 2026 TIME: 7:00 pm HST Call to Order: 7:12pm HST Roll Call: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon Minutes and revisions from July 06, 2026: Passed without objection. Agenda: Passed without objection. Unfinished Business: Motion by Nicholas Zehr, second by Austin Martin to add a section 1.c to Article VI: "A State Convention may be conducted in person, by electronic means, or in a hybrid format, as determined by the State Committee and specified in the convention notice. Any electronic or hybrid convention shall employ technology that reasonably permits all credentialed members or delegates to simultaneously hear proceedings, participate in debate as authorized by the parliamentary authority, and cast votes securely." Passed without objection. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Bryce Thon to adopt the Bylaws Committee Report and send to the EC upon adjournment: Passed without objection. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Nicholas Zehr to adopt the Platform Committee Report to be sent to the EC upon adjournment: Passed without objection. Motion by Abbra Green to appoint Ken Schoolland to present and move the Bylaws Committee Report on the Special Convention floor: Motion withdrawn; member not present. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Austin Martin to appoint Nicholas Zehr to present and move the Platform Committee Report on the Special Convention floor: Passed without objection. Adjournment: Motioned by Nicholas Zehr, second by Abbra Green, 7:34pm HST Upcoming Both are also going out by email to all members directly following this post. Notice has been met under Article VIII, Section 1 of our bylaws, which states that proposed amendments must be submitted to the Executive Committee at least thirty days before the meeting where they are considered. This requirement was satisfied when the committee adopted both reports and sent them to the Executive Committee on July 20, 2026. From here, the Executive Committee will call and hold the Special Convention. It must be held in person, following the ruling upheld at the 2025 convention. On the floor, the committee reports will be presented, and the body will vote on adoption. Under the same Article VIII, adoption takes a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting. Mahalo Volunteers and Contributors! This is what committed volunteers can do when they put in the hours. The committee met month after month, worked through the details, and delivered finished, procedurally sound documents ready for the body to consider. Thank you to Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Ken Schoolland, and Bryce Thon for the hours of time and attention poured into this final product. Major contributors also included Craig DeCosta with his own draft suggestions (many of which were implemented), and Silas Martin who helped to refine and format the Bylaws Committee Report. Numerous individual suggestions were made, especially within the last 12 months. Mahalo to all who put in efforts toward this shared goal! Watch for the Special Convention notice, and plan to be there in person to vote. Don't forget to make sure your dues are up to date:

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii ran its Liberty Survey again this cycle, the same fifteen-question instrument we sent to candidates in 2024. You can view all of the candidates’ answers in spreadsheet form here. The survey asks candidates where they stand on the questions that matter most to us: The size of government, Taxation, Free markets, Personal liberty, Criminal justice, Education, Healthcare, Foreign policy, Privacy, Gun rights, Welfare reform, Local governance, Business regulation, and Civil liberties. Most importantly, it closes with a pledge asking each candidate to certify that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. Fifty-five candidates responded this year. Fifty-two of which signed the pledge, with three declined: Bobby Cuadra (Lt. Governor), Travis Liggett (Mayor, Maui County), and Daniel Michael Gabriel (State Representative, District 46). We respect their honesty above signing something they have not thought through. Responses came in from candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, both congressional districts, dozens of State House and Senate districts, all four county councils, mayoral seats in Maui and Kauai counties, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Candidates across the political spectrum wanted to be on record for the voters who care most about liberty. (A few candidates submitted the survey more than once, and in those cases we counted their most recent entry.) Survey Results Below is a breakdown of the statistics among all respondants based on the survey results. Alternatively, you can jump to a breakdown of each individual candidate. Government intervention in personal lives saw overwhelming support for restraint, with nearly 92% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that the government should minimize its involvement in citizens’ personal lives. Taxation drew strong support for reduction and simplification, with over 86% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that taxes should be reduced and simplified to promote individual freedom and economic growth. Free markets received strong majority support, with over 80% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that free markets are the best way to allocate resources and create wealth. The strongest liberty scores clustered around a handful of topics. Personal liberty drew near-universal agreement, with almost every entry “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that individuals should be free to make their own choices so long as they do not infringe on others. Privacy rights and civil liberties scored similarly high. Support for limiting government surveillance and protecting speech and assembly ran deep across nearly every respondent. Criminal justice reform produced the widest split. The question asked candidates whether they support decriminalizing certain nonviolent offenses, including drug possession, and answers ran the full range from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This has long been one of the sharper dividing lines in Hawaii politics. Education saw strong support for school choice, with nearly 85% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that parents should be empowered with options including charter schools, vouchers, and homeschooling. Healthcare was the other question that separated the field. The prompt asked whether candidates support reducing government involvement in healthcare in favor of a free market approach. A meaningful number of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed here, more than on almost any other question, which fits what we see in Hawaii's current landscape. Foreign policy showed solid but more divided support for non-interventionism, with about 73% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” in favor of avoiding entanglements in foreign conflicts. Gun rights enjoyed strong majority support, with nearly 80% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that individuals should have the right to own and carry firearms without excessive restrictions. Welfare programs received majority support for reform, with about 76% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that welfare programs should be reformed to encourage personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. Local governance drew near-universal agreement, with nearly 90% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that local governments should have more authority and autonomy to make decisions affecting their communities. Reducing business regulations received strong support, with about 78% of respondents either “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that regulations on businesses should be reduced to foster innovation and entrepreneurship. How Liberty Scores Are Calculated A few candidates returned strong-agree or agree responses straight down every question. Danny Degracia (House District 39), Dan Johnson (House District 12), George Teva Lucas-Tadeo (Governor), Victor Muh (State House), and James Logue (State Senate District 13) were among those posting the most consistently liberty-forward marks across the full survey. Each response gains a rating from 0-4. The Non-aggression pledge receives 10 points if signed. This makes 70 a perfect liberty score. Candidates With Perfect Liberty Scores For the top-ranking candidates, we’ve included a brief synopsis from their campaigns. The answers may or may not align with their public campaigns. Danny Degracia (State Representative House District 39) — Score: 70 Achieved a perfect liberty score by strongly agreeing with every single liberty principle surveyed; signed the pledge. With over two decades of experience in both the Executive and Legislative branch, Danny knows what works and what doesn’t work. Hawai’i needs simple, straightforward, fair and easy policies that we can count on to secure a better tomorrow for us, today. What Danny will fight for on Day One: Make Hawai’i Affordable Strengthen the Economy Build Housing and Infrastructure Protect Hawai’i Transparency and Accountability George Teva Lucas-Tadeo (Governor) — Score: 70 Achieved a perfect liberty score by strongly agreeing with every listed liberty principle; signed the pledge. With a platform focused on systemic change, George Teva Lucas-Tadeo aims for economic diversification, and heavy investments in social infrastructure. His campaign centers on relieving the financial burden of residents living paycheck-to-paycheck. His specific goals and core policy pillars include: Build a native Hawaiian reservation to deliver generational justice Legalize Recreational Cannabis Establish Regulated Casinos Avoid Middle-Class Taxes by expanding the economy via new industries Expand Welfare Support and protect vulnerable groups Fund Affordable Housing Victor Muh (State House Representative) — Score: 70 Achieved a perfect liberty score, indicating complete and strong alignment with every survey question; signed the pledge. After living and working for 25 years in Austria, France, and China, Victor returned to Hawaiʻi with a broad perspective on how government, culture, and economic policy affect everyday life. He learned resilience by rebuilding from scratch in different countries and communities. At his human optimization clinic, Superhuman, Victor looks for the root causes of health and performance problems. He would bring the same disciplined, results-focused approach to the State Legislature. His priorities include: Lower Cost of Living Homeownership Pathways Self Sufficient Economy Government Transparency Public Safety & Due Process and Constitutional Rights Families and Education More Candidate Responses Dan Johnson (Hawaii House of Representatives, District 12) — Score: 69 Showed excellent alignment, strongly agreeing with nearly every single metric provided; signed the pledge. JoNelle Fukushima (County Council District 2) — Score: 69 Highly aligned with the survey's core principles, choosing "Strongly Agree" on nearly every question; signed the pledge. James Logue (State Senate District 13) — Score: 69 Nearly perfect alignment with the survey's goals, scoring high across all metrics; successfully signed the pledge. Tara Malia Gregory (City Council Honolulu District 4) — Score: 68 Expressed deep support for civil liberties and free markets, strongly agreeing with almost all statements; signed the pledge. David Hazlebeck (State House Representative District 16) — Score: 68 Strongly agreed with all surveyed principles except for criminal justice reform, where he remained indifferent; signed the pledge. Maurice Morita (State House of Representative, H.D. 36) — Score: 68 Demonstrated excellent alignment with the survey, heavily favoring "Strongly Agree" across the board; signed the pledge. P. Denise La Costa (Mayor of Maui County) — Score: 67 Scored highly due to strong alignment with free market and civil liberty principles; signed the pledge. Megeso-William Denis (Mayor of Kauai County) — Score: 66 Showed excellent alignment across the board, only breaking to disagree on criminal justice reform; signed the pledge. David Asing (House, District 20) — Score: 66 Showed very strong alignment across nearly all topics, remaining indifferent on foreign policy; signed the pledge. Gary Cordery (Governor) — Score: 65 Strongly supports most liberty concepts but disagrees with criminal justice reform; signed the pledge. Monique Perreira (House District 8) — Score: 65 Showed strong alignment overall but disagrees on criminal justice; signed the pledge. Rocklin Youngstrom (District 46 - State House) — Score: 65 Strongly supports a majority of the statements while remaining indifferent on criminal justice; signed the pledge. Tess Abalos (State House District 29) — Score: 65 Showed excellent alignment overall but strongly opposed the survey's stance on criminal justice reform; signed the pledge. Pikachu Shelby Billionaire (OHA At Large Trustee) — Score: 64 Answered strongly agree or agree across the board with no disagreements; signed the pledge. John Choi (Lt. Governor) — Score: 63 Strongly supported most with a strong disagreement in the healthcare topic; signed the pledge. Gaius Dupio II (House of Representatives 34) — Score: 63 Broadly aligned with the survey's liberty goals but remained indifferent to criminal justice and foreign policy; signed the pledge. James (Jimmy T) Trujillo (Kaua’i County Council) — Score: 62 Broadly aligned, but expressed disagreement with the healthcare approach; signed the pledge. Jonathan Kennealy (Hawaii State House District 2) — Score: 60 Broadly supported liberty principles but strongly opposed the suggested criminal justice reforms; signed the pledge. Tanya Yamanaka Aynessazian (State Senate D2 - Puna) — Score: 60 Demonstrated solid support across most categories while remaining neutral on free markets and welfare; signed the pledge. Misty Cluett (State Representative District 17) — Score: 60 Aligned on most issues, but disagreed with criminal justice reform, foreign policy, and local governance; signed the pledge. Bill DeCosta (Kauai County Council) — Score: 60 Consistently agreed or strongly agreed with the principles, showing indifference only toward foreign policy; signed the pledge. Chantel Makuaole-Perrin (Hawaii County Council District 5) — Score: 59 Agreed or strongly agreed with most measures but remained indifferent on criminal justice and healthcare; signed the pledge. John Scooby Mattos (Kauai Council) — Score: 59 Aligned with most principles but strongly disagreed with the proposed criminal justice reform; signed the pledge. Lei Ahu Isa (Senate District 13) — Score: 58 Generally agreed with most principles but remained indifferent regarding privacy and gun rights; signed the pledge. Michaela Widener (Mayor of Kaua'i) — Score: 57 Alignment with most metrics, but indifferent on healthcare and privacy rights; signed the pledge. Zak Wittenhagen (State house district 4) — Score: 57 Moderate agreement, with several areas of indifference such as welfare and local governance; signed the pledge. Richard T. Bissen, Jr. (Mayor, County of Maui) — Score: 56 Mostly moderate, but disagrees with the healthcare and gun rights positions; signed the pledge. James Forrest (Maui County Council: Wailuku Seat) — Score: 56 Moderate agreement with almost every issue, but disagrees with the healthcare metric; signed the pledge. Greg Guithues (US House HI-2) — Score: 56 Strongly supports many key liberties but disagrees on taxation, free markets, and welfare; signed the pledge. Anthony Makana Paris (Hawaii State Representative House District 42) — Score: 56 Mix of strong and moderate agreement, with disagreement on healthcare and gun rights; signed the pledge. Daniel Michael Gabriel (State Representative - District 46) — Score: 56 Aligned with almost all principles, showing only indifference to criminal justice and foreign policy. He chose not to sign the pledge, receiving no bonus points. Chad Schimmelfennig (House of Representatives) — Score: 55 Consistently chose moderate agreement for nearly every issue; signed the pledge. Paul Noboru Applegate (Kaua'i Conty Council) — Score: 55 Mostly moderate alignment, but disagrees on criminal justice, and indifferent to healthcare and foreign policy; signed the pledge. Inam Rahman (Senate District 19) — Score: 55 Showed general support for the principles but strongly opposed the proposed healthcare approach; signed the pledge. Fern Anuenue Holland (Kauai County Council) — Score: 55 Mostly supportive of the principles but disagrees with the free market approach; signed the pledge. Edward Codelia (U.S. House of Representatives, Hawaiʻi Congressional District 2) — Score: 54 Primarily chose moderate agreement across issues, but explicitly disagreed on criminal justice reform and healthcare; signed the pledge. Markus Owens (State Senate District 20) — Score: 53 Mostly choosing "Agree," while expressing indifference toward foreign policy; signed the pledge. Karl Veto Baker (OHA Trustee At Large) — Score: 53 Mixed pattern, disagrees with criminal justice reform and gun rights; signed the pledge. William Halversen (County Council District 2) — Score: 53 Strongly supported many metrics but opposed gun rights and welfare reform. Fiscal responsibility was left blank (scored as 0); signed the pledge. Nani Brown (Senate District 17) — Score: 52 Strongly agrees with personal liberties but disagrees on several financial and educational issues. She left taxation unanswered (scored as a 0); signed the pledge. Jesse Fitzgerald (District 50 house seat) — Score: 51 Mixed responses, disagrees on government intervention, free markets, and welfare programs; signed the pledge. Calvert A. Williamson (Governor) — Score: 51 Strong agreement on some, but disagrees on education, healthcare, and welfare; signed the pledge. Keoni Kuoha (House of Representatives, District 12, Upcountry Maui) — Score: 51 Mostly moderate agreement with strong opposition to criminal justice reform. The free markets question was unanswered and scored as 0; signed the pledge. Ashley Olson (Hawai`i State House District 14) — Score: 49 Mixed, disagrees on free markets, education, and healthcare; signed the pledge. Philip (Kawika) Martin (Office of Hawaiian Affairs At-Large Trustee) — Score: 48 Polarized views, strongly agrees with some personal liberties, strongly disagrees on taxation, free markets, and education; signed the pledge. Anthony Nagatani (State House District 28) — Score: 48 Opposition to several metrics including government intervention and education; signed the pledge. Felicia Cowden (Kauai Mayor) — Score: 47 Moderate agreement on the questions answered. Free markets, criminal justice, and healthcare were unanswered (scored as 0s); signed the pledge. Laura Lindsey (Mayor Kauai and Niihau) — Score: 46 Moderate support mixed with disagreement on free markets, healthcare, and gun rights; signed the pledge. Travis A. Liggett, MS (Mayor, County of Maui) — Score: 46 Strongly aligns with early questions but strongly disagrees on gun rights and welfare reform. He chose not to sign the pledge, receiving no bonus points. Herman Wilson (Kauai County Council) — Score: 44 Multiple indifferent and particularly disagrees with the criminal justice, foreign policy, and gun rights topics; signed the pledge. Jordan Conley (US House of Representatives) — Score: 41 Strongly disagrees with taxation, free markets, and healthcare. Disagrees with gun rights, business regulation, government intervention, and welfare. Signed the pledge. CUADRA, Ku, L. (Bobby) (Lieutenant Government) — Score: 38 Strongly disagrees on healthcare, privacy, and civil liberties. He chose not to sign the pledge, receiving no bonus points.

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: