Search Results

SB2868  & HB1875  turns Hawaii into a safe haven for botched care and unaccountable doctors. While the rest of the country is finally pushing back against unchecked medical overreach, our one-party legislature is sprinting in the opposite direction with these measures. The so-called “health care” bill, introduced in January has now passed its third hearing in the House, but there is still time to stop its Senate companion. Don’t let the innocent title fool you. This legislation is about creating a malpractice sanctuary where doctors who deliver botched gender-affirming procedures and face lawsuits elsewhere can set up shop in Hawaii with zero fear of real accountability. It supercharges the 2023 reproductive shield law for gender-affirming procedures, and in doing so, it guts the very mechanisms that keep bad doctors in check. Shielding Prosecuted Practitioners So They Can Practice on Hawaii Patients Instead HB 1875 explicitly prohibits Hawaii’s professional licensing boards from disciplining physicians, nurses, therapists, psychologists, and counselors for providing “lawful” gender-affirming care. Even if a doctor has been sued, investigated, or stripped of privileges in another state for substandard or harmful practices, Hawaii’s boards are handcuffed. They cannot act based on that history if the crime had to do with "gender-affirming health care services". It defines "gender-affirming health care services" as medically necessary interventions (hormones, surgeries, etc.) to suppress secondary sex characteristics, align appearance with gender identity, or alleviate gender dysphoria, plus related mental/behavioral health support. This allows Hawaii to exempt providers from licensing discipline, bars state cooperation, and denies extradition for any out-of-state conviction or charge based on providing or assisting with such care. The exemptions apply regardless of the specific charge label (e.g., child abuse, mutilation, unauthorized practice) if the factual basis matches the bill's protected definition and Hawaii standards. It bars the state from cooperating with out-of-state investigations, denies extradition for related offenses, and declares other states’ laws “contrary to Hawaii public policy.” Prosecuted elsewhere? Come to Hawaii. We’ll protect you. This is insane. We believe in personal responsibility, including for doctors. When a practitioner harms a patient through malpractice (or even through substandard care), that doctor should face consequences. This creates a protected class of practitioners who get a get-out-of-liability-free card. Forcing Insurance Companies to Cover the Risk  Here’s the part that should terrify every insurance customer in the state. New sections in the bill prohibit medical malpractice insurers from: Refusing to issue a policy Canceling or terminating coverage Raising rates based on actual risk …if the sole reason is that the provider offers gender-affirming care. Health carriers can’t drop participating providers either. Insurers are now forced to underwrite high-risk practices. Because of this, premiums could skyrocket for everyone else. Patients who suffer complications will find it harder to get justice because the insurance companies were legally coerced into covering the malpractice. This is government-mandated risk socialization and state-sanctioned abuse of authority. Pure cronyism. “Abusive” Litigation Shield  The bill creates brand-new “protections against abusive litigation” that make it nearly impossible for harmed patients to sue successfully. It also clamps down on protected health information, limiting disclosures even where there may be a legitimate need. This makes challenging providers exponentially harder. Combined with the licensing and insurance protections, it creates a fortress around practitioners. Good luck holding anyone accountable when the deck is already stacked against you. The Real Victims: Patients, Families, and Hawaii Taxpayers This bill weakens medical accountability and limits safeguards intended to protect patients. It’s not a sanctuary for vulnerable people, it’s a sanctuary for the industry profiting immensely off them. Shielding practitioners to this degree invites abuse. Yet the proposed legislation says Hawaii will protect every provider who pushes these procedures, no matter the nuance. The same legislature that can’t fix our roads, our homelessness crisis, or our failing schools have decided to focus their efforts on making Hawaii the mainland’s dumping ground for malpractice refugees. Libertarians OPPOSE SB2868 & HB1875 for the Tyranny it Is We believe in real medical freedom, informed consent, free speech, and genuine accountability through due process and market forces. As such, we oppose government-mandated shields for politically favored procedures. This bill is authoritarian medicine dressed up as compassion. It tells insurance companies and licensing boards to shut up and pay up. And it tells every Hawaii patient: If you suffer harm, tough luck; the state has your doctor’s back.  Truly compassionate care puts the patient, the individual , first. If Hawaii cares about healthcare that is supportive and inclusive of minority populations, it would not be trying to strip away their basic rights by shielding criminals who signed the hippocratic oath. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii stands with patients and with actual medical ethics, and against the ideologues who want to shield practitioners while hiding behind government protection. Freedom includes the freedom to be held accountable. This is not progressive; it is reckless, dangerous, and profoundly anti-liberty. Take Action Now HB1875 has already passed in the house. Our focus should be on SB2868 for tracking and testimony.  Read the bills’ summaries & text: SB2868  & HB1875 . Call your representatives. Demand they kill “Hawaii’s Malpractice Sanctuary Bill”, SB2868 & HB1875. Follow these simple steps to track and testify. Share this post far & wide Contact us for more information and tailored advice. Thank you for helping us uphold libertarian principles and OPPOSE SB2868 & HB1875 Keep the Momentum Going Donate (one-time or monthly) to support out legislative activism and grow our list of initiatives.

This Bylaws & Platform Committee meeting was held on Monday, March 02, 2026, at 7:00 pm HST  View the full meeting Call to Order: 7:13pm Roll Call: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon , participating: Kevin Mulkern Minutes and revisions from February 09, 2026: Passed without objection Agenda Unfinished Business: N/A New Business: Floor open  to Discussions & motions beginning at “ Article V: State & Executive Committee ” Motion by Austin Martin to add a new subsection c from DeCosta’s language, second by Abbra Green: “The Executive Committee of the Party shall be elected at each odd numbered year Annual Convention and shall hold office until adjournment  sine die of said Convention or until their successors are elected. No  individual shall hold more than one office at a time except as explicitly provided in these bylaws. The Executive  Committee is empowered to fill its own vacancies, subject to any further express limitations in these Bylaws.”  Passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin to strike the prior motion and to replace 3.3 with: “ The Executive Committee of the Party shall be elected at each odd numbered year Annual Convention and shall hold office until adjournment  sine die of said Convention or until their successors are elected.” second by Bryce Thon, passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin second by Abbra Green to add the term “regular” before “committee meetings” on 4.2 and to add at the end of section 2: “nor to disparage the state committee’s prerogative to excuse absences for cause. Passed without objection. Motion by Nicholas Zehr, second by Bryce Thon to change subsection 6 to “Proxy voting is prohibited except for good cause by ¾ vote of the State Committee, and can be revoked by majority vote”  passed without objection. Article VI: Meetings, Conventions, and Candidates Motion By Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to amend subsection 2 to specify odd-numbered year for conventions, passed without objection. Motion by Abbra Green to strike subsection 4, second by Nicholas Zehr, passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin, second by to strike subsection 5 & 6 and replace with “If high attendance hinders orderly meetings or conventions, a fair delegate system, based on membership allocation, may be implemented by two-thirds vote of the State Committee.”  passed without objection. Assignments: Review the bylaws draft once edited for accuracy. Add comments or have motions ready, beginning at “ARTICLE VII: Vacancy, Suspension, and Disciplinary Action” for the next meeting. Adjournment: 8:23pm The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting  is Monday, March 16, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. using the same Zoom Link.

Bills lik e SB3193   & HB2376 (deferred) r epresent a classic case of government overreach, infringing on the fundamental right of parents to direct their children's education without undue state interference. Libertarians hold that individual liberty and voluntary associations, including family units should be paramount, with the government narrowly limited to protecting rights rather than micromanaging personal choices.  Mandating in-person standardized testing at public schools for homeschoolers treats families as suspects in need of surveillance rather than presuming their competence. This not only erodes parental autonomy but diverts resources toward coercive compliance, embodying the nanny-state mentality that libertarians decry. In a free society, education should be a marketplace of ideas, not a one-size-fits-all mandate from distant lawmakers.  Constitutionally, these bills violate core protections under the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause has long been interpreted to safeguard parental rights in child-rearing and education, as affirmed in landmark Supreme Court cases like Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v. Granville (2000) , which clarify that the state cannot arbitrarily substitute its judgment for that of fit parents.  Forcing homeschool families into public school settings for testing could also implicate First Amendment freedoms, particularly if religious or philosophical objections to standardized testing or public school environments are involved (see Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) , where the Court protected Amish parents' rights to exempt children from compulsory schooling). By presuming homeschoolers need “welfare” checks disguised as academic assessments, these bills invert the burden of proof, assuming guilt without evidence and undermine the presumption of innocence. Killing these bills is essential to preserve these safeguards against an ever-expanding state apparatus that prioritizes control over liberty. Overwhelming Opposition Derails Hawaii Homeschool Testing Bill In a resounding victory for homeschooling families across Hawaii, HB2376 was effectively stalled in the legislative process following strong public pushback. It was unanimously deferred by the House Education Committee on February 17, 2026, after a hearing that drew “hundreds homeschool families” to the State Capitol . This action shelves the measure for the current session. The bill, seeking to mandate annual in-person standardized testing (of the public school's choosing) for homeschooled students at local public schools, faced a tidal wave of dissent. This outpouring highlights deep concerns over government overreach into family education choices. It also further exposed the media's sensationalized narrative tying the legislation to the heartbreaking 2021 murder of 6-year-old Isabella "Ariel" Kalua. This case is rooted in profound child welfare system failures, not any shortcomings in homeschool academic oversight. Media Sensationalism: Stretching the Link to Ariel Kalua's Case Proponents, including the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE), argued that this change would enhance accountability and provide data on how homeschooled students compare to their public school peers. Superintendent Keith Hayashi emphasized the need for oversight, noting the exponential growth in homeschooling numbers over the past decades. The bills' impetus appears to be coming from lingering fallout over the child welfare failures in the case of Isabella Ariel Kalua (born Ariel Sellers), whose disappearance and presumed murder shocked the islands in 2021. She was initially placed with Isaac and Lehua Kalua by Hawaii's Child Welfare Services (CWS) as a foster child, alongside some of her siblings, after being removed from her biological family due to concerns over parental substance abuse. The state vetted and approved the Kaluas for this foster role, eventually greenlighting Ariel’s full adoption, which granted them legal parental rights and ended routine CWS oversight. This case is in no way related to lax homeschool regulations. Court documents reveal a litany of ignored red flags long before the homeschooling element entered the picture. There were multiple abuse complaints from school staff, neighbors, and even the child's siblings while she was still enrolled in public school and under her adoptive parents’ care. These reports detailed visible injuries, malnutrition, and other signs of mistreatment, yet CWS and family courts repeatedly ignored these reports, allowing the situation to escalate. The abuse culminated in horrific allegations post-adoption. The child was allegedly starved, beaten, confined to a dog crate with her mouth duct-taped, and ultimately killed nearly a month before she was reported missing. Her body has never been found, and the Kaluas are facing second-degree murder charges, with a trial set for later this year. You can read more on the case at the links below: Ariel Sellers Murder: Family Court Refuses to Release Secret Records “because of the impression of DHS and the family court that it might create”  John Hill: Judge Hides Records In Child's Death Because We Might Get The Wrong Idea  Special Master: Presiding Judge Had ‘100s of Pages of Disqualifying Information’ in Kalua Case Murder of Ariel Sellers: Motion to Unseal Kalua Family Court Records Special Master: Presiding Judge Had ‘100s of Pages of Disqualifying Information’ in Kalua Case Lawsuit Coming: Murder of Ariel Sellers Reaches Probate Court Extreme Stinginess? A look at Accused Waimanalo Child Killers’ Bankruptcy Case Lawmakers like Rep. Amy Perruso invoked such cases during the bills' promotion, stating, “Almost every child who’s murdered in our state by their care providers, by their parents, are pulled to homeschool before that, and the department has no way of knowing what’s going on.”  The implication was clear as mud: In-person testing could somehow serve as a welfare check. This narrative conveniently overlooks how the state's own approvals and dismissals of early warnings set the stage for tragedy. In reality, a lack of academic testing from the Department of Education (DOE) was not an exacerbating factor at all. The abuse was well-documented and ignored while the child was still in public school, where testing, along with daily oversight, was already in place. The homeschooling element only emerged in this case after the Kaluas pulled Isabella from school amid mounting scrutiny , not as some root precursor of abuse. Annual testing at a public school might offer a brief interaction, which could have resulted in another mandatory report to CWS, but it wouldn't have addressed the repeated CWS oversights that occurred before and after Ariel’s switch to homeschooling. These oversights persisted despite the state's initial approval of the Kaluas and the multiple red flags raised during the foster-to-adoption process.  A Tsunami of Opposition: Families Rally Against Mandated Intrusion The response from the homeschooling community was timely and massive. At the February 17 hearing on HB2376, hundreds of parents, students, and advocates packed the Capitol building, submitting nearly 600 pages of testimony (the vast majority in opposition).  Organizations such as the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) mobilized supporters, rightly framing the deferral of HB 2376 (and the lack of momentum on SB 3193) as a victory against restrictive policies. The unanimous committee decision was based on the lack of "community appetite" for it, as lawmakers were forced to acknowledge the overwhelming public sentiment. This outcome preserved Hawaii's homeschool regulations, which already require annual progress reports but allow for parental discretion in testing methods. Hawaii's families expressed immense reluctance to imposed one-size-fits-all regulations on education in the name of child protection. For now, Hawaii's homeschool families can breathe a sigh of relief, but the episode serves as a reminder of how media-driven narratives can distort policy debates, pitting parental freedoms against the imperative to protect vulnerable children. Take Action | Oppose SB3193 You can help make sure these bills stay dead by following these steps to Oppose SB3139: Read the bill summary & text here: Oppose SB3193 Contact your legislators and urge them to oppose this measure. Follow our simple instructions to track and testify on the bill. Share this post with friends and family. Keep Up the Momentum Your participation and your contributions help us track and activate more initiatives for the cause of liberty in Hawaii. You can join LPHI to become a part of our volunteer team and to sign up for tailored notifications on the issues that matter most to you. When you donate to LPHI, you are helping us build teams and grow our list of causes to expand freedom throughout the state. Choose from a one-time or recurring payment plan.

We’ve spent years watching politicians decide they know better than you do about what goes into (or stays out of your own body). Mandates, prohibitions, job threats, school barriers; the playbook is familiar by now.  HB2512 and HB2199 are two measures that draw a hard line against this type of overreach. They simply insist that your body belongs to you. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii supports both measures without reservation. Here’s exactly what they do and why we’re pushing them hard. Support HB2512 | The Hawaii Medical Freedom Act HB2512   writes explicit protections into state law: no public agency, no private employer covered by state rules, no school, no licensing board gets to punish, exclude, or discriminate against you for refusing any medical intervention, including a vaccine, a test, a drug, a procedure, or a device. It covers adults making decisions for themselves and parents making them for their kids. The Department of Health must update its administrative rules to match, and the Legislature gets a report showing they actually followed through. Whether it comes dressed up as “public health” or “workplace safety”, coercion is coercion. HB2512 forbids anyone from using government power to make medical choices for you.  This bill protects the quiet majority who want to be left alone. That’s why it matters here. Support HB2199 | Codifying Bodily Autonomy HB2199   creates a standalone chapter in Hawaii Revised Statutes that declares every person has the right to accept or refuse any health care intervention, screening, treatment, or immunization based on their own judgment, religious convictions, or deeply held beliefs. It prohibits state agencies, employers, educational institutions, and other covered entities from imposing penalties, exclusions, or adverse actions for exercising that right. This is another anti-force bill. Once the government starts deciding which medical decisions are “responsible” enough to avoid punishment, the door is open to endless mission creep. We’ve already seen where that road leads: privacy and travel restrictions, job losses, kids kept out of classrooms, and families divided. HB2199 slams that door shut before the next “emergency” gives the state apparatus another excuse to swing it wide open again. Support HB2199 & HB2512 Both bills are straightforward defenses of self-ownership in an area where the state clearly loves to meddle. They don’t create new entitlements. They don’t spend taxpayer money. They don’t tell anyone what to think or what to inject. They just say: your body, your call. No exceptions, no loopholes, no “for the greater good” overrides. That principle is why the Libertarian Party exists. We don’t trust the government with that kind of power over peaceful people. That is at the heart of why we support HB2199 & HB2512. Take Action These bills are stuck in committee, and the mid-March crossover deadline is closing in fast. If hearings aren't scheduled soon, they risk deferral and could die without ever reaching a vote. Your direct contact can push for progress. Legislators do respond to pressure. Contact your State Representative today  and urge them to: Support HB2512 (Hawaii Medical Freedom Act) and HB2199 (Bodily Autonomy protections). Add these bills to upcoming committee hearings in Health (HLT), Consumer Protection & Commerce (CPC where applicable), and Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs (JHA) so they get heard, voted out, and advanced before crossover. Avoid deferring them.  How to reach them quickly: Find your specific House representative (including contact phone, email, and office info) using the official "Find Your Legislator"  tool: (enter your address for instant results). Don’t forget to contact key committee members directly via the committee pages: Health (HLT) Committee Consumer Protection & Commerce (CPC) Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs (JHA) Call, email, or message them a short, clear note. For example: "As your constituent, I strongly support HB2512 and HB2199 to protect bodily autonomy. Please schedule hearings in committee soon to give these bills a fair chance before crossover." Submit testimony online when hearings are announced—watch the committee pages or our updates for notices. It's straightforward and carries real weight. We’ll track every move and notify you when hearings are set or more action is needed. Need help drafting a message, preparing testimony, or joining the push? Sign up at our site or drop us a line. Your body. Your rules. Let’s flood the committees with calls to act before these bills get deferred. Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Become an Official Member Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii strongly opposes SB2480 . While the bill is promoted as expanding voter freedom by fixing a key flaw in our current primary system, its top-two advancement rule poses a notable threat. It could entrench establishment dominance and drastically reduce genuine ideological choices in general elections. Hawaii's existing primary system requires voters to select one political preference (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Nonpartisan) on their ballot. They can then only vote for candidates within that chosen preference. Any votes cast for candidates from a different party are simply not counted. This restriction has long frustrated many voters who want broader options without wasting their ballot. This has heavily affected the Libertarian Party of Hawaii for years. SB 2480 would eliminate this limitation, allowing all voters to vote for any candidate in the primary regardless of party affiliation. That change sounds appealing on its face, and had me leaning toward support at first. However, the bill pairs this "open-voting" reform with a far more problematic top-two rule: Only the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, advance to the November general election. This creates an artificial bottleneck that overrides the benefits of expanded primary choice. It risks turning general elections into contests between two similar candidates from the dominant party. The Misleading Narrative Fueling "Overwhelming" Support During the February 13, 2026, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 41 testimonies supported SB 2480, compared to only 9 in opposition. This lopsided tally creates the illusion of broad consensus. In reality, much of the enthusiasm stems from focusing solely on the bill's appealing side of allowing voters to choose any candidate in primaries without party restrictions, while downplaying or ignoring the top-two rule that advances only the two highest vote-getters to November, regardless of party. Media reports, such as the Hawaii News Now coverage, often lead with the "expanded choice" angle but give a minimal narrative to how top-two could restrict general election ballots in our one-party dominant state. Supporters of this measure highlight inclusivity, but the top-two mechanism risks turning general elections into intra-party contests. The result would often end up in a democrat v. democrat race, sidelining third-party challengers. They emphasize the bill's progressive-sounding "reform" rhetoric, but their support helps obscure how top-two systems disproportionately benefit incumbents, well-funded candidates, and the dominant party.  What SB2480 Really Does and Why It's Harmful to Liberty Hawaii's existing system already provides significant flexibility: No party registration is required, and voters can select any primary ballot. SB 2480 would replace this with a "jungle primary" model where the top two advance. Low-turnout primaries reward insiders with money and name recognition. As our Chairman Austin Martin testified:  “There is no stability in the law right now, and there is a lot of mistrust in our public institutions... Yanking the rug out from under people and changing the entire system... in fact, only benefits the establishment insiders.”  Top-two reinforces this dynamic by narrowing November choices to the earliest frontrunners. Voters deserve more options in the decisive election, not fewer. This setup forces a false choice and marginalizes alternative voices. Amid widespread distrust in the government apparatus, pushing this change feels like manipulation rather than reform. Opponent Jackie Keefe captured the grassroots concern:  “... this is helping protect the status quo, right? Which is what the grassroots folks are always trying to push back against.” Oppose SB2480 This is not a path to better elections. It risks entrenching control rather than liberating voters. Don't let the establishment-backed supporters mislead you. Contact your legislators immediately to oppose SB2480. Demand reforms that truly promotes competition and individual choice, without artificial barriers that favor the powerful. Take action by following these two steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: Oppose SB2480 Testify . Our simple instructions make the process easy! Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii strongly supports Senate Bill 2203 (SD 2) , which establishes the offense of a law enforcement officer wearing a mask or facial covering that conceals their identity while interacting with the public. This is a direct defense of core constitutional principles: due process, accountability under the law, and the fundamental right of free people to know who is exercising state power against them. Due Process Requires Transparency The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the parallel due-process guarantees in the Hawaii Constitution (Article I, Sections 5 and 6), are not abstract slogans. They mean that when the government deprives a person of liberty or property through arrest, search, seizure, or detention that person must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the action. How can you exercise that right if you cannot identify the person who arrested you, searched your vehicle, or issued the citation? A masked officer is, for all practical purposes, an anonymous one. Anonymity destroys the chain of accountability that due process demands: You cannot file an accurate internal affairs complaint. You cannot name the correct defendant in a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. You cannot effectively cross-examine the officer in court when their face was hidden at the time of the encounter. Unidentifiable enforcement turns due process into a guessing game and police encounters into a crap shoot with your freedom as the currency to gamble..  A Bulwark Against Abuse of Power Libertarians have long warned that concentrated government power, shielded from scrutiny, inevitably leads to overreach. History is littered with examples of secret police, unmarked vans, or agents without badges that allowed the absence of visible identity to enable tyranny. We reject these tactics on principle. Requiring law enforcement officers to show their faces while dealing with the public is not “anti-police.” It is pro-rule-of-law. It draws a bright line between legitimate authority and the tactics of authoritarian regimes. Officers who act for the people and under color of law must be willing to stand behind their actions in the light of day, and answer to the individuals they serve. SB2203 contains commonsense exceptions for genuine undercover operations and for situations where an unmasked officer from the same agency is present and visible. It also excludes legitimate protective equipment. The bill targets only the unnecessary concealment of identity during ordinary public interactions which is the exact scenario where accountability matters most. Liberty Demands Visibility Opponents may argue that this is an officer safety issue, but these are our public servants. It is in the best interest of public safety to deal with those they serve in the sunlight. If they have nothing to hide, they need no disguise. Hawaii’s own constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”  and that the government exists to protect individual rights, not to obscure them. When state or federal agents operate in our communities, Hawai‘i law should reinforce those vital protections. If our law enforcement is exercising coercive power over a citizen on Hawaii soil, the citizen has a right to know who they are and to hold them accountable. Help Us Support SB2203 : Support SB2203. Its passage is a small but vital step toward restoring the foundational American and Hawaiian principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; a consent that cannot be given to invisible hands.  Take action by following these two steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: Support   SB2203  Testify . Our simple instructions make the process easy! Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has one message for police departments fighting SB2145 : If real accountability offends you, you are the problem . This bill is about ending the legal shield that allows government agents violate your First Amendment rights with zero consequences. It is exactly why Hawaii’s police departments are scared.  Here’s why we Support SB2145 : It explicitly codifies your existing First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers when they are performing their duties in plain view . It includes clear protections: recording is only allowed if it does not  physically obstruct, interfere with, or impede an officer’s duties. Most critically, it creates a private right of action : If an officer violates this right (by arresting you, seizing your phone, deleting footage, or threatening you for recording), you can sue them personally  in civil court. You can seek actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief to stop future violations, and your attorney fees and expert witness costs if you win.  This last part is the dagger: by making the right clearly established in statutes, the bill effectively strips away qualified immunity  in these cases. Officers can no longer hide behind excuses. They face real financial and personal liability for clear constitutional violations. That’s the provision they’re truly terrified of. Everything else in their testimony is noise to distract from it. You can read our overview of the bill here . On January 28, 2026, the Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee heard testimony on SB2145, a straightforward bill that simply puts into statute what the First Amendment and federal courts have already made clear: the public has the right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in plain view. Chairman Austin Martin stated : “That needs to be established. It’s often misunderstood and leads to serious rights violations. It needs to be distinguished as a right and as a First Amendment activity. It should already be protected.” The Deep-state’s Dishonest Scare Tactic While LPHI members spoke plainly about transparency and rights, the Honolulu Police Department submitted written testimony that could be seen as nothing other than deliberate misrepresentation: “In addition, this bill does not protect private property owner’s rights to privacy. If this bill is passed, people would be allowed onto private property that is not open to the public, such as someone’s home, for the purpose of filming law enforcement activity.” This is false. And HPD knows it. SB2145 does not  grant anyone the right to trespass. It does not  override criminal trespass statutes. It does not  let citizens barge into homes or private yards. Law enforcement agencies have litigated these exact issues for over a decade. They know the case law. They know the bill changes nothing about trespass, entry, or private-property rights. Yet they chose to frame a simple transparency measure as an attack on homeowners’ privacy. The bill’s language is narrow and explicit :  it protects recording of law enforcement activities that are in plain view. The exact same situations are already protected by the First Amendment and Ninth Circuit precedent.  The measure even includes the standard safeguard that recording must not physically obstruct or interfere with officers. This is not a good-faith concern. It is a calculated attempt to kill a bill by scaring us with a bogus “home invasion” narrative. When the very agencies tasked with upholding the law resort to misleading the Legislature to shield themselves from accountability, it proves exactly why this bill is needed. MPD's Real Fear: A Camera They Can't Turn Off Maui Police Department's opposition testimony to SB2145 concedes that citizens already have the right to record officers " in plain and open view, " yet they complain that the bill "unfairly suggests law enforcement as lacking accountability or acting outside the law."  This is their gripe: the mere act of codifying a long-established First Amendment right feels like an accusation to them. Instead of welcoming clearer rules that would reduce confusion and frivolous arrests for recording, they frame the bill as an unnecessary insult to their integrity. They lean heavily on body-worn cameras as proof that "extensive documentation and accountability"  already exist. Simply file UIPA requests or subpoenas. But this misses the point entirely. We’re not stupid. Body cams are controlled by the department. Officers decide when to activate them, footage is often redacted or withheld, and internal reviews often protect the institution over the public. Citizen recordings provide an independent, unfiltered perspective that body cams cannot replace. Dismissing the need for statutory clarity because "we already have cameras"  is like saying we don't need independent journalism because government press releases exist. It's a self-serving deflection that prioritizes departmental convenience over genuine transparency. Worse, they warn that private recordings  "can be selectively edited, altered, or released without context, creating misleading narratives that undermine public trust." This paternalistic argument implies the public can't be trusted, while conveniently ignoring that police departments themselves have been caught editing or delaying release of body-cam video to shape narratives. The key takeaway is that MPD is the real victim here .  If MPD truly cared about trust, they'd support measures that make accountability easier and more direct, not oppose them out of fear that sunlight might reveal uncomfortable truths. Their testimony doesn't defend public safety; it defends the status quo where oversight remains firmly in their own hands. The Real Reason Police Oppose SB2145: They Don’t Want to Lose Qualified Immunity Here’s the part the Honolulu and Maui police departments conveniently left out of their testimony: SB2145 doesn’t just clarify a right. It creates a powerful private right of action .  If passed, any person whose right to record is violated can sue the offending officer (and the department) directly in civil court for damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees and expert witness fees. That single provision is a game-changer. Right now, officers who illegally arrest recorders, seize phones, smash cameras, or threaten people for filming almost always walk away under qualified immunity. The doctrine shields them unless a court has already ruled the exact same behavior unconstitutional in nearly identical circumstances. By putting the right into statute and spelling out exactly what constitutes unlawful interference, SB2145 makes the right clearly established by law. Qualified immunity evaporates in these cases. Officers suddenly face real financial consequences for violating the Constitution. This is why the agencies are fighting so hard. Their public objections: “it’s already the law,”  “body cams are enough,”  “think of the homeowners”  These are sand in our eyes. The real fear is losing the legal shield that lets them trample First Amendment rights with impunity. When police lobby against a bill that would finally make them personally liable for clear constitutional violations, they’re protecting their own ability to act above the law without regard to public safety. This is the very reason this bill is so desperately needed. Transparency is non-negotiable. Citizen video is responsible and independent oversight. Rights are not privileges granted at the convenience of the state. When government officials deliberately distort a bill’s plain text to protect their own power, liberty demands we call it out. When public servants are too afraid to show their faces to the very people thet serve, we need to be screaming for transparency. Governor Josh Green has already said “eyes on the scene are good.” We agree. And those eyes should never be threatened. Help Us Support SB2145: This bill represents a major step forward for liberty, transparency, and justice in Hawaii. We call on the full Senate and House to pass SB 2145 without weakening amendments.Take action by following these two steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: Support SB2145 Testify . Our simple instructions make the process easy! Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

(The following article is a submission written by LPHI member, Silas Martin.) Hawaii is green and beautiful, with large coral reefs and lush greenery, and we want to keep it pristine. However, SB1551/HB611  wouldn't be good for Hawaii's people. This bill bans all single-use plastic bags and non-recyclable paper bags, making it hard to carry things from stores.  Violators will:   “(2)  Be assessed a fine of not less than $100, but not more than $1,000 for each day of the violation.” It restricts how businesses and business owners can use their own property, thereby infringing upon their property rights . This bill is conceived out of fear, rather than sense . It infringes on the Due Process Clause , interfering with voluntary exchanges between customers and businesses, which should be able to decide what they want to buy and sell, or give and take. And a daily fine of up to $1,000 is potentially more than a small, family-owned business can afford. Instead of helping, this deprives the people of Hawaii of the right to have what they need to function in a hotel and will only harm businesses. This would also be very inconvenient for customers and using paper bags would be problematic, as they tear and mold easily, especially in the rain, and recyclable bags are much more expensive. This would make it problematic for small hotels, food trucks, and small restaurants.            While it might mitigate pollution, it would also cause numerous problems. I don't think littering and pollution are good, but banning all plastic bags isn't the way to go. Doing that would put unnecessary strain on every small business causing many to fall apart, ripping at the seams.  I implore anyone who reads this bill to oppose this bill. It has more bad effects than good ones. We already have a $100+ fine for littering, so we, the people, need to stand against tyrannical laws like this. It treats full-grown adults like children unable to manage waste responsibly, or make business decisions on their own. Let's protect our environment through common-sense solutions that don't punish the people who keep Hawaii running. Help Us oppose  SB1551/HB611 : Take action by following these two steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: oppose   SB1551/HB611 Testify . Our simple instructions make this process easy! Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!   Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support  to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

Bylaws & Platform Committee meeting DATE : Monday, February 09, 2026 TIME : 7:00 pm HST  You can view LPHI's complete playlist of Bylaws & Platform Committee meetings HERE. Call to Order: 7:15 pm Roll Call: Voting: Austin Martin, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon Viewing: S ilas Martin, Zalie Martin Minutes and revisions from January 19, 2025: passed without objection Agenda: motion by Abbra Green to remove the frequency motion from the agenda to be sent via email ballot instead: amended agenda passed without objection Unfinished Business: N/A New Business:  Motion by Abbra Green to increase the frequency of the Bylaws & Platform Committee to 2x a month, on every first and third Monday: amended to email motion.  Floor open  to Discussions & motions beginning at “ Article IV: Officers and Duties ” Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to add  to Section 2 subsection e: “act as the primary spokesperson for the Party and shall ensure that deadlines required by these Bylaws or state law are met.”  (from DeCosta submission): passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin second by Bryce Thon to strike incidental language that specifies a particular committee in the bylaws: Passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin, Second by Bryce Thon to use DeCosta’s language for Section 3 as follows: “ The Vice-Chairperson shall: assist the Chairperson in the performance of executive duties, act as Chairperson in the temporary absence of the Chairperson, and ensure affiliate compliance with the requirements enumerated in these Bylaws or state laws.”  Passed without objection. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Austin Martin, to strike from Section 4 “updating county lists monthly during election seasons, and restricting access to authorized personnel.“  and insert the words “and accuracy”  after confidentiality.  The new language to read: “Ensure confidentiality and accuracy of membership lists”  Passed without objection Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to strike Section 4 b,c, and to strike “serving ex officio as needed”  from f. Passed without objection. Motion by Austin Martin Second by Bryce Thon to add to Section 5the words “information and”  before “reports”  in subsection b: Passed without objection. Motion by Bryce Thon, second by Austin Martin, to strike from Section 5, subsection c:  “ and oversee the Finance Committee, serving ex officio as needed” : Passed without objection Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to add the following language to the duties of each officer: “shall ensure that deadlines required by these Bylaws or state law are met.”  Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to strike from Section 6 “In cases of necessity arising from vacancies and emergencies: The chair or his designee may, as required, temporarily assume the Treasurer role to the extent required by law. All financial actions taken by the chair shall be reviewed by at least one other Committee member for transparency. Both shall report to the Committee at the respective vote.”  and to strike subsection 4 (turns subsection 2.a into 2). Passed without objection. Assignments: Review the bylaws draft once edited for accuracy. Add comments or have motions ready, beginning where we left off for the next meeting. Adjournment: 813pm The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee meeting  is Monday, March 02, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. using the same Zoom Link. Join Our Team! We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify voices for a freer Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support  to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

Over the past months, many of you have been actively involved in our Defend Hawaii efforts here in Hawaii. Through our activism packet , we've provided talking points, template letters, testimony guides, and contact lists to help rally support for legislation that protects the Hawaii National Guard from unauthorized federal deployments. The goal is to reaffirm Hawaii's constitutional authority over its militia, prioritize our Guard for local needs like disaster response, require proper congressional authorization for federal call-ups, and ensure gubernatorial and legislative oversight to prevent misuse in overseas conflicts or domestic overreach. We were proud to collaborate closely with House and Senate teams in developing and refining an initial version of what we called the Defend Hawaii Act. That draft was comprehensive: It included strong definitions, strict limits on releasing Guard members to federal active duty combat without a congressional declaration of war or explicit constitutional call-up (for invasion, insurrection, or executing union laws), mandatory governor consent with legislative consultation, 48-hour notifications to the Legislature, oversight powers, reporting requirements, and even directives for enforcement including potential legal challenges. While our preferred original proposal didn't advance exactly as drafted, we're encouraged by recent developments. Defend Hawaii Update| Support SB2054 A related bill, SB2054 , was introduced on January 21, 2026, opening day of the legislative session. Sponsored by eight Democratic senators, it amends Hawaii Revised Statutes §121-30 to prohibit Hawaii National Guard units (when under state control or Title 32 duty) from assisting, cooperating with, or providing resources to federal troops, federal law enforcement, or out-of-state National Guard forces deployed in Hawaii if the Governor objects to those deployments. There's also a practical carve-out for cases required by federal or state law. It's narrower and more procedural than our initial proposal, without broad restrictions on Title 10 federal deployments, no new legislative review mechanisms, and no extensive definitions—but it still advances the core principle of greater state control over how our Guard interacts with federal forces on Hawaii soil. This is a meaningful step in the right direction! It empowers the Governor to block unwanted in-state federal cooperation without directly challenging federalization for out-of-state missions. We believe this evolved version is a pragmatic win that could pass in the current session, especially given its bipartisan-leaning sponsorship in a Democratic-majority legislature and its focus on public safety/gubernatorial authority.  Take Action It's already passed First Reading and been referred to the PSM/EIG and JDC committees. There are no hearings scheduled yet, but early momentum matters. Here's how you can help right now: Read SB2054 Follow these simple instructions to speak up . Contact Us  if you need help, would like to volunteer, or want to stay updated. DONATE to expand our legislative reach and impact  Customize your contribution with a one-time payment, or a recurring monthly contribution of your choice.

IN SUPPORT OF DEFEND HAWAII: SB2054 (This Testimony was submitted by Secretary Green on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii on February 09, 2026.) The Libertarian Party of Hawaii strongly supports  SB2054 (the Defend Hawaii Bill)  and we are proud to have helped in these efforts. While this version is narrower than our original proposal, it remains a historic, pragmatic, and urgently needed victory for Hawaii’s liberty, autonomy, constitutional rights, and the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. SB2054 amends Hawaii Revised Statutes §121-30 by adding a clear, enforceable prohibition:  “Except as required by federal or state law, the commanding officer of any Hawaii National Guard unit under state control or Title 32 status shall not assist, cooperate with, or provide any resources to federal troops, federal law enforcement, or out-of-state National Guard units operating in Hawaii if the Governor has objected to those deployments” (SB2054, §1(b), 2026). This is a direct statutory shield that empowers Hawaii’s elected Governor to say “no” when unwanted federal forces seek to operate on our soil. It ensures Hawaii’s own militia remains first and foremost dedicated to protecting our people, responding to our disasters, and serving our communities. Constitutional Foundations: State Sovereignty, Federalism, and the Tenth Amendment The United States Constitution explicitly reserves for the states a primary authority over their militias. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 grant Congress power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”  and to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,”  but expressly reserve to the states the appointment of officers and the authority to train the militia “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”  (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 16). The Tenth Amendment reinforces this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Const. amend. X). The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the National Guard remains a state force  unless and until it is lawfully federalized under Title 10 (Perpich v. Dep’t of Def., 496 U.S. 334, 351 (1990) (“The National Guard is a state force unless and until it is federalized”)). Federal statutes explicitly respect gubernatorial authority in Title 32 status: 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) allows requests for state participation, but governors retain command and control and may refuse.  Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 121 establishes the Governor as commander-in-chief of the state militia and National Guard when not in federal service (§121-2, §121-7). On the Second Amendment: Preserving the Militia as a Bulwark of Liberty The Second Amendment demands that we protect the exact structure and purpose the Framers enshrined:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the operative clause protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Yet the prefatory clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” , is not irrelevant. It declares the central purpose: to ensure that the body of the armed citizenry remains capable of defending the state and checking centralized power. James Madison in Federalist No. 46 explained that an armed populace loyal to state authority would form “a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”  The militia was never limited to a standing government force; it was the people themselves, bearing their own arms. SB2054 protects this constitutional design by ensuring that Hawaii’s organized militia and their National Guard, cannot be commandeered by federal authorities against the state’s will. By preserving the independence of the state-controlled force, this measure helps maintain the broader militia system that the Framers intended as the ultimate safeguard of a free state. Why This Bill Is Essential for Hawaii Our Guard is not a federal auxiliary. It is Hawaii’s, trained, equipped, and commanded by our Governor for our unique island needs. SB2054 ensures that these needed resources cannot be diverted for federal priorities over the Governor’s objection. This bill protects individual liberties by preventing deployment of armed state forces into domestic situations without clear state consent. It upholds the non-aggression principle and the original meaning of the Second Amendment as a check on centralized military power and command. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has fought for protections like this for decades. SB2054 is the direct result of our advocacy, our drafting, and our persistent public pressure. Its passage is a win for liberty, a win for the Second Amendment, and a win for Hawaii. We urge the Committee to pass SB2054 unanimously and without amendments that weaken. Advance the Defend Hawaii Bill to the full Senate and to the House. Let Hawaii lead the nation in reclaiming state sovereignty over its own National Guard and in honoring the Framers’ vision of an armed and free people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We are available for questions and ready to provide additional materials, including our original Defend Hawaii Act draft. In Liberty, Abbra Green | LPHI Secretary | LibertarianHawaii.com  | (808)824-LPHI Help Us Support Stand In Support of Defend Hawaii: SB2054 The first hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2026 @ 3;07pm HST . Take action by following two steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB2054 Testify . Our simple instructions make this process easy! Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support  to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session. References District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ The Federalist No. 46 (James Madison). https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493407 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15–16; amend. X.   https://constitution.congress.gov/ 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/502 SB2054, 33rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2026). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/SB2054_.HTM Libertarian Party of Hawaii. (2025, January 22). Defend Hawaii Activism Packet | FREE Download. https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/post/defend-the-guard-hawaii-activism-packet-free-download   Libertarian Party of Hawaii. (2026). Defend Hawaii Update | Support SB2054.   https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/post/defend-hawaii-update-support-sb2054

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is proud to announce that a resolution authored by Hawaii Chairman Austin Martin , has been formally adopted by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). On February 1, 2026, the LNC passed “Resolution Condemning Fourth Amendment Violations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Other Law Enforcement Agencies”  by a vote of 13–0 with Chair Nekhaila abstaining. Here is the full text of the resolution: " WHEREAS , the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and establishes that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized; and     WHEREAS , this protection is a cornerstone of individual liberty and a fundamental limit on government power, applicable to all law enforcement activities without exception; and     WHEREAS , recent reports indicate repeated instances of excessive force and constitutional overreach by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, including warrantless searches, seizures without due process, and detentions based on suspicion rather than probable cause; and     WHEREAS , such practices—whether in immigration enforcement, routine policing, or other operations—erode public trust, infringe upon natural rights, and contradict the principles of limited government that the Libertarian Party upholds; and     WHEREAS, no government agency, regardless of its mission, is above the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;     THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Libertarian National Committee condemns all violations of the Fourth Amendment by ICE and other law enforcement agencies; and     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Libertarian National Committee urges ICE leadership, local police chiefs, and all law enforcement officials to immediately recommit to strict compliance with Fourth Amendment protections in the discharge of their duties, including:     Requiring judicial warrants for searches and seizures except in genuine exigent circumstances;   Ending the use of civil or administrative pretexts to justify warrantless intrusions;   Ensuring rigorous training on constitutional limits and accountability for officers who violate them; and   BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED , that the Libertarian National Committee calls upon all Americans to defend these essential rights and hold government officials accountable when they fail to uphold the Constitution." This is a direct and uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights at the national level, and it means Defend Hawaii wins national backing (see Senate Bill 2054 ) . Defend Hawaii Wins National Backing The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has led the Defend Hawaii campaign with one clear goal: prevent Hawaii’s National Guard from being dragged into federal operations that routinely violate the Constitution. Our latest newsletter published a " RESOLUTION TO DEFEND HAWAII; SENATE BILL 2054 (2026)" Passed unanimously by the Executive Committe a mere five days before the LNC resolution. Our activism packet and Senate Bill 2054 (introduced January 21, 2026, and currently moving through the Legislature) are practical, state-level implementations of the exact principles the LNC just endorsed. SB2054 would prohibit Hawaii-controlled National Guard units from assisting federal troops, federal law enforcement (including ICE), or out-of-state Guard forces in Hawaii if the Governor objects. In other words, Hawaii will not lend its soldiers, equipment, or legitimacy to warrantless raids, administrative detentions, or any other Fourth Amendment violations happening on our soil. The LNC resolution gives our state effort national backing and moral clarity. When federal agents bypass warrants, use civil pretexts for criminal-level intrusions, or detain people without probable cause, they are doing exactly what this resolution condemns, and exactly what Defend Hawaii is designed to block at the state level. This is how we check power from the bottom up: the national party condemns the abuse, and the state affiliate withholds the resources that make the abuse possible. Take Action Most importantly: Support SB2054 Submit testimony in favor and contact your legislators. Our simple guides make it easy! Feel free to quote our resolutions in full or in part. Share this post : Let Hawaii know that standing up for the Constitution is not a partisan issue; it’s an American issue; it's a Hawaiian issue. Become an official member of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii and recieve our monthly membership newsletters upon release. Donate to keep the pressure on at the Capitol. Choose from a one-time or recurring payment of any amount. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has always believed that liberty is defended first at the local and state level. Today, the national party has joined us in that fight. Mahalo to Chairman Austin Martin for writing the resolution, to the LNC members who voted for it, and to every Hawaii libertarian who has helped build the Defend Hawaii movement from the ground up. The Fourth Amendment is not optional. Neither is our commitment to enforce it, from Honolulu to Washington, D.C.