Search Results

A once-in-a-decade opportunity is here. The Honolulu Charter Commission is now inviting residents to submit ideas and amendments  to the City & County of Honolulu Charter, the foundational governing document that sets how our municipal government operates. As a liberty-minded resident and member of the Libertarian Party of Hawai‘i, this is your chance to push for reforms that expand personal freedom, limit government power, and strengthen market fairness.   What you need to know Visit the submission website: https://www.honolulucitycouncil.org/charter-commission Deadline: Friday, November 7, 2025  --proposals must be submitted by then. The current Charter (the Revised City & County of Honolulu Charter) is available on the website for review and reference. https://www.honolulu.gov/cor/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/01/Charter-FINAL-1-16-2025.pdf Why it matters: The Commission’s recommendations will appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot , and voters will decide.   Why Liber­tar­i­ans Should Participate For those of us who value freedom , limited government , transparent processes , and market-based solutions , this is a prime moment to propose changes that reflect those principles. The Charter shapes how city agencies function, how zoning and permitting work, how taxpayer funds are spent, and how individuals interact with government. Submit your ideas and you could help reduce coercion, expand liberty, and make government in Honolulu more accountable.   How to Get Started Review the Charter to identify outdated, overly powerful, or coercive provisions. Think about changes that strengthen individual rights, reduce government discretion, promote market fairness, and increase transparency. Use the online submission form (or PDF option) on the Commission’s site, and ensure your proposal clearly states the issue being addressed, the Charter section, current language, proposed language, and rationale + impact. Share the opportunity with fellow Libertarians and community partners.   The following are 10 charter proposals submitted by Treasurer Nick Zehr:   Proposal 1:  Eminent Domain 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The City and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) currently have broad powers to take private property through eminent domain for projects such as rail. These powers allow condemnation with minimal council oversight and have historically been used in ways that infringe on property rights, reduce trust in government, and disrupt local businesses and residents. Reform is needed to narrow the definition of “public use” and strengthen procedural safeguards.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 3-110: Condemnation ·         Section 17-103(2)(b): Eminent domain powers of HART ·         Section 7-105(e): Eminent domain powers   3. Current Charter language. Section 17-103(2)(b): “To acquire by eminent domain, purchase, lease or otherwise, in the name of the city, all real property or any interest therein necessary for the development of the fixed guideway system; provided however that, prior to commencing such action, the authority shall submit to the council, in writing, a list of the parcels and areas to be acquired. The authority shall have the right to proceed with such condemnation action so long as the council does not adopt a resolution objecting to the condemnation within 45 days of such notification.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Section 17-103(2)(b) and all other charter provisions granting eminent domain authority as follows: Replace “to acquire by eminent domain” with: “to acquire by eminent domain, limited strictly to projects that constitute a direct public use  such as roads, utilities, flood control, or essential public safety infrastructure. Transfer of condemned property to a private party or developer shall be prohibited.” Require: A 2/3 supermajority vote of the City Council before any condemnation can proceed. Independent appraisals from two licensed appraisers, with the higher value used for compensation. Compensation to include relocation costs and documented business interruption damages. For HART specifically: Remove the automatic right to proceed absent council objection. Instead, require explicit council approval before any action.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protect personal liberties:  This reform protects homeowners, landowners, and small businesses from unjust seizure of their property. ·         Limit government overreach:  It prevents city agencies and HART from using condemnation as a routine development tool. ·         Market fairness:  By prohibiting transfer of seized land to private developers, it ensures fair market competition and voluntary exchange remain the norm. ·         Transparency & fairness: Supermajority approval and independent appraisals provide stronger checks and balances while restoring public trust. ·         Rule of law & non-aggression:  This aligns the City’s powers with constitutional principles, ensuring that coercion is used only in the narrowest, most justifiable circumstances. Intended impact:  Property rights are strengthened, government is held accountable, and Honolulu’s development remains market-driven rather than coerced. This will improve public trust, reduce costly litigation, and keep future projects more fiscally and ethically sound.   Proposal 2: Citizen Lawmaking 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The citizen initiative process in Honolulu is overly restrictive and burdensome. Current rules impose high signature thresholds, broad subject-matter exclusions, and procedural delays that make it difficult for ordinary citizens to place ordinances on the ballot. These barriers weaken direct democracy, concentrate power in the council, and discourage civic participation.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Article III, Chapter 4 – Ordinances by Initiative Power o    Section 3-401. Declaration o    Section 3-402. Procedure for Enactment and Adoption o    Section 3-405. Adoption, Effective Date and Limitation   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 3-401. Declaration: “The electors of the city shall have the power to propose ordinances by initiative, except ordinances authorizing or repealing appropriations of money, levying taxes, or repealing tax levies, or authorizing the issuance of bonds, or making or repealing appropriations of money for any purpose.” Section 3-402:  Establishes high petition signature thresholds and procedural steps before measures are placed on the ballot.   4. Proposed change. Amend Article III, Chapter 4 to read as follows: ·         Section 3-401. Declaration: “The electors of the city shall have the power to propose ordinances by initiative, except measures that directly appropriate funds from the city treasury without identifying a funding source. All other ordinances, including those addressing taxes, regulations, or government powers, may be initiated by the people.” ·         Section 3-402. Procedure: o    Signature threshold set at 5% of voters who cast ballots in the most recent mayoral election , instead of a fixed higher percentage of registered voters. o    The city clerk must verify petitions within 30 days . o    Upon certification, the council must either adopt the ordinance within 60 days or place it on the next regularly scheduled election ballot. ·         Section 3-405. Adoption and Effective Date: o    Ordinances approved by a majority vote shall take effect immediately, unless a later date is specified.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Empowers citizens:  Lowers barriers to citizen-led lawmaking, allowing residents to directly shape policy when council fails to act. ·         Checks government power:  Ensures council decisions are accountable to the people and not insulated from democratic input. ·         Protects liberties:  Expands the scope of issues citizens may address, including taxation and regulation, as long as fiscal responsibility is maintained. ·         Market fairness:  Creates a more responsive government by allowing voters to reduce unnecessary regulations or spending mandates. ·         Transparency & fairness:  Establishes clear timelines and obligations for council and clerk action to prevent stalling. ·         Rule of law:  Keeps initiative power within constitutional bounds while ensuring peaceful, democratic avenues for reform. Intended impact:  Honolulu’s residents will gain a stronger, fairer, and more effective tool for direct democracy, restoring balance between citizens and government and enhancing civic engagement.   Proposal 3:  Emergency Powers 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The mayor currently has broad authority to declare emergencies, with limited time constraints or oversight. This creates the risk of prolonged rule by executive decree, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, where extended orders limited freedoms, shut down businesses, and undermined trust in government. Clear limits, council oversight, and transparency requirements are needed to protect civil liberties and prevent abuse of emergency powers.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 13-112. Declaration of Emergencies   3. Current Charter language. Section 13-112. Declaration of Emergencies: “The mayor may declare an emergency due to a public calamity, but the mayor’s failure or refusal to make such a declaration shall not preclude the council from finding that an emergency exists under the provisions of Section 3-202 of this charter.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Section 13-112 to read: “The mayor may declare an emergency due to a public calamity, provided that: (a) Such a declaration shall not exceed seven (7) days  in duration unless extended by a two-thirds vote of the city council. (b) No emergency declaration may exceed thirty (30) days total without approval by a majority of voters at a special or regularly scheduled election. (c) Emergency orders shall not suspend core civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, worship, commerce, or movement, except where narrowly tailored to address an imminent threat to life or property. (d) The mayor shall issue a public written report every seven (7) days justifying the continuation of the emergency, subject to council review. (e) Any fines or penalties imposed under emergency orders shall be void unless ratified by council resolution within 14 days.”   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects civil liberties:  Ensures emergency powers cannot indefinitely curtail basic freedoms without oversight. ·         Limits government overreach:  Prevents the mayor from ruling by decree beyond a narrowly defined window. ·         Promotes accountability:  Requires council and voter involvement for extensions, preventing unilateral decisions. ·         Supports transparency:  Mandates regular reporting so the public and council remain informed. ·         Strengthens rule of law:  Aligns city practice with constitutional principles of checks and balances. Intended impact:  This amendment restores trust in government, ensures emergencies are managed effectively without undermining liberties, and provides Honolulu residents with stronger protections against prolonged or excessive executive authority.   Proposal 4:  Earmarked “Special Funds” Reauthorization and Performance 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Charter mandates earmarked set-asides of property tax revenues for special funds such as the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, the Affordable Housing Fund, the Climate Resiliency Fund, and the Grants in Aid Fund. While these funds may support worthy causes, the earmarks restrict budget flexibility, reduce council discretion, and lock taxpayers into permanent allocations regardless of performance, need, or economic conditions. This rigidity can lead to inefficiency, political favoritism, and misuse of taxpayer resources.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 9-204. Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, and Climate Resiliency Fund ·         Section 9-205. Grants in Aid Fund   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 9-204.1: “There shall be established a Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, an Affordable Housing Fund, and a Climate Resiliency Fund. In adopting each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, the council shall appropriate one and a half percent of the estimated real property tax revenues, one-third of which shall be deposited into the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, one-third of which shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund, and the remaining one-third of which shall be deposited into the Climate Resiliency Fund.” Section 9-205.2: “In adopting each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, the council shall appropriate a minimum of one-half of one percent of the estimated general fund revenues which shall be deposited into the Grants in Aid Fund.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 9-204 and 9-205 as follows: Require that all earmarked special funds (Clean Water and Natural Lands, Affordable Housing, Climate Resiliency, and Grants in Aid) be subject to automatic sunset every five (5) years , unless reauthorized by voters in a general election. Permit the council, by two-thirds vote, to temporarily suspend allocations to these funds during fiscal emergencies or economic downturns. Require annual independent performance and financial audits  of each fund, with results published in plain language online. Prohibit automatic increases in earmarked percentages without voter approval.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects taxpayers:  Prevents permanent diversion of property tax revenues to politically favored causes without ongoing consent. ·         Enhances flexibility:  Gives council discretion to address urgent fiscal priorities like core infrastructure and public safety. ·         Improves accountability:  Requires regular performance audits and voter re-approval to ensure funds actually achieve their stated purposes. ·         Limits government overreach:  Prevents earmarks from being used as a tool to build bureaucratic empires outside voter oversight. ·         Transparency:  Plain-language reporting empowers citizens to make informed decisions about whether to renew or discontinue earmarks. Intended impact:  These reforms will ensure Honolulu’s budget process remains responsive to current needs, prevent wasteful or outdated earmarks from draining taxpayer resources, and return real decision-making power over special funds to the voters themselves.   Proposal 5:  Transit/Rail Authority Debt and Spending Checks 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) has broad powers to issue debt, manage large budgets, and acquire property with limited voter or council oversight. Past cost overruns and delays in the rail project highlight the risks of weak financial controls. Stronger safeguards are needed to ensure fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability to taxpayers.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 17-103. Powers, Duties, and Functions ·         Section 17-106. Rates, Revenues, and Appropriations ·         Section 17-109. Bond Sales   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 17-103.2: “The public transit authority shall have the following general powers: (a) To make and execute contracts… (b) To acquire by eminent domain, purchase, lease or otherwise, in the name of the city, all real property or any interest therein necessary for the development of the fixed guideway system… (c) To recommend to the council the sale, exchange or transfer of real property… (e) To maintain proper accounts… (f) To prepare an annual operating budget for the authority and an annual capital budget for the development of the fixed guideway system.” Section 17-109: The authority may conduct bond sales subject to council approval   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 17-103, 17-106, and 17-109 as follows: Require voter approval for any new long-term debt, bond issuance, or tax-backed obligation exceeding $100 million. Cap administrative overhead  at no more than 10% of annual capital expenditures. Mandate biennial independent financial and performance audits  of all projects and operations, with results published in plain language online. Require all major procurement contracts  (over $25 million) to undergo open competitive bidding with evaluation results publicly posted. Prohibit the use of new debt for operating expenses ; debt must be restricted to capital projects. Establish a citizen oversight committee  appointed by both council and the mayor to review expenditures and audit findings.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects taxpayers:  Prevents the authority from accumulating unsustainable debt without public consent. ·         Encourages fiscal discipline:  Caps overhead and limits borrowing to essential capital projects. ·         Promotes transparency:  Regular audits and published procurement results give the public full visibility. ·         Strengthens accountability:  Council, voters, and citizens gain meaningful checks over HART’s spending. ·         Supports market fairness:  Competitive procurement ensures better pricing and reduces political favoritism. Intended impact:  These reforms will restore public confidence in HART, prevent runaway costs, and ensure that transit projects are delivered responsibly, efficiently, and in line with taxpayer expectations.   Proposal 6:  Zoning and Permitting 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The zoning and permitting process in Honolulu is slow, discretionary, and burdensome. Projects consistent with adopted plans can be delayed or denied due to complex variance procedures, opaque timelines, and excessive discretion by officials. This raises housing costs, stifles small businesses, and encourages political favoritism. Reform is needed to establish clear by-right approvals, shot clocks, and limits on variances to make the process predictable and fair.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 6-1503. Powers, Duties, and Functions ·         Section 6-1514. Zoning Ordinances ·         Section 6-1517. Zoning Variances   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 6-1503:  Grants the Director of Planning and Permitting authority to prepare development codes and ordinances. Section 6-1514:  Requires zoning ordinances to conform to the general plan and development plans. Section 6-1517:  Authorizes zoning variances under conditions set by law.   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 6-1503, 6-1514, and 6-1517 as follows: By-right approvals: Any project consistent with the General Plan or adopted Development Plans shall be entitled to automatic, ministerial approval without discretionary review. Shot clocks:  Permit applications must be approved or denied within 60 days; applications not acted upon shall be deemed approved. Variance limits: Variances may be granted only where a unique physical hardship exists, not for policy preferences or general economic reasons. Transparency:  The Department of Planning and Permitting shall publish monthly reports of average processing times, pending applications, and variance approvals.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects personal liberties:  Property owners gain more predictable use of their land without undue bureaucratic obstacles. ·         Limits government power:  Restricts discretionary control that enables favoritism and corruption. ·         Supports market fairness:  Faster, by-right permitting lowers housing costs, reduces barriers for small businesses, and encourages investment. ·         Transparency and fairness:  Public reporting ensures accountability and equal treatment. ·         Rule of law:  Clear rules replace arbitrary discretion, aligning with principles of consistency and non-aggression. Intended impact:  Honolulu’s zoning and permitting process will become faster, fairer, and more transparent, helping to lower housing costs, support economic activity, and build public trust in city governance.   Proposal 7:  City Land Dealings 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Department of Land Management (DLM) has broad powers to negotiate acquisitions, leases, and public-private partnerships with limited safeguards. Current rules allow speculative land banking and politically driven transactions that may not always serve taxpayers. Stronger standards, transparency, and limits on acquisitions and dispositions are needed to ensure city land dealings are conducted fairly, efficiently, and in the true public interest.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 6-1802. Powers, Duties, and Functions ·         Section 6-1803. Transactions or Activities Relating to City Real Property Interests   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 6-1803.1: “The director shall conduct a public hearing to determine whether each transaction or activity relating to city real property interests serves the public interest. For any transaction or activity affecting a city real property interest that is over one-quarter acre in size, the director shall conduct the public hearing in the council district where the real property interest is located.” Section 6-1803.3: “The council must approve by resolution the execution by the city of any instruments concerning transactions or activities relating to city real property interests.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 6-1802 and 6-1803 as follows: Require independent market valuation  for all acquisitions, leases, or sales, with the appraisal publicly posted prior to council approval. Mandate that all sales and long-term leases of city land  (over 5 years) be conducted by open public auction , unless waived by a two-thirds council vote. Prohibit speculative land banking: city acquisitions must be tied to a clearly defined core government purpose (public safety, infrastructure, parks). For acquisitions exceeding $10 million or 5 acres, require a two-thirds vote of the city council . Strengthen reporting: the DLM must provide an annual inventory  of all city-held land, leases, and property agreements in a publicly accessible online database.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects taxpayers:  Independent valuations and public auctions ensure the city pays or receives fair market value. ·         Limits government overreach:  Prevents the city from acquiring and holding land beyond its essential needs. ·         Improves transparency:  Public posting of valuations and an annual land inventory allow citizens to monitor city assets. ·         Supports fairness and market dynamics: Open auctions prevent insider deals and favoritism. ·         Strengthens accountability:  Supermajority requirements safeguard against politically motivated or fiscally risky land deals. Intended impact:  These reforms will ensure city land transactions are conducted openly, fairly, and with fiscal responsibility, reducing waste, limiting speculative government activity, and protecting the rights and interests of Honolulu residents.   Proposal 8:  Salary Commission 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Salary Commission currently has the authority to recommend salary adjustments for elected officials and department heads, which then take effect automatically unless explicitly rejected by the city council. This creates the perception of self-dealing, lacks adequate checks, and undermines public trust. Reforms are needed to ensure salary decisions are transparent, accountable, and aligned with fiscal responsibility.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 3-122. Salary Commission   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 3-122: “There shall be a salary commission consisting of seven members who shall establish the salaries of all elected officials, department heads, and other officers of the city. The commission’s salary determinations shall take effect on July 1 following the adoption of its resolution, unless rejected by a three-fourths vote of the entire council.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Section 3-122 to read: The Salary Commission may only recommend  salaries, subject to approval by a majority vote of the city council. Any salary increases above inflation (as measured by the Honolulu CPI) must be placed on the general election ballot  for voter approval. Commission members must be appointed with council confirmation and shall include at least two members with backgrounds in finance, economics, or public administration. Salary Commission meetings shall be livestreamed, and all recommendations must include a fiscal impact statement.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects taxpayers:  Prevents automatic salary hikes without voter or council oversight. ·         Strengthens accountability:  Ensures elected officials and top staff cannot benefit from salary increases without direct democratic consent. ·         Improves transparency:  Public meetings and fiscal impact statements give citizens visibility into compensation decisions. ·         Supports fairness:  Ties raises to inflation unless voters approve higher increases, ensuring fiscal discipline. ·         Limits government overreach:  Shifts final decision-making power from unelected commissioners to the council and public. Intended impact:  These reforms will restore trust in government, ensure responsible compensation practices, and make Honolulu’s salary-setting process more accountable and transparent to the people.   Proposal 9:  Sunshine and Records 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? Although the Charter requires public access to records and allows for electronic public notices, the provisions are outdated and lack modern standards. Records are not always published in machine-readable formats, data is scattered, and there are few requirements for timeliness or usability. This creates barriers to transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. Reform is needed to require digital-by-default disclosure and centralized access to city records and public notices.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? ·         Section 13-105. Records Open to the Public ·         Section 13-124. Public Notices via Electronic Medium   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 13-105: “All books and records of every office, department, or agency of the city shall be open to the inspection of any citizen at any reasonable time, except as provided by law.” Section 13-124: “Whenever any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, notice, or other matter of the city is required to be published in a newspaper, the requirement shall also be satisfied if the matter is published by electronic medium designated by the council.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 13-105 and 13-124 as follows: Section 13-105 (Records Open to the Public): Require that all budgets, contracts, grants, audits, and meeting materials be published online within 72 hours in machine-readable formats (CSV, JSON, PDF) . Establish a single centralized portal where citizens can search, download, and analyze all city records. Section 13-124 (Public Notices via Electronic Medium): Require that all legally required public notices, hearings, and proposed ordinances be posted in a central online portal  with full-text search, subscription email/RSS alerts, and permanent archiving.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects transparency:  Ensures the public can easily access and analyze government information. ·         Modernizes public access:  Moves from paper-based or scattered publication to digital-by-default disclosure. ·         Supports fairness:  Equal access for all residents regardless of ability to purchase or access newspapers. ·         Improves accountability:  Citizens, journalists, and watchdogs can track government actions in real time. ·         Strengthens rule of law:  Guarantees compliance with sunshine principles through enforceable standards. Intended impact:  Honolulu will have a modern, centralized, and transparent public records system. Citizens will be empowered to monitor spending, policy, and governance more effectively, restoring trust in city government and ensuring openness in practice, not just in principle.   Proposal 10:  Recall Thresholds and Timelines 1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The recall provisions for Honolulu elected officials set high signature thresholds, impose district-based signature caps, and create lengthy timelines that make it difficult for voters to hold officials accountable. These barriers weaken democratic checks on elected leaders and limit the effectiveness of recall as a tool for accountability. Reform is needed to simplify requirements, lower thresholds, and ensure timely recall elections.   2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to? Section 12-101. Recall of the Mayor Section 12-102. Recall of a District Councilmember Section 12-103. Recall Petition; Recall Election Section 12-104. Recall of the Prosecuting Attorney   3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 12-101: “The mayor may be removed by recall which shall be initiated upon petition signed by duly registered voters equal in number to at least ten percent of the total voters registered at the last regular mayoral election. Signatures from any one council district… in excess of forty percent of the total number required on the petition shall not be counted.” Section 12-103: “…The city clerk shall complete the examination of the petition within twenty working days after the date of the filing… If the elected officer does not resign within ten days, the city clerk shall arrange a recall election… no earlier than thirty days and no later than ninety days thereafter.”   4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 12-101 through 12-104 as follows: Signature threshold shall be 15% of the number of voters who cast ballots in the most recent election for the office in question  (not 10% of all registered voters). Eliminate the district-based 40% cap on petition signatures. Extend validity of petition signatures to 120 days  before filing (instead of 60). Require the city clerk to verify petitions within 15 business days . Require recall elections to be held within 45–60 days  of petition certification, or placed on the next scheduled election if within that window. Clarify that recall petitions may be filed after six months in office and up until six months before the next scheduled election, removing unnecessary blackout periods.   5. Rationale and intended impact. ·         Protects democratic accountability: Lowers barriers to recall, making it a realistic tool for citizens. ·         Limits government entrenchment:  Prevents officials from being shielded by overly restrictive rules. ·         Supports fairness:  Ties thresholds to actual voter turnout, not inflated registration rolls. ·         Improves transparency and efficiency: Shorter timelines for verification and elections give citizens quicker resolution. ·         Aligns with rule of law:  Establishes clear, simple rules that prevent technicalities from invalidating genuine voter action. Intended impact:  These reforms will empower Honolulu’s residents to hold elected officials accountable through a fair and practical recall process. By lowering thresholds, eliminating arbitrary caps, and tightening timelines, recall becomes a more effective safeguard against misconduct, abuse of power, or loss of public trust.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii discussed the Defend the Guard legislation with Dan Mcknight at the General Membership Meeting Held on November 4, 2024: Defend the Guard The Defend the Guard movement is a states' rights initiative that seeks to prohibit the deployment of the Hawaii National Guard into foreign conflicts without a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. This is a clear violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to " provide for calling forth the Militia. "

"CWS Encounters | Hawaii" is a part of our Know Your Rights Series. When Child Welfare Services (CWS) gets involved with a family in Hawaii, knowing your rights is critical to maintaining your privacy and protecting your family’s safety and well-being.  CWS cannot enter a home without a valid warrant unless they have either the parent's consent or a reasonable belief that a child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.  Record whenever possible, or take notes to carefully document interractions. When Parents Can Refuse Entry CWS workers must identify themselves and state the purpose of their visit when they come to your home. You are not required to open your door or allow entry unless they present a valid, judge-signed warrant or there is an emergency involving imminent danger to a child. You have the right to refuse entry without either a warrant or in the absence of a clear emergency. Always ask to see identification and verify any warrant carefully.  Read the warrant’s face (officials must show it upon request). A valid warrant will contain:  The address to be entered: Ensure the address matches your home exactly, including any apartment or unit number. If it’s wrong or ambiguous, politely state, “This doesn’t match my address,” and refuse entry until corrected. CWS may seek to inspect specific areas; the warrant must reflect this precision. The legal reason for the search: Look for a specific crime or suspicion. General phrases like “welfare check” without details are insufficient. Politely ask them to show you the probable cause statement. If unclear or missing, do not allow entry; ensure the reason aligns with CWS’s stated concerns and not an unrelated topic. The scope of the search: Check the warrant for a detailed list of items or areas. In child welfare, this might include “conditions affecting child safety.” If it’s overly broad, like a search of the entire premises, question its validity and refuse entry until clarified. Ask, “What exactly are you authorized to take or inspect?” to ensure limits are clear and specific. The signature of a judge: I nspect the warrant for a judge’s name and signature, plus a court seal or stamp. Check the issuance date to ensure it’s recent. Warrants expire after 10 days. If missing or outdated, say, “I need to see a valid, signed warrant,” and deny entry. Confirm the judge’s jurisdiction (a family court judge assigned to your locality) If no valid warrant is presented, politely decline entry and ask officials to leave or otherwise wait outside while you seek legal advice. Imminent Danger: What It Means Under Hawaii law, imminent danger means there is an active, visible, and articulable threat of physical harm to a child that requires immediate intervention to prevent injury. This is not a vague concern but a specified, urgent risk that if not addressed at once, could result in serious harm or death before normal legal processes can occur.  They must provide concrete facts. Examples include: “ A neighbor reported hearing a child screaming for help at 9 AM today ” or “ We received a call about a child locked in a room without food”) . Look for: Details like time, source, or observable conditions would be verifiable. They should describe the source’s credibility. Anonymous tips alone are weak unless corroborated by observable evidence. Ask, " What specific evidence do you have of an emergency?" The claim must require instant action, rather than past instances that have no immediate threat. Vague claims like “ We got a tip about neglect" or refusal to explain a pretext are red flags to watch for. If unclear, state, “I need specific reasons before I can allow entry.” Your Rights During Investigation During any investigation or visit, you have the right to: A clear explanation of the concerns and allegations against your family. Request the presence of a lawyer and/or advocate before answering questions or signing documents. Record or film interactions with CWS and officers as long as you do not interfere physically. Know the outcomes of investigations, including whether abuse or neglect is confirmed. Have hearings scheduled promptly (usually within three days) if your child is removed temporarily. Protecting Your Family’s Rights If there is disagreement with an assessment or removal, ask for all decisions in writing and seek legal counsel immediately. Document every visit thoroughly—names, badge numbers, times, questions asked, and what specifically was explained. Do not sign anything.   Don’t let CWS talk you into consent, written or verbal. They might push for a “quick look” to skip getting a warrant, making it easier to snoop and build a case from something minor, like a cluttered room. Ask, “What’s the danger right now?” and don’t sign anything without a lawyer. Jot down names and details. Using your rights ensures CWS plays fair, keeping your family safe on your terms. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is dedicated to strengthening Hawaii's liberties while limiting government powers and abuses. Check out our Know Your Rights tab for more!

Shutterstock id 2299938213 Engaging in county government is one of the most effective ways to protect liberty and shape the future of our communities. While many people focus on state or federal politics, decisions at the county level on land use, agriculture, taxation, public safety, and more; often have the most immediate impact on our daily lives.    The Libertarian Party of Hawai’i had an outstanding showing in this year’s state legislative session, submitting nearly 300 written and oral testimony on over 100 bills! Our goal since convention is to build the scope and momentum: empower at-larges and individuals on each island to be engaged not only during the state legislative session, but throughout the year at their county-level.  To make consistent impacts for liberty closest to home. This is a call to grassroots and decentralized action for political participation.   Here’s a practical guide for tracking bills, hearings, and resolutions in Hawaiʻi’s counties, and how to submit written testimony so your voice is heard.   City & County of Honolulu (Oʻahu) Track bills & agendas: HNLDOC Legislative System ( https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/ ) Submit written testimony: Online portal  ( https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/testimony ) Mail/Fax option: Office of the City Clerk, 530 S. King St. Rm. 100, Honolulu, HI 96813 Fax: (808) 768-3826 Tips: You can submit testimony online by selecting the agenda item, marking “Support,” “Oppose,” or “Comment,” and uploading your remarks. Oral testimony can also be given in person or via Zoom. Check the meeting agenda for details.   Hawaiʻi County (Island of Hawaiʻi / Big Island) Track bills & agendas: Hawaiʻi County Council agendas & notices ( https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=1&dbid=1&cr=1 ) Submit written testimony: Email: counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov Fax: (808) 961-8912 Mail: Office of the County Clerk, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Deadline: Submit testimony before 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting for advance distribution.   Maui County (Maui, Lānaʻi, Molokaʻi, Kahoʻolawe) Track bills & agendas: Maui County Council calendar & legislation ( https://mauicounty.us/agendas/ ) Submit written testimony: Council meetings: Email county.clerk@mauicounty.us  or Fax (808) 270-7171 Committee meetings: Use eComment system  to submit directly by agenda item ( https://mauicounty.us/ecomment/ ) Deadline: Submit testimony by noon the business day before the meeting. If delivering in person, bring 16 hard copies (18 for budget sessions).   Kauaʻi County Track bills & agendas: Kauaʻi County Council agendas ( https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Council ) Submit written testimony: Email: counciltestimony@kauai.gov Fax: (808) 241-6349 Mail/Deliver: Office of the County Clerk, Council Services Division, 4396 Rice St. Ste. 209, Līhuʻe, HI 96766 Note: Written testimony should be submitted by noon the business day before the meeting. Remote oral testimony may be offered as a courtesy. Check the specific agenda for signup details.   General Testimony Tips State your position clearly: Begin with “I support,” “I oppose,” or “I am providing comments on…” Introduce yourself: Give your name, where you live, and if you are speaking on behalf of an organization. Be concise: Focus on your main points (1-2 paragraphs is often enough). Offer solutions: Don’t just oppose; suggest alternatives that respect freedom and community needs. Submit on time: Most counties require testimony by noon the business day before the hearing for distribution.   Why Your Testimony Matters Local government often advances or restricts liberty quietly, through zoning ordinances, agricultural rules, tax policies, or public safety mandates. By showing up, through written or oral testimony, you help ensure that liberty has a seat at the table. With many bills receiving less than a handful of testimony, in a state with some of the least political participations, multiple people showing they care about an issue and providing thoughtful testimony does move the needle.  Doing this also make you informed and engaged at a level that has the most impact on your life.   👉 Take action: Bookmark your county’s testimony link, track upcoming agendas, and make it a habit to send in your voice on issues that matter. A few paragraphs from you can make the difference in how your council votes.

The following Amicus Curiae Brief  was submitted to the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee in support of the appellants in Roos et al. v. LNC  on September 19, 2025, by the Executive Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, Abbra Green: To the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party: I, Abbra Green, State Secretary of The Libertarian Party of Hawaii, submit this amicus brief in support of the Appellants in Roos et al. v. Libertarian National Committee . As guardians of liberty in the Aloha State, we've watched in horror as the LNC plunges a knife straight into the heart of our party's soul by repudiating the Statement of Principles that has defined us since 1974. This can be viewed through no other lens but an existential threat. The LNC's response, penned by Jonathan McGee, dismisses our sacred principles as mere philosophy, warning that holding leaders accountable to them would be "dangerous." Dangerous? To whom? To the bureaucrats clinging to power, perhaps, but not to the radical liberty we fight for every day. I urge the Judicial Committee to stand firm: void the LNC's unprincipled resolutions; reaffirm the binding force of our Statement of Principles . Anything less spells catastrophe for the Libertarian Party. We must not let the firmly held "Party of Principle" be transformed into just another spineless political machine, indistinguishable from the very statists we oppose. I. The Statement of Principles: The Unbreakable Bedrock of Our Party Let's start with The Libertarian Party Bylaws, Convention Special Rules, And  Judicial Committee Rules of Appellate Procedure,  which the LNC is sworn to uphold.  Article 3 couldn't be clearer:  "The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail."  This isn't vague poetry; it's a mandate . The party isn't just inspired by these principles; it 's sustained  by them.  Article 2 reinforces this: "The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles…"  And Article 7 explicitly binds the LNC to adhere to Article 2:  "The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2."   The LNC's every move must  align with the Statement of Principles because that's the core purpose of the party itself . But apparently, that's not binding on Jonathan McGee and the "factionless" LNC. In their respondent brief in   Roos et al. v. LNC , filed on September 16, 2025, they have the audacity to claim:  "While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles."   Shockingly? The only shock here is the LNC's willingness to misrepresent our foundational documents to evade responsibility.  The brief goes further, asserting:  “ The LNC maintains that it is not bound by the Statement of Principles and further asserts that the Statement of Principles is a philosophical foundation and not a self-executing disciplinary code. Treating the Statement of Principles as a self-executing disciplinary code could have dangerous future implications.” Aspirational? Philosophical? This is the language of bureaucrats (and/or lawyers?) dodging accountability, not the sentiments of sincerely liberty-loving leaders.  Has McGee read our bylaws? What exactly is a “self-executing disciplinary code,” and why is one necessary in this scenario? I start with this topic to bring light to its importance. If such a theory were to become the standard for LNC accountability, it would have dire consequences. We cannot get to the bottom of any investigation or appeal before we are able to establish common ground. Every case against an individual must be based on the principles we expect our members to uphold. Our Platform begins with a clear statement: As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.  The argument could have reflected the stance that the principles do not directly apply to the appeal’s claims, but it should not be claiming that the LNC is “ not bound by the Statement of Principles”. It brings the argument too far beyond the scope of the appeal, and raises serious questions about the LNC’s loyalties if it stands without objection.  The header of our platform , which uses the Statement of Principles below its preamble, reads: “The following principles form the bedrock of a free and prosperous nation” II. Blatant Hypocrisy  The LNC's repudiation isn't just incorrect, it's a shocking betrayal, exposed by their own selective enforcement. They invoked the Statement of Principles to smear former Chair Angela McArdle in discussions surrounding the underlying events of the SIC report, accusing her of fraud and misrepresentation. But now that the tables have turned and they face scrutiny, they claim those same principles don't apply to their actions. This double standard reeks of ulterior motives, not principle.  Let's confront the glaring questions raised by Appellant Hector Roos head-on (the ones the LNC conveniently ignores) to finally reveal the truth: Why the Stark Contradiction?  The independent financial audit (conducted by expert accountants) found zero evidence of mismanagement or fraud, which directly contradicts SIC's allegations. It appears the SIC had the exact same data, but twisted it to fit their narrative. Why?  Why Float an Unauthorized Penalty?  The SIC dangled a lifetime ban on McArdle, even though LNC counsel admitted in open session that no such power exists. Why advance it at all? This directly violates our non-aggression principle and sets a precedent for arbitrary, unauthorized punishments. Are we Going to Address the Secret Communications?  Emails between Chair Steven Nekhaila and former Chair Nicholas Sarwark expose their premeditated plot to bar McArdle long before the SIC report was completed. If true, this premeditation screams fraud and betrayal, directly assaulting the honesty our Statement demands. Allowing it to stand would normalize backroom deals, shattering our party's moral spine and accelerating its decline into corruption. Why the Sudden Reversal on Freedom Calls?  For a full year, Freedom Calls was an approved LNC vendor, with payments transparently reported monthly to the board, available on request, and filed with the FEC. No alarms were raised until it suited the “Factionless” cohorts. Why claim otherwise now? From Section Four of our Platform: “In every matter, we advocate the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercion, physical force, or fraud.” The LNC's silence on these damning facts and subsequent rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me response is inexcusable. They warn that enforcing principles against unintentional misstatements could be “ dangerous ”. If misrepresentations get a pass, our party loses its very definition, and we become just another echo chamber of half-truths.  III. Catastrophe Awaits If We Abandon Our Principles—The Party's Survival Hangs in the Balance Dismissing our Statement of Principles as non-binding is a death knell to the Party. Our party has been in freefall because  LP leaders have strayed from their roots. They’re prioritizing politicized power plays over liberty.  Imagine an LNC unbound by non-aggression, free to betray the principles we claim to uphold. We'd become indistinguishable from the Democrats and Republicans and doom ourselves to perpetual obscurity. The Judicial Committee has the power to review and reject actions that violate our bylaws. Grant this appeal, void the resolutions, and declare our principles binding. Restore the "Party of Principle" before it's too late. Failure in this matter invites total collapse: alienated affiliates, fleeing members, and a legacy of betrayal. For the sake of our party's soul, rule for the Appellants, reaffirm our bedrock Statement, and avert the catastrophe of a principle-free future. The Libertarian Party must stand on its commitment to radical truth. We demand better. We deserve the liberty we preach. Respectfully submitted on the nineteenth day of September, 2025,  Abbra Green, Libertarian Party of Hawaii Secretary Contact: lphisecretary@gmail.com   You can read the other Amicus Brief submitted by parliamentarian Jonathan Jacobs on Lpedia .

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii proudly calls itself the " Party of Principle ." It's not just a catchy slogan; it's our identity, etched into the foundational documents that guide every action we take as a movement dedicated to liberty. It is what sets us apart from every other political affiliation in the country.  Yet, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, the Libertarian National Committee's (LNC) current leadership, through a respondent's brief penned by Jonathan McGee  on their behalf, has brazenly argued that our sacred Statement of Principles does not apply to LNC leadership. McGee clearly redefines this key component himself as aspirational fluff without real teeth or binding force. This isn't just a legal maneuver; it's a knife to the heart of what makes us all Libertarians. How can these so-called “stewards” of our party claim to champion individual rights and non-aggression while casually tossing aside the principles that sustain us? The Libertarian Party of Hawaii (LPHI) demands answers and accountability from a leadership that seems all too eager to prioritize power plays over principle. Undeniably Principled Let's start with the facts, straight from The Libertarian Party BYLAWS, CONVENTION SPECIAL RULES, AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , which the LNC is sworn to uphold.  Article 3 couldn't be clearer:  "The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail."  This isn't vague poetry; it's a mandate . The party isn't just inspired by these principles; it 's sustained  by them.  Article 2 reinforces this: "The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles…"  And Article 7 explicitly binds the LNC to adhere to them:  "The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2."   There it is, in black and white: The LNC's every move must  align with the Statement of Principles because that's the core purpose of the party itself . LNC Claims They're Not Bound by Principle But apparently, that's not good enough for Jonathan McGee and the "factionless" LNC. In their respondent brief in Roos et al. v. LNC , filed just yesterday on September 16, 2025, they have the audacity to claim:  "While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles."   Shockingly? The only shock here is the LNC's willingness to misrepresent our foundational documents to evade responsibility. They go further, asserting:  “ The LNC maintains that it is not bound by the Statement of Principles and further asserts that the Statement of Principles is a philosophical foundation and not a self-executing disciplinary code. Treating the Statement of Principles as a self-executing disciplinary code could have dangerous future implications.” Aspirational? Philosophical? This is the language of bureaucrats (or lawyers?) dodging accountability, not the sentiments of sincerely liberty-loving leaders. Has McGee read our bylaws? His brief doesn't stop there. He goes on to state that party leaders could be "censured for misstating a fact in a press release or even a personal remark."  And it doubles down: "Next, even supposing that it did, the petitioner alleges that the SIC report violates the Statement of Principles by way of supposed 'misrepresentation'.   Misrepresentation can be intentional or unintentional, and if unintentional misrepresentation is ruled to be a violation of the Statement of Principles the implications would be catastrophic for the operation of the Party."   Catastrophic? What is truly catastrophic is leadership that views our principles as optional guidelines rather than the non-negotiable bedrock of our existence. If the Statement of Principles' prohibitions on fraud, misrepresentation, and aggression aren't binding, what stops the LNC from becoming just another swamp creature in the political machine? What separates us from the right or the left party’s leadership, marred by corrupt whims mandated in their policies? Hypocrisy Exposed  This isn't abstract philosophizing. We are watching a real betrayal unfold in response to the Roos  case. It drips with irony. The LNC adopted resolutions condemning former Chair Angela McArdle for alleged violations of the party's core ethical and fiduciary principles of governance . They wield the LP Statement of Principles as a sword to justify their actions through a Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) report, claiming her conduct violated the very principles they now say do not apply to themselves. In a shocking display of hypocrisy, the same LNC argues in their respondent brief that the Statement of Principles is merely philosophical and does not bind them as a governing body. Petitioners like Jonathan Jacobs and Hector Roos, rightly argue this violated notice rules and the Statement of Principles’ stance against misrepresentation. Instead of defending their actions or admitting fault on principled grounds, the LNC hides behind claims that the principles they so readily invoke against others don't apply to their own conduct.  If leadership can cherry-pick when to uphold the Statement of Principles, using it to attack their chair while dismissing its authority over themselves, what's next? Brushing off property rights in budget decisions? This slippery slope leads straight to the irrelevance we've known, or else to the corruption seen in other parties that sold their souls for recognition and expediency. I don't know about you, but I joined the Party of Principle because they are the only political party in America that remains with a moral spine. I cannot stay silent and watch the knife twist through it. Our Principles Guide Every Affiliate Hawaii and the other state affiliates built their parties on these very principles, fighting for personal freedoms in a state dominated by big-government overreach. The LPHI bylaws follow the same foundational principles.  Article 2E states:  “That the only moral basis of politics is the protection of individual rights. In recognition of the fact that the initiation of force by government has been the chief instrument for the expropriation of individual rights and freedom, the party enters into politics for the specific purpose of eliminating the intervention of government in moral and economic affairs.”   “The Libertarian Party is, at its core, the party of principle. The Statement of Principles is not just a philosophical decoration, it is the bedrock of who we are and why we exist. To suggest that the LNC is not bound by it undermines the very integrity of our movement. While it may not function as a legal code, it serves as our compass and moral standard. Every member of our leadership should hold themselves accountable to it, and every libertarian should expect nothing less. Without steadfast adherence to these principles, we risk becoming just another political party that compromises away its soul.” ~ Nicholas Zehr, LPHI Treasurer We affiliate under the national party, expecting the LNC to lead by example, not to lawyer their way out of binding ethical obligations.  Jonathan McGee, as the signatory of this shameful brief and a key LNC figure (recently considered for Chair, and subsequently Vice Chair), bears particular responsibility. His words aren't just a way of legal loophole; they're a signal that our current leadership values self-preservation over the very liberty we all pledged to advance.   Call to Action Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chairman and Region 1 Alternate, Austin Martin weighs in on this disturbing development: When asked to elaborate, Chairman Martin simply warned: "Take note of those who respond to these indefensible actions of the LNC by attacking the messengers." We call on Libertarians nationwide to wake up. Demand the Judicial Committee reject this LNC farce and boldly reaffirm that the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles is binding on our leadership , especially those representing us on the LNC. The SIC Report condemns Angela Mcardle for violating the same statement of principles they are now claiming do not apply to them.  Contact entire.lnc@lp.org  and your LNC Regional Representative today. We call on the Libertarian National Committee to sustain the party through principles, as Article 3 demands. If they can’t uphold something so fundamental, perhaps it's time for new leadership that will. The Party of Principle deserves better than guardians who treat our ethics and principles as disposable.

As the Libertarian Party of Hawaii gears up for our upcoming convention, we're excited to spotlight the individuals stepping up to lead our movement toward greater freedom and self-reliance in the islands. Today, we're featuring Nicholas Zehr, who is running for re-election as Treasurer on the Executive Committee. Nick has shared his thoughts through our nomination survey, providing insights into his background, principles, and vision for Hawaii. Below, you'll find the full questions from our survey along with Nick's responses, presented exactly as submitted. Why are you running? "I’m running for re-election as Executive Treasurer because I believe liberty is worth fighting for, especially here in Hawai‘i, where over regulation, taxation, and government overreach stifle opportunity and personal freedom. I served as an Army officer for 10 years and now support the Army as a Department of the Army civilian. I hold degrees in economics and supply chain management, and I bring disciplined financial oversight, strategic thinking, and a commitment to integrity. I’m motivated by a vision of a freer, more self-reliant Hawai‘i where individuals can live peacefully without government interference in their personal lives or choices. Serving on the Executive Committee allows me to put my skills to use supporting candidates, strengthening our organization, and advancing liberty across the islands." What is the most important libertarian principle to you, and how would you apply it to improve Hawaii? "The most important libertarian principle to me is voluntary association. No one should be forced into a relationship, obligation, or payment against their will. This principle applies to everything, from how we fund government to how we educate our children, treat our health, and engage in business. In Hawai‘i, I would apply this principle by advocating for reforms like ending mandatory occupational licensing, legalizing direct-to-consumer food sales such as raw milk, and pushing back against victimless crime enforcement. When relationships (economic, personal, and political) are rooted in consent rather than coercion, human potential thrives. This is why I’ve helped create systems within our party to identify and testify on legislation that either expands or restricts liberty. In 2025, we submitted testimony on over 100 bills, with a focus on issues where voluntary choice should replace government mandates. Empowering people starts with saying no to coercion and yes to freedom." What is the most pressing issue facing Hawaii, and how would you address it using libertarian principles? "The most pressing issue facing Hawai‘i is the cost of living, which is driven largely by government intervention: land use restrictions, permitting delays, taxes, and monopolistic policies. I would work to address this through a libertarian lens by eliminating unnecessary barriers to housing, farming, and small business. That means supporting bills to streamline permitting, end civil asset forfeiture, and reduce taxation, while empowering families to pursue alternative education, food sovereignty, and medical freedom. We don’t need more government programs, we need less government in our way. Using libertarian principles, we must tear down the artificial barriers that prevent housing, food production, entrepreneurship, and self-sufficiency." How would you grow the Libertarian Party of Hawaii’s influence and membership in a state dominated by other parties? "Growing the Libertarian Party of Hawai‘i requires both grassroots energy and infrastructure to support it. I’ve worked to modernize our operations, increase engagement, and expand opportunities to take action. I created the “Take Action” tab on our website, which offers real-time tools for engaging with legislation. I helped launch a successful joint fundraising campaign that raised over $35,000, established our FEC account, and supported new funding initiatives like our Cost Commission program and plans for accepting cryptocurrency. These initiatives give us the resources and reach to compete, and they also show that principled ideas, backed by smart strategy, can grow our influence even in a state dominated by other parties." What unique qualities or experiences make you the best choice for the Executive Committee? "I bring a rare combination of fiscal discipline, military leadership, and grassroots passion. I don’t just talk about liberty, I live it. I volunteer regularly with local farms, serve as a Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader, and am involved in community advocacy. As Treasurer, I’ve ensured financial transparency and strengthened our compliance. I want our money to go towards impact, value, and ROI. My experience as an Army logistics officer and contract specialist equips me with the accountability, precision, and strategy needed to help our party grow. My focus is not to play politics, but for my family and others to live in a more free Hawai’i." We encourage all members to review Nick's responses and consider how his experience and dedication align with our shared goals for a freer Hawaii. Stay tuned for more candidate spotlights as we approach the convention on August 30th . If you're interested in nominating yourself or someone else, email us at lphisecretary@gmail.com

We are excited to announce that the Libertarian Party of Hawaii 2025 Convention will be held at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel. ZOOM links will be available for members who cannot attend in person. Date: August 30, 2025 Time: 11:00 am - 4:30  Location : 71 Banyan Dr. Hilo, HI 96720 Room Reservations:  +1 (866) 284-7547 Volunteer Help us plan for the August 2025 Convention. There is a lot to do to make this a memorable and efficient experience. The more volunteers we have pitching in, the better the event outcomes will be. Help us plan venues, entertainment, food, agendas, & more. Let’s make this Convention one for the history books! Fill out our volunteer sign-up sheet,  and check the “Event Planning” box to get started.  Nominations Nominations for 2025 Executive Committee The Libertarian Party of Hawaii will elect its Executive Committee (Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, and five members-at-large) at the upcoming State Convention. Nominations have been open for several months, and the following current Executive Committee members have indicated their intent to run for re-election:  Austin Martin, Chairperson  Nicholas Zehr, Treasurer Abbra Green, Secretary  Nominations remain open, and any party member may be nominated from the floor at the convention. We encourage all members to consider running or nominating candidates to help lead our party forward. For more information on the nomination process or executive roles, view our bylaws .  Submissions or inquiries can be sent to lphisecretary@gmail.com

HB1119 & SB1438  probibit home care agencies from providing services outside the scope of their facility license unless they are contracted with the city and county of Honolulu or Hawaii Medicaid programs. This legislation undermines personal freedom, stifles competition, and causes harm to those it claims to protect. Why should some agencies be allowed to operate without a license while others are not? This selective regulation can lead to inconsistencies in service accountability. All providers should be subject to the same standards without the need for government control or intervention. Clients and families should be able to make their own decisions regarding health care based on their preferences and needs, rather than being subjected to government mandates. If clients feel that a particular professional or agency does not meet their standards, they should have the freedom to seek alternatives. HB1119 & SB1438  is a misguided approach to public health and safety. Rather than imposing regulations that restrict freedom and competition, lawmakers should focus on individual rights. Help Us Oppose this Bill: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: HB1119 & SB1438 Take action by speaking out against these movements.  Call your representatives: Maps of districts and their representatives with contact information can be found here. 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.

On September 9, 2024 at 7pm, long-time member and international author Ken Schoolland addressed The Libertarian Party of Hawaii. He gave LPHI an overview of the creation of his book and a glimpse into his new animated series, “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey” To learn more about Ken Schoolland’s work, and his masterpiece literary work visit his website at: https://www.jonathangullible.com/free-book

In America, we are often told that laws exist to ensure justice. But what happens when laws are unjust? What if the government uses its power to punish people unfairly? Throughout history, citizens have had a powerful tool to push back against government overreach: jury nullification . Jury nullification occurs when a jury votes “Not Guilty” despite evidence that the defendant broke the law  because they believe the law itself is unfair, unjustly applied, or would lead to an immoral outcome. It is a vital, but often hidden, power that allows regular people—not politicians, judges, or prosecutors—to make the final decision in the courtroom. Despite its long history in America, most jurors don’t even know they have this right . Courts and prosecutors actively avoid discussing it, and some have even punished people for trying to inform jurors about it. But jury nullification is real, legal, and has played a crucial role in some of the most important struggles for justice in American history. A Long Tradition of Defying Bad Laws Jury nullification is older than the United States itself. It has been used for centuries as a way for ordinary people to resist government overreach. The Trial of William Penn (1670) One of the earliest examples of jury nullification happened in England when William Penn , the founder of Pennsylvania, was arrested for preaching in public against the Church of England. The government ordered the jury to convict him, but they refused. The judge locked the jurors in a room without food or water for two days, trying to force a conviction. Still, they stood their ground. The case established that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts , setting a precedent for jury independence. Jury Nullification and the American Revolution In colonial America, British authorities tried to enforce strict laws on trade, taxation, and speech. But American juries often refused to convict colonists  accused of violating these oppressive laws. This widespread defiance helped fuel the Revolution. John Adams, who later became the second U.S. president, praised jury nullification, saying: “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Fighting the Fugitive Slave Act (1850s) One of the most powerful examples of jury nullification in American history occurred in the fight against slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850  made it illegal to help escaped slaves, even in states that had already outlawed slavery. People who provided shelter, food, or assistance could be arrested and forced to pay heavy fines. But many Northern juries refused to convict  people accused under this law. Some abolitionists, like William Lloyd Garrison, actively encouraged jurors to use nullification to stop slavery’s spread. As a result, many prosecutions failed, weakening the law and making it unenforceable in large parts of the country. Alcohol Prohibition and the Power of the People (1920s) When Prohibition made alcohol illegal in the 1920s, many Americans disagreed with the law. Police arrested thousands for making, selling, or even possessing alcohol. But juries often refused to convict, making it difficult for the government to enforce Prohibition effectively. In some cities, more than 60% of alcohol-related cases ended in acquittals , despite clear evidence of guilt. This widespread jury resistance was a major reason why Prohibition was eventually repealed. Jury Nullification in the Modern Era Today, jury nullification continues to play an important role in the justice system, though it is rarely talked about in courtrooms. The War on Drugs  – Many Americans believe drug laws, especially those criminalizing marijuana, are too harsh. Some juries refuse to convict people for nonviolent drug offenses, even when the law says they should. Overcriminalization – The U.S. has thousands of laws that can turn ordinary behavior into a crime. Juries can resist unjust prosecutions by voting Not Guilty when they feel the punishment doesn’t fit the “crime.” Victimless Crimes  – Jury nullification can prevent people from being punished for acts that do not harm others, such as selling raw milk, gambling, or refusing to comply with arbitrary government regulations. Why Haven’t You Heard About Jury Nullification? If jury nullification is so powerful, why don’t more people know about it? The answer is simple: the government doesn’t want you to know. Judges won’t tell you  – In most trials, judges instruct jurors that they must apply the law as written, without questioning whether it is fair. In reality, jurors have the right to use their own judgment. Lawyers can’t talk about it  – In many courts, defense lawyers are forbidden from mentioning jury nullification. If they do, the judge may remove them from the case or declare a mistrial. Activists have been arrested  – In some cases, people handing out flyers about jury nullification near courthouses have been arrested or harassed by police. Despite these challenges, jury nullification remains a powerful tool for justice —but only if people know about it. How to Use Jury Nullification If you are called for jury duty, you have an opportunity to make a difference. Here’s how: Know your rights  – You are not legally required to convict someone just because the judge tells you to follow the law. Keep quiet during jury selection  – If a prosecutor or judge suspects you support jury nullification, they may remove you from the jury pool. Answer questions honestly, but don’t volunteer unnecessary information. Vote your conscience  – If convicting someone would be unjust, you can vote Not Guilty , even if the law was broken. Your vote is final —the judge cannot change it. Stand your ground  – Jury verdicts must be unanimous. If you hold out and refuse to convict, the case may end in a mistrial, giving the defendant another chance. What Can You Do? Educate others  – Most people don’t know about jury nullification. Share this information with family, friends, and community members. Serve on a jury  – Don’t avoid jury duty! See it as a chance to stand up for justice. Get involved  – The Fully Informed Jury Association ( FIJA.org ) provides resources to help people understand and use jury nullification. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful, yet least known, rights in our legal system. It allows ordinary citizens to stand up against government overreach, unjust laws, and unfair prosecutions. Throughout history, juries have used this power to fight tyranny, resist oppression, and protect individual rights. The next time you are called for jury duty, remember: you are not just judging the defendant—you are judging the law itself. Will you use your power?

The Aloha State is grappling with a corruption crisis that strikes at the heart of its democracy. A political bribery scheme, implicating even the FBI, has come to light, with desperate attempts to sweep it under the rug. As chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, I say enough is enough. We stand unwavering in our fight for individual liberty, limited government, and free markets—values that many scandals like this have trampled. State lawmakers took bribes to rig legislation , and the FBI, instead of rooting out this rot, orchestrated it to their ends. This isn’t justice—it’s a betrayal of the people, a glaring sign of an agency drunk on power and devoid of integrity. Meanwhile, under the authoritarian grip of Governor Josh Green, we’ve seen a flood of resignations across state government. These aren’t random exits; they’re the fallout of a system festering with corruption, where self-interest reigns over public good. This mess casts a dark shadow over the 2026 elections. Trust in government is crumbling, and who can blame the people? The Libertarian Party of Hawaii demands action—real action, not empty promises. We call for: Full Transparency: Release every document tied to this scheme, especially those the FBI is clutching tight.   Independent Investigation: Launch a non-partisan probe into the FBI’s role and this cover-up.   Legislative Overhaul: Enact reforms such as term limits and stricter oversight to reduce government overreach.   Voter Power: Urge every Hawaiian to rise up, vote out the corrupt, and back leaders who honor liberty. We’re not here only to point fingers—we’re here to fix this. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is fighting for a government that answers to you, not the power-hungry elite. Join us. Together, we’ll dismantle this tyranny and build a Hawaii where freedom thrives.