Search Results

Hawaiʻi is beautiful. It is also expensive, fragile, and increasingly governed by plans. Big ones.   Recently, I sat down and read the Hawaiʻi 2050 Sustainability Plan cover to cover. Not the press releases. Not the executive summary. The actual document.   What follows isn’t a rejection of sustainability, mālama ʻāina, or long-term thinking; those values matter deeply in Hawaiʻi. What follows is a libertarian critique of how sustainability is being defined, governed, and enforced, and why the current approach risks undermining the very resilience it hopes to create.   I’ll also offer an alternative: what a libertarian-based sustainability framework for Hawaiʻi could look like; one grounded in incentives, property rights, and local decision-making rather than centralized planning.   What the Plan Gets Right   To be fair, the plan starts from a place of real concern. It correctly identifies that Hawaiʻi faces crushing housing costs, fragile energy systems, stressed water resources, heavy food import dependence, and genuine climate risks that matter more on islands than almost anywhere else. It also acknowledges a crucial fact: Hawaiʻi is uniquely constrained. Geography, isolation, limited land, and supply chains make us more vulnerable to shocks than most states.   On diagnosis, there is significant agreement.   Where libertarians begin to part ways is not over what problems exist , but over how the plan proposes to solve them.   The Core Issue: Sustainability as Central Planning   At its core, the Hawaiʻi 2050 Sustainability Plan assumes that if the state defines the right outcomes, aligns agencies under a unified framework, and coordinates policy across sectors, sustainability can be engineered. That belief is understandable, but deeply flawed. The plan explicitly aligns Hawaiʻi with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, calls for sustainability to be “institutionalized throughout government,” embeds equity criteria into nearly every policy area, and relies heavily on mandates, benchmarks, procurement requirements, and planning directives across energy, housing, food, land use, and transportation.   In practice, sustainability becomes less about stewardship and more about permission. Permission to build. Permission to operate. Permission to consume. Permission to innovate.   From a libertarian economic perspective, this approach raises serious concerns.   Why Central Planning Struggles in Hawaiʻi   Hawaiʻi is not a single, uniform place. Conditions vary dramatically between islands, regions, and even neighborhoods. Windward and leeward communities face different water realities. Rural Molokaʻi does not share the same infrastructure constraints as urban Oʻahu. Agricultural areas, resort corridors, and dense residential zones all respond differently to rules and incentives.   Yet the plan repeatedly favors statewide targets and standardized approaches. That assumes planners can know in advance what works everywhere.   Economists have a name for this problem: the knowledge problem. No centralized body, no matter how well intentioned, can possess the local, constantly changing information that individuals and communities use every day to make decisions. When planning replaces local adaptation, systems become rigid, slow, and brittle. Ironically, a plan meant to promote resilience can end up reducing it.   The Cost-of-Living Blind Spot   Many sustainability policies are framed as progressive and compassionate, but in Hawaiʻi, policies that raise costs almost always land hardest on local families.   Energy mandates that increase electricity prices don’t hurt tourists or second-home owners nearly as much as they hurt ALICE households. Building requirements that raise construction costs don’t punish developers as much as they limit supply and raise rents. Procurement mandates that sound good on paper can quietly raise food prices for schools, agencies, and ultimately taxpayers.   When sustainability policies increase the cost of living, people don’t become more resilient, they leave.   Any serious sustainability plan for Hawaiʻi must treat affordability as a core environmental issue, not a secondary concern. A state that prices out its residents is not sustainable, regardless of how clean its metrics look.   When “Equity” Becomes Discretionary Power   The plan repeatedly emphasizes that equity must be explicitly addressed across all actions. The intent is understandable: Hawaiʻi has real historical and present-day inequities.   The problem is that when equity is undefined in law, it often becomes discretionary in practice. Vague equity standards give agencies wide latitude to decide which projects proceed, which get exemptions, and which are delayed or denied. Over time, rules stop being neutral and start being negotiated.   Libertarians favor equal protection under clear, predictable rules; not because inequities don’t matter, but because discretion tends to reward insiders, political connections, and institutional familiarity. The communities equity policies are meant to protect are often the least equipped to navigate opaque systems.   Equity should function as a guardrail, not a veto point that undermines rule-of-law governance.   Sustainability as a Permanent Bureaucracy   One of the most revealing phrases in the plan is the call to “institutionalize sustainability throughout government.” Translated into reality, this means new offices, new reporting requirements, new coordination bodies, new metrics, and very few sunset clauses.   Once institutionalized, policies rarely disappear, even if they fail to deliver results.   Sustainability should be judged by outcomes people feel in their daily lives: lower housing costs, more reliable energy, cleaner water, faster recovery from disasters. Instead, bureaucratic sustainability often measures success by process: plans completed, meetings held, reports published.   A system that cannot be unwound or corrected is not resilient. It is fragile.   A Libertarian Approach to Sustainability in Hawaiʻi   A libertarian sustainability framework starts from a different premise: protect rights, enforce accountability, and let solutions emerge from the ground up.   Environmental protection works best when those who cause measurable harm are held financially responsible.  Clear pollution standards, strong liability rules, and fast enforcement protect land and water more effectively than layers of planning documents. If you damage ʻāina or water resources, you should pay: fully and transparently.   Scarce resources like water, energy, and landfill space should be governed by honest price signals rather than political rationing . Tiered pricing with lifeline protections encourages conservation without micromanaging behavior. People respond to prices faster than they respond to slogans.   Housing abundance is itself a sustainability strategy. Legalizing housing by right, streamlining permits, and removing artificial supply constraints reduce sprawl, shorten commutes, lower emissions, and keep families together. There is nothing environmentally virtuous about forcing people into overcrowding or off-island migration.   Local food production grows when barriers are removed, not when quotas are imposed. Farmers need easier processing, clearer rules, and fewer permits; not mandated buyers. Let markets work, and local food becomes competitive without coercion.   Resilience is strongest when systems are decentralized . Distributed energy, microgrids, home storage, local water systems, and neighborhood preparedness outperform centralized systems during shocks. Centralized plans fail catastrophically; decentralized systems fail gradually and recover faster.   Finally, sustainability programs should be temporary unless proven otherwise . Every initiative should sunset, publish cost-of-living impacts, and be judged by real-world outcomes. If a policy doesn’t work, it should end.   That is sustainability.

You can view the documents being referenced in this meeting here . Bylaws and Platform Committee Meeting | December 2025 Call to Order : 7:09pm Roll Call: voting: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Ken Schoolland, Bryce Thon Viewing: Celina Monge Minutes from November 03, 2025: unanimous approval Agenda : Unanimous approval Motion by Austin Martin to approve pending memberships to the Bylaws & Platform Committee as follows: Ken Schoolland and Bryce Thon, unanimous approval. The voting members now include Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Ken Schoolland, and Bryce Thon. Unfinished Business: Floor open to discussions or motions on Articles I & II: Motion by Ken Schoolland, second by Bryce Thon to change Article II Section b-c to: “ b. The Party shall seek to maximize freedom by limiting government intervention in social and economic affairs to protect the natural rights of individuals, especially life, liberty, and property. ”, unanimous approval. Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to change the title of Article II, Section 2 to: “ The Objective and Means of Political Action ”, unanimous approval New Business: Article III, Sections 1-3 readthrough and discussion Motion by Ken Schoolland for Section 1 c: move “ in Hawaii ” to the end of the sentence, second Bryce Thon/Nicholas Zehr, unanimous approval Motion by Austin Martin, second by Ken Schoolland on Section 1 b: “ I hereby certify that I oppose and will not initiate physical force or commit fraud against another to accomplish social or political goals .”, unanimous approval Motion by Ken Schoolland, second by Bryce Thon, to change Section 1c from “ plans to reside there ” to “ resides ” in Hawaii, unanimous approval. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Ken Schoolland to strike through “ maintaining active participation ” in Section 1 d, unanimous approval. Motion by Abbra, second by Nick to remove Section 3, 2 b, and add “ except residency ” after “ requirements ” in Section 3, 2c, unanimous approval. Discussion was opened on Section 3, 2d, Auxiliary Members, to be postponed until next Bylaws & Platform Committee meeting. Committee Assignments : Leave comments in draft beginning at Article 3, Section 3, 2d. Be prepared to vote on these minutes, and on the new draft version based on this meeting’s motions. Adjournment: Moved by Ken Schoolland, second by Nicholas Zehr, 8:39 pm The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting is Monday, January 05, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. Bylaws and Platform Committee Meeting | December 2025 Recording Watch the Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting from December 2025

DATE: Monday, November 03, 2025 TIME: 7:00 pm HST Call to Order: 7:02 p.m. HST Roll Call: Austin Martin, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon, Kevin Mulkern, (Celina Monge entered at 7:15) Approval of Agenda: passed without objection. Live demo : Google Drive folder Test Run: Open your drive file and navigate to "Committee Guide”. Highlight the title and choose “comment”. Overview of Bylaws & Platform Committee Guide Instructions for making recommendations Review & Discuss Article I & II Article 1: suggestion by Abbra Green from Criag DeCosta’s submission well received by all. Article 2: Abbra Green notes that Craig DeCosta’s submission omits the language of advocacy, but includes the term “education”. Debate was held on both, with the general consensus landing on the 2025 Bylaws Draft wording. Assignments: (Complete before the next meeting): Review Bylaws & Platform Committee Guide Submit comments and/or motions for Articles I–II. Read comments and upcoming motions from others. Announcements: The next Bylaws & Platform Committee meeting will be held on December 01, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. using the same Zoom link. Adjournment 7:28, moved by Bryce Thon, second by Celina Monge Bylaws and Platform Committee Walkthrough and Training Watch the Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting from Monday, November 03, 2025

In the 2025 Hawaii legislative session, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii (LPHI) achieved an extraordinary 77.42% success rate, shaping the outcome of 72 out of the 93 bills we testified on. With just three core contributors, we defeated intrusive regulations, protected individual freedoms, and advanced free-market policies. Our success wasn’t luck—it was the result of a disciplined, principle-driven approach that set us apart from other advocacy groups. Let's dive into our key victories and unpack the strategies that made them possible. By replicating these strategies, you can join us in defending liberty in future sessions. Here’s how we did it and why it matters. Our 2025 Triumphs: Defending the Individual Our 2025 efforts focused on upholding libertarian values—individual liberty, limited government, free markets, non-aggression, and the rule of law. Here are some of our standout victories from the 2025 Legislative Tracking Report : Stopped the “Legalized Kidnapping” Bill (SB1150/HB615) : We blocked the “Health Care Access Protection Act,” which risked legalizing interstate kidnapping. The measure could have allowed for judicially authorized medical kidnapping with no transparency. Our testimony exposed legal loopholes in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), leading to its deferral. Preserved Parental Choice (SB1437/HB1118) : We defeated bills that would have eliminated religious exemptions for children’s vaccines, safeguarding one of the last protections against mandatory vaccinations and upholding parental rights and bodily autonomy. Blocked the “Hawaii Ministry of Truth” (SB1618) : Our opposition halted a bill proposing a Journalistic Ethics Commission that would infringe on our First Amendment rights. We ultimately protected free speech from government overreach in journalism. Eliminated School Impact Fees (HB422) : We supported legislation that repealed burdensome fees on homeowners and developers, advancing property rights and economic freedom. These are just some of the victories that demonstrate our ability to influence the challenging legislative landscape. But what made us so effective? Our success hinged on a strategic framework which we've built into our Legislative Tracking Handbook and a six-point criteria for selecting bills, which set us apart from less focused advocacy groups. Secretary Abbra Green presents an overview of our 2026 Legislative Session action plan, and introduces our new LPHI Legislative Activism Official Handbook. The Six-Point Criteria: A Principled Filter for Impact Our ability to choose the right battles was critical. The Legislative Tracking Handbook (Ch. 2.2) outlines six criteria that ensured we targeted bills aligning with libertarian principles, maximizing our influence. Here’s why each criterion matters and how it distinguished our approach: Does the Bill Enhance or Infringe on Personal Liberties? Protecting freedoms like speech, privacy, and personal choice, rooted in the Bill of Rights, is the cornerstone of libertarianism. By focusing on liberty, we appealed to universal values and resonated with legislators and citizens beyond our base. Unlike broader advocacy groups that may dilute their focus, we zeroed in on bills that directly threatened core freedoms. 2. Does the Bill Expand or Reduce Government Powers? Limiting government overreach, as emphasized by the Tenth Amendment, ensures the state serves citizens, not controls them. What Effect Does the Bill Have on Market Dynamics? Free markets drive innovation and prosperity, while regulations often stifle economic freedom. This focus aligned with constitutional principles like the Commerce Clause, appealing to those concerned with economic impacts. Does the Bill Involve Coercive Measures? The non-aggression principle rejects state force against individuals for victimless activities. This criterion ensured we opposed punitive laws, resonating with fairness-minded legislators. 5. Does the Bill Adhere to Transparency and Fairness? Transparent and equal laws prevent arbitrary governance, aligning with constitutional principles of equal protection. Does the Bill Align with Non-Aggression and Rule of Law? Laws must respect peaceful interactions and consistent application, ensuring fairness and predictability. This criterion grounded our arguments in universal principles. This focus on rule of law made our testimonies legally robust, influencing outcomes in a legislature sensitive to constitutional arguments. These criteria gave us a laser-focused approach and allowed us to quickly determine the best issues and their talking points. By consistently applying this filter, we ensured every testimony advanced liberty, making our efforts as impactful as they were credible. Key Strategies That Set Us Apart Our 77.42% success rate was driven by strategic components, and tailored to maximize influence. Tracking & Timing Submitting testimonies before the 24-hour deadline was key to getting them reviewed during committee hearings. In Hawaii’s low-participation environment, timely action amplified our voice. We used the Legislature’s “Measure Tracking” tool to monitor statuses, enabling rapid response. We were able to set automated notifications and check hearing schedules weekly. Professional-Level Testimonies Concise 2-3 minute testimonies and professional-level written testimonies respected legislators’ time. Customized formatting with LPHI branding enhanced credibility. Our structured arguments stood out to both the legislators and to the public. Batching Topics Addressing multiple related bills with unified messages allowed our small team to cover a large number of bills efficiently. This approach reinforced our stance on issues like gun rights (seven bills) and fireworks prohibitions (30 bills) , without having to spend a lengthy amount of time writing individual submissions. Our bulk testimonies created a cohesive narrative, overwhelming opposition with consistent arguments, as seen in the defeat of six out of seven total anti-gun bills. Community Involvement Encouraging community testimony amplified our voice, leveraging Hawaii’s low participation rate to make our social media and blog followers into a force multiplier. Our social media and email campaigns mobilized a broad base, at times creating a perception of widespread support that pressured legislators. Solid Understanding Well-researched testimonies with legal arguments built credibility, appealing to legislators needing substantive input. This depth was critical for complex bills like HB1328 (midwifery) . Our use of publicly available legal resources distinguished us from advocates relying on emotional appeals, making our arguments authoritative in a legislature valuing legal rigor Follow-up emails and calls during final deliberations (Ch. 1.3) kept our positions top-of-mind, as likely seen in defeating HB1119 (home care restrictions). This persistence ensured legislators felt ongoing pressure. Targeting bills with close votes or low public attention (e.g., SB1618, HB1328) maximized our influence, as our testimonies filled gaps in public discourse. This focus was key in a Democratic trifecta legislature. Tailoring arguments to resonate with moderate Democrats and Republicans broadened our support in a challenging political landscape. This was actually easier than you might think given most of both sides would agree with our six-point criteria. Our constitutional and inherent rights framing appealed to many who share the same values. Hawaii 2026 session Activism Guide LPHI’s success wasn’t just about strategy—it was about execution that set us apart. Our small size forced efficiency, turning three members into a force equivalent to thousands. Our focus on principle-driven criteria ensured every step we took advanced liberty. Our use of legal depth and cross-party appeal gave us credibility in a Democratic-dominated state, while our community mobilization and persistent advocacy created a perception of widespread support. In a legislature where very few residents testify, our targeted, professional approach filled a critical gap, making us a formidable voice for liberty. By replicating these methods, we can build on our victories and make 2026 even more impactful. We've written down what worked for us and published it in one free, convenient Handbook to make the process simple for you to join us in legislative fights. Join us to defend the individual and create a freer Hawaii. We will work alongside you while providing tailored guidence and feedback. Contact lphisecretary@gmail.com t o start today! Not a member yet? Join the only alternative political party in Hawaii and advocate for limited government and maximum freedom:

If you’ve read “ LNC Plunges Knife in Liberty’s Heart ”  and my amicus curiae brief in Roos et al. v. LNC , you know exactly where the blade first entered. The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) filed an official judicial committee response to the appeal, declaring itself unbound by the Statement of Principles (SoP), the one document every one of us swore to uphold. On September 16, 2025, LNC Region 2 Representative Jonathan McGee filed  a respondent brief in the Roos  appeal  stating on behalf of the entire national committee:  “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.” The response was not approved by motion, not debated in open session, not authorized by any vote. It simply appeared on the JC docket as the official voice of the Libertarian Party. A motion to withdraw the brief and strike the language was later introduced by our principled Region 1 team. It failed. I warned then that if this claim stood, the SoP would become a museum piece, the membership pledge a hollow ritual, and the Party itself a corpse wearing libertarian clothing. The LNC chose deliberately and explicitly to let this denial of our core values stand. The claim that the national committee is exempt from the SoP is now the Party’s status quo, carved into the appellate record and cemented with a failed rescission vote. The Judicial Committee has since delivered the cherry on top. In a ruling that pretends the rest of the Bylaws do not exist, it isolated Article 3, Section 1 and declared the SoP non-binding on the LNC.  Never mind that Article 2 organizes the Party to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles. Never mind that Article 3, Section 1 declares that the Statement of Principles is the philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail. Never mind that Article 4, Section 1 defines every sustaining member of the Party by the certification that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. Never mind that Article 5, Section 2 grants affiliate status only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles. Never mind that Article 7, Section 1 requires the Libertarian National Committee to manage the affairs of the Party consistent with the Bylaws and to implement the purposes stated in Article 2. Never mind that Article 7, Section 4 requires every member of the LNC to be a sustaining member of the Party, thereby individually bound by the membership pledge and the Statement of Principles. To put it simply: Art. 2 : Party (and thus LNC) exists to implement the SoP Art. 3 : Party is founded on, sustained by, and prevails through the SoP Art. 4 : Every member (including every LNC member) certifies opposition to initiatory force Art. 5 : Every affiliate must adopt the SoP Art. 7 : LNC must act consistent with the Bylaws and implement Article 2 purposes Art. 7 : Every LNC member is personally bound as a sustaining member McGee , speaking officially on behalf of the LNC, says the SoP doesn’t bind the LNC The LNC has never withdrawn or disavowed that claim The Judicial Committee looked at all of that and said, in effect, that none of this applies to the people at the top. This reeks of political cowardice, not judicial prudence. Their stance is not an isolated or obscure footnote; it is the culmination of everything we have watched with growing disgust from our new leadership. Secret email chains deciding policy in the dark.  Selective bylaws enforcement (only when it silences dissent).  Rules rewritten mid-stream to muzzle opposition.  Retaliation against dissenting voices The national committee has declared itself above the one document every member signed in good faith. This is a systematic shutdown. The SoP is not mere philosophy; it is the operating system of libertarianism.  The LNC has announced, in open hearings, vote tallies, and through sustained inaction, that it no longer runs on that system. You renewed your membership. You signed the pledge. We affiliated under bylaws that promised the SoP would bind everyone, top to bottom. The national party has now unilaterally voided its end of that covenant. It is betrayal. In Hawaii, we are still bound by our affiliate agreement, by our own bylaws, and by our conscience, but the national party has declared itself unbound. This is not sustainable for the party because it is straight up not libertarian. This is currently not the party any of us joined. "A Principled Resolution" was unanimously approved by the Executive Committee on November 26, 2025: The knife is still in. The heart is still bleeding. And the LNC has chosen to twist it. Libertarians: Contact entire.lnc@lp.org  to demand an answer from this simple question: “ Is the LNC bound by The Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles? ”. Affiliates: Feel free to copy our resolution in full or in part to pass it in your own state. We call on the Libertarian National Committee to sustain the party through principles,  as the bylaws demand. 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.

The 2025 Libertarian Party of Hawaii (LPHI) State Convention was an assembly marked by credentialing controversy through a last-minute influx of out-of-state members aimed at derailing the re-election of our chair. In the chaotic 48 hours prior to the event, just under 100 out-of-state individuals (with no history of engagement in Hawaii Libertarian efforts) submitted rushed membership applications to take on remote voting privileges. Their intent, (later confirmed) was to overload the delegate roster, block Chair Austin Martin's re-election. And for what? To install a mainland faction and directly undermine affiliate independence? With the votes later confined to the 15 duly qualified in-person delegates per RONR Chapter 9, Austin Martin ran unopposed and secured re-election with a decisive 14–0 vote (one abstention). This transformed a near-coup into a resounding show of support. The convention pressed forward, appointing new Executive Committee members and closing in unbreakable unity. Procedural integrity and strong leadership can repel even the most audacious outside takeover. Post-Convention, we distributed our biennial Party Health Survey to every active member. The survey closed on October 9, 2025, capturing feedback on LPHI operations, LP National performance, and pathways forward. (Of note, no Executive Committee (EC) members responded.) LPHI: 4.87/5 Satisfaction Amid Convention Chaos Despite the orchestrated attempts to subvert the convention, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii earned an extraordinary average satisfaction rating of 4.87 out of 5. Members praised the EC’s resilience in defending affiliate autonomy, the clarity of our principled platform, and the aloha spirit that powered us through adversity. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii received an average satisfaction rating of 4.87 out of 5. Overwhelmingly, the top suggestion for improvement was to “fix” our bylaws. In direct response, the Executive Committee has continued to schedule Bylaws & Platform Committee meetings . The Committee is tasked with drafting airtight amendments for a special convention. Revising the bylaws will ensure future gatherings are insulated from external sabotage. Feedback on the Libertarian Party of Hawaii LP National: 2.40/5 and Righteous Fury Over the Hostile Takeover LP National’s average score of 2.40 out of 5 LP National’s average score of 2.40 out of 5 reflects deep disillusionment. Two criticisms dominated: “Keep national politics out of Hawaii business.” Members reject top-down controls that ignore local island realities. National’s silence during the attempted hostile takeover was “disgraceful.” When out-of-state actors flooded credentialing to block the chair’s re-election and fracture our leadership, LP National offered no support, no investigation, no defense of the duly elected slate. This abandonment violated the spirit (if not the letter) of affiliate sovereignty and left LPHI to fend for itself under RONR’s strict procedural shield, leaving no option but to observe for our (many of them lifetime) members over Zoom. Feedback on the National Party From Feedback to Action This anonymized raw data will accompany our next Quarterly Affiliate Report to LP National. We will continue to hold our Bylaws & Platform Committee meetings monthly leading up to a Special Convention by August 2026 at the latest. Every volunteer sign-up has been routed to our coordinators. Member input and activity remain among our greatest assets. The National Party's involvement in our Hawaii State Convention, either through direct action or subsequent inaction, should come as no surprise to those aware of the LNC's official opinion, which asserts that principles are still binding on affiliates and members, but not on themselves. We scored 4.87 by standing firm on principle and procedure. LP National must now match that standard. They must uphold affiliate independence, condemning takeover attempts and prioritizing liberty over factional games. We are the Party of Principle. It's time for the LNC to declare it boldly. Mahalo to every respondent.

When a policy problem festers long enough, politicians tend to reach for whatever “solution” looks most compassionate or expedient; rarely the one that’s economically sound. The latest example is the proposal to introduce a 50-year mortgage , pitched as a way to make homeownership more “affordable.”   At first glance, stretching out a mortgage from 30 to 50 years seems harmless, even helpful. Payments would drop, more people could “qualify,” and politicians could claim a win. But as Henry Hazlitt taught in Economics in One Lesson , the task of sound economics is to look beyond the immediate and visible effects , and trace the unseen, long-term consequences  for all groups.   The Seen: Lower Payments and Political Points A 50-year mortgage does lower monthly payments. That’s what people will notice first. It makes the dream of owning a home appear closer within reach, and in the short term, home sales might tick upward. Builders, lenders, and politicians all get to celebrate a short-term “stimulus.”   But the Austrian economists warned us about this illusion. Lowering payments doesn’t lower prices , it changes how those prices are financed. When cheap credit or artificially long loans are introduced into a market with fixed or restricted supply, the predictable result is higher asset prices , not genuine affordability.   The Unseen: Higher Prices, Slower Equity, and More Fragility Stretching repayment to half a century means a borrower builds equity at a crawl while paying far more in total interest. Over time, it traps homeowners in long-term debt and increases the total leverage of the system.   More importantly, by artificially extending the purchasing power of buyers, it bids up land and housing prices , especially in markets like Hawai‘i where zoning, permitting, and land-use restrictions already choke supply. The very people this policy aims to help will face higher  sticker prices, offsetting any benefit from the longer loan term.   In Hazlitt’s words: “Government ‘encouragement’ to business is sometimes as much to be feared as government hostility.”  A 50-year mortgage isn’t solving the problem, it’s subsidizing the symptom.   The Root Causes of Rising Costs Housing prices didn’t rise because Americans suddenly became more greedy or less capable, they rose because of systemic distortions created by government policy :   Monetary inflation and national debt  have devalued the dollar and inflated asset prices. Regulatory delays  in Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) slow new construction and drive up carrying costs. Zoning laws  restrict land use and density, especially on O‘ahu. Energy policy  has left Hawai‘i with the highest electricity rates in the nation. Shipping restrictions under the Jones Act  increase transportation costs for every material that reaches our islands. Overlapping labor and licensing mandates  raise the cost of building, maintaining, and buying homes.   None of these problems can be fixed by tweaking the terms  of a loan. They must be solved by tackling the causes  of inflated costs and constrained supply.   The Hazlitt Lesson: One Reform Begets Another Hazlitt warned that every new government intervention tends to justify the next one. When the 50-year mortgage fails to make homes affordable, the next administration will likely propose loan guarantees, subsidies, or bailouts to patch over the resulting problems. This spiral, of intervention breeding further intervention, is what Austrian economists call the cumulative process of malinvestment .   In the long run, these measures don’t help workers, families, or future generations, they merely shift wealth toward existing asset owners, entrench dependency, and erode genuine savings and investment.   The Better Path: Free Markets, Real Supply, Local Solutions True affordability comes from production , not policy manipulation . To make housing genuinely accessible in Hawai‘i, we need to restore freedom and accountability  to the process of building and living here:   Fix permitting  - implement clear deadlines and transparency at DPP so projects can move at market speed. End restrictive zoning - allow more by-right construction of duplexes, ADUs, and small multifamily dwellings. Reform the Jones Act  - or at least push for exemptions for non-contiguous states and critical goods. Lower energy costs  - open the grid to competition and local generation; eliminate crony mandates that keep prices high. Streamline licensing  - recognize out-of-state trades and cut redundant occupational barriers. Stop inflating credit  - end the cycle of deficit spending and artificial interest-rate manipulation that drives asset inflation nationwide.   These are not quick fixes, but they are real  fixes. They restore the natural price signals and incentives that allow markets, communities, and families to thrive.   In Summary A 50-year mortgage might make homeownership look  affordable, but it makes the system less  stable, less  free, and less  sustainable. Hazlitt would have seen it for what it is: another political attempt to fix with credit what government itself broke through regulation and inflation.

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 .