Search Results

SB277 & HB384  would strengthen safeguards for minors against sexual exploitation, and it would do so without inflating government bloat or infringing on consensual adult behaviors. We're throwing our support behind it, you should too. It defends the most vulnerable from aggression. SB277 pauses the clock on the statute of limitations for certain felony sexual assaults and prostitution-related crimes during the time a victim is under 18. This gives survivors the space they often need to come forward as adults. The bill also lengthens probation periods for these convictions. It upgrades "promoting minor-produced sexual images" to a felony when the promoter is at least three years older than the child (keeping peer situations the same), and adds these felony offenses to the sex offender registry under Tier 1, which means registrants can petition for removal after a decade without another conviction. Victims of childhood exploitation frequently face delayed justice due to fear or trauma, and this bill empowers them without touching the freedoms of those who haven't harmed others. By deterring repeat offenders through longer probation and accountable registration, the measure reduces the call for more invasive surveillance down the line. The government stays focused on its proper role: shielding citizens from fraud and force. By cracking down on minor-involved prostitution and similar abuses, it helps eliminate coercive distortions. Penalties are limited to proven aggressors who violate children's rights, avoiding the trap of punishing victimless acts. This proposed legislation punishes clear violations of minors' rights while creating a stable framework for justice that balances deterrence with rehabilitation. This bill protects our keiki without eroding the liberties we hold dear. Help Us Support This Measure: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text:   Senate Bill 277/HB384 Testify on the Measures. Maps of districts and representative contact information can be found here.   You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii!  Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support.   And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty. Keep the Momentum Going Your contributions help us track bills, craft testimony, and mobilize supporters. Consider a one-time gift or monthly support  to expand our reach and help us defend liberty session after session.

Senate Bill 433 is the Aloha State's latest swing at restricting your right to carry anything sharper than a butter knife or heavier than a pineapple. This gem prohibits open and  concealed carry of dirks, daggers, blackjacks, metal knuckles, bladed weapons, batons, cudgels, truncheons, police batons, collapsible batons, billy clubs, or nightsticks. A simple misdemeanor for toting one around, or a class C felony if in tandum with another “violation”. Nothing says "public safety" like turning a pocket knife into a felony enhancer. Sweeping Carry Ban = A Direct Jab at the Second Amendment The bill amends Hawaii Revised Statutes §134-51 to prohibit anyone (not authorized by law) from knowingly carrying (openly on the person, concealed on the person, or  concealed in a bag/container) any " dirk, dagger, blackjack, metal knuckles, bladed weapon, or other deadly or dangerous weapon. " It classifies these as misdemeanors.  Provided: "that this subsection shall not apply to a billy."  (“Billy" is defined as including cudgel, truncheon, police baton, collapsible baton, billy club, or nightstick.) So, those club-like items aren't banned outright under the carry rules... unless you're caught with them during another crime, which bumps it to a class C felony under subsection (b). The Second Amendment 's "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  isn't gun-exclusive. As Heller  (2008)  clarified, it “guarantee(s) an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." . Bruen  (2022) asserts “The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of ‘special need’ to exercise it.”   Blanket bans on carrying common self-defense tools also carry no such tradition.  "Bladed Weapon" & Bags | Sharpening the Silliness Hawaii's fix? Slap "bladed weapon"  into the list, broadening it absurdly. Your steak knife in a picnic bag could qualify. Yes, the bill explicitly adds "bladed weapon"  to the prohibited list, and extends the ban to concealed carry in "a bag or other container carried by the person."  There is no clear definition for "bladed weapon in the proposed bill or correlating statute, meaning it would encompass utility knives, multitools, or even sheathed blades in backpacks. Founders carried bladed arms (think swords) freely for protection. There were no broad 18th-century bans on toting them in satchels or sheathes on thie person. If Caetano v. Massachusetts  (2016)  clearly defined the Second Amendment protections to to include stun guns, knives and clubs are logically already covered. Instead, SB 433 treats non-gun arms like ticking time bombs. Compounding Penalties SB433 would make it a misdemeanor for these basic carry “violations”, but if you're possessing/using/threatening with these weapons (including billy now) "while engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor"  it would be considered a Class C felony, stacked on top (concurrent or consecutive). This enhances any  other crime, holding the potential of a traffic stop with a blackjack to turn into felony territory. Our Founders fought against arbitrary escalations such as British arms seizures without cause. You can carry a blunt stick around without misdemeanor risk... until you jaywalk with it.  "Affirmative Defense" = Guilty Until You Prove You're a Good Guy with a Good Weapon Here's the bill's "generous" twist: Defenses galore, but affirmative  ones, meaning you  prove them after arrest. This flips Due Process (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments) by removing presumption of innocence.  Subsection (g): Gives you “permission” in your own home.  (h): For open carry, if the weapon "is currently in common use in this country for lawful self-defense purposes" —but not in " sensitive locations " (per §134-9.1, gun-style bans) or if displaying it "causes alarm."   (i): For bag/vehicle carry, if locked in a hard-sided container for transport. The bill nods to Bruen 's common use test for guns, but applies it as a defense  you must affirm in court, not a presumption. Was it in your possession or used for self-defense? Okay then, you’ll have to prove it's "lawful"  after the cuffs click. Compare this to the Second Amendment's proactive right to bear arms for security instead of retroactive courtroom haggling. This so-called "defense" is a dud, mocking liberty by making you beg for it post-arrest.  Post-Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's Stubborn Surf on Slippery Sands. Wolford v. Lopez  (9th Cir. 2024)  is torching Hawaii's post- Bruen  gun bans in "sensitive places"  like parks and bars and their default private-property ban. SB 433 imports those same "sensitive location"  limits into non-gun bans via the affirmative defense. Plus, Section 4 mandates constitutional construction. Not a smart play, since the bill's setup invites lawsuits mirroring the inevitable Wolford  fallout. Oppose SB433. It is a snub to the parchment that protects us all. The state’s police force is already, by their own admissions, overrun with work and lacking in staff. Should we really add stick-chaser to their list of duties? Oppose SB433 : Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: Senate Bill 433  Track & Testify : Our simple instructions make it easy! Maps of districts and representative 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 Hawaii's liberty.

. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting DATE: Monday, January 19, 2026 TIME: 7:00 pm HST Call to Order: 7:05 pm Roll Call: Voting: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon, Participating: Celina Monge, Aaron Toman Minutes and revisions from December 08, 2025: Unanimous Approval Agenda: Unanimous Approval Unfinished Business: Discussion 12/8 - Suggestion from Austin Martin to change Article III, Section 1 wording to “shall be only open” . No motion made Discussion 12/8 - Austin Martin suggested adding at the end of Article III, Section 3, 2a: “The official sustaining dues amount shall be posted prominently on the website.” No motion made. Discussion was opened 12/8 on Section III, 2d, Auxiliary Members: Motion by Bryce Thon, second by Nicholas Zehr to strike all language regarding auxiliary members. Unanimous Approval. New Business: Floor open to motions and discussions beginning with Article III & IV: Motion by Nicholas Zehr, to amend the following subsections of Article III, Section 3: Subsection 1: “The Party shall not discriminate based on characteristics protected by applicable law or immutable personal characteristics, and shall not be required to recognize ideological, political, or associational beliefs as protected classes.” Subsection 2: “ The Party may take defensive measures against organized entities or coordinated efforts that demonstrably advocate or engage in the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion, or that seek to undermine the Party’s autonomy through deceptive or hostile means, consistent with the NAP.” Subsection 4: “Upon a finding, by a majority of the Executive Committee, that a member has a substantial and material conflict of interest or has knowingly concealed required disclosures, the Committee may take corrective action pursuant to Article VII.” And to add a new Subsection 6: “No adverse action under this Section shall be taken without notice, an opportunity to respond, and a recorded vote.” second by Abbra Green, unanimous approval. Adjournment: 7:45 pm The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting is Monday, February 02, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. Help Fund Our Special Convention The Libertarian Party of Hawaii will be hosting a Special Convention at the end of August 2026 specifically for the purpose of passing new bylaws. Help us fund our efforts with a one-time or monthly contribution:

On January 24, 2026 at the House of Glory Church in Hilo, Hawaii, The Libertarian Party of Hawaii hosted a Campaign Readiness Seminar presented by Aaron Toman . This prompted great questions and extensive discussions from participants interested in running for office and participating on our campaign teams. A big mahalo to Aaron Toman for the presentation and to House of Glory for the comfortable venue! This event was livestreamed over Zoom and uploaded to our YouTube Channel . You can also download Toman's slideshow in PDF form: Candidate Filing for the 2026 Elections begins February 2, 2026 and ends June 2, 2026. Fill out our volunteer sign-up sheet  if you’re interested in running for office or want to be on a Candidate Team. Support Liberty This Election Season Your donations help fuel our election season. Any amount helps. Consider becoming a monthly supporter at $10, $25, $50, or $100—whatever fits your budget. Recurring gifts compound into real growth for the movement. Monthly donations provide reliable funding to hire staff, scale our bill list, and maintain consistent pressure on liberty issues all session long. Your support scales our impact—more candidates, stronger principled advocacy, and real progress for individual rights and limited government. Donate now (one-time or monthly) . Alternatively you can send a check by Printing and mailing our PDF form to : Libertarian Party of Hawaii PO Box 4444 Honolulu, HI 96802

SUPPORT HB540; Oppose SB488, Sb2073, SB727, & SB682. In the 2026 legislative session, Hawaii lawmakers are pushing a slate of bills that could force toxic fluoride into our public water systems under the false pretense of "public health." They’re proposals are aimed at mass-medicating the population with a known neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor. This poison would affect our vulnerable residents the most, especially children, the elderly, and those with health conditions. The state's desire to "improve" our water ignores decades of evidence showing fluoride's dangers, prioritizing outdated dental dogma over real safety.  Poison Proposals for State-Sponsored Harm Four bills— SB488 , SB2073 , SB727 , and SB682 —represent a concerted effort to lace Hawaii's drinking water with fluoride, a chemical the state pretends is harmless despite mounting evidence to the contrary. These measures vary in scope but share a common thread: they empower or mandate the addition of this toxin without adequate safeguards, exemptions for at-risk groups, or easy ways to stop it once started. By design, they could expose millions to elevated fluoride levels, risking everything from lowered IQ in kids to disrupted thyroid function in adults. Here's a rundown of each, with their most problematic elements called out. SB488 : The Blanket Mandate Menace  Forces every non-federal supplier to adjust fluoride to HHS "optimal" levels, with DOH-set testing intervals and provided training—but zero funding, sunset, or resident opt-outs. Most problematic:  Sweeping scope ignores consent and health risks, dosing everyone with a systemic toxin (including formula-fed infants and kidney-impaired residents who can't excrete fluoride properly). SB2073 : The Large-System Poison Push  Targets all suppliers with 1,000+ connections, mandating HHS-level fluoridation plus monitoring, sampling/reporting to DOH; DOH offers training/assistance and annual legislative reports on statewide fluoride levels. Exempts federal systems. Most problematic:  Oversight normalizes chronic exposure essentially monitoring a statewide poisoning operation. SB727 : The Conditional Trap with a False Exit  Requires 1,000+ connection suppliers to fluoridate per county HHS-based standards. DOH provides training, tech support, reimbursements, and annual reports. Supersedes contrary laws but "sunsets" only if every resident obtains or affirmatively rejects dental insurance at an unobtainable 100% tracking threshold. DOH tracks/reports dental coverage annually. Most problematic:  Locks in indefinite fluoridation while tying toxin exposure to unrelated coverage gaps. Punishes the uninsured. SB682 : The Backdoor Enabler  Bans state/county mandates for non-contamination health additives (like fluoride) but opens a loophole: If federal Safe Drinking Water Act allows mass medication, it adds "safeguards". Most problematic:  Anti-mandate language leaves fluoride vulnerable to federal override. It’s a Trojan horse normalizing water as a drug delivery system. These bills all mandate or enable a chemical assault on our bodies without true accountability. Hawaii already has low fluoridation rates for good reason. Residents know better than to trust bureaucrats with their health. Support: HB540 The Ban on Fluoride Poisoning On the bright side, HB540  stands as a courageous defense. This measure amends Hawaii Revised Statutes to add that, "No person or supplier of water shall introduce fluoride to a public water system." This is an outright statewide ban on adding fluoride, applying to all non-federal operators. Importantly, it preempts and voids any conflicting laws, executive orders, ordinances, regulations, or rules, nullifying sneaky attempts to fluoridate locally and statewide. It directly confronts the dangers of fluoride, drawing on solid research that exposes this as a chemical hazardous to human health. It's a presumed neurodevelopmental toxin, especially harmful to children and vulnerable groups. The bill's preamble states that fluoride isn't the benign “cavity-fighter” it's sold as: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifies fluoride as a presumed hazard. The National Research Council (NRC) has flagged fluoride as an endocrine disruptor that lowers thyroid function, particularly in women. Fluoride exposure is also tied to sleep disturbances, including higher odds of sleep apnea symptoms in adolescents. In teens, fluoride impairs kidney and liver function. In children, fluoride is associated with lower IQ, ADHD-like behaviors, and cognitive deficits in children. Infants that are formula-fed in fluoridated areas can exceed safe intake levels by up to 59%.  Even the CDC admits fluoride's primary benefit is topical (on the teeth's surface), not systemic (ingested). HB540 is a lifeline against the state's fluoride fixation. By banning additions and overriding conflicts, it protects us from a poisoning of the masses. Hawaii's lawmakers are gambling our health in favor of state overreach. The opposed bills reek of corporate influence and outdated science, while HB540 offers evidence-based reasoning and thorough protections.  Take Action to Stop the Insidious Plans to Poison Hawaii Water | Fluoride Mandates Familiarize yourself with the proposed texts: Oppose   SB488 , SB2073 , SB727 , and SB682 . Support   HB540 . Follow these simple instructions  to make your voice heard. Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voi ces 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. Support LPHI Legislative Activism Your donations fuel bill tracking, testimony preparation, and advocacy to defend liberty at the Capitol. Giving levels that help us grow: $10 supports detailed research and analysis on the next bill. $25 enables testimony drafting and submissions. $50 can cover up to a week of bill activitiies. $100 funds broader monitoring, response, recruitment, and targeted advertising. $300+ allows us to hire part-time support, run effective outreach campaigns, and significantly expand the number of bills we cover and defend. Make it recurring for maximum impact: Consider becoming a monthly supporter at $10, $25, $50, or $100—whatever fits your budget. Recurring gifts compound into real growth for the movement. Monthly donations provide reliable funding to hire staff, scale our bill list, and maintain consistent pressure on liberty issues all session long. Your support scales our impact—more legislation tracked, stronger principled advocacy, and real progress for individual rights and limited government. Donate now (one-time or monthly)  or Print and mail our PDF form to  Libertarian Party of Hawaii PO Box 4444 Honolulu, HI 96802

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is proud to throw our full support behind House Bill 312 (HB312), a commonsense measure that strengthens due process and protects families from unwarranted government intrusion. This bill is a vital step toward ensuring that parents are informed of their rights during child welfare investigations. HB312, titled "Relating to the Department of Human Services ," requires the Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide written notice to a parent about their rights whenever the agency is investigating a child who is or may be subject to imminent harm. This bill embodies our core principles like limited government, individual sovereignty, and the presumption of innocence. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children without arbitrary interference from the state. Too often, child protective services investigations can escalate into traumatic experiences for families, sometimes leading to unnecessary separations or violations of privacy. Without clear, written notification of rights—such as the right to legal counsel, the right to remain silent, or the right to challenge allegations—these processes can feel like a one-sided power grab by bureaucrats. HB312 ensures transparency and accountability, empowering parents to make informed decisions and defend their families effectively. HB312 would notify all parents, upon initial contact by DHS, to be notified:  A. “The parent is not required to permit the department or a police officer to enter the residence of the parent; B. The parent must be given the allegations prior to an interview; C. The parent is not required to speak with the department at that time; D.The parent has the right to record the interview;  E. The parent is entitled to seek representation of an attorney and have an attorney present when the parent is questioned by the department; F. Any statement made by the parent or any family member may be used against the parent in a hearing initiated pursuant to this chapter;  G. Neither the department nor the police officer is an attorney, and neither may provide legal advice to the parent; H. The parent is not required to sign any document presented by the department or a police officer, including but not limited to a release of claims or service agreement, and is entitled to have an attorney review any document before the parent agrees to sign; and I. A failure of the parent to communicate with the department or a police officer may have serious consequences, which may include the filing of a petition under this chapter and the assumption of temporary foster custody of the child by the department; therefore, it is in the parent’s best interest to speak with the department or immediately seek the advice of a qualified attorney;” It would also require that interviews conducted without parents present be recorded and documented. We are in full support of the intent of this bill, with the recommendation that section I be reworded to exclude lthe language of " it is in the best interest", and "may result in assumption of temporary foster custody" to avoid giving legal advice, contradicting constitutional rights, or convoluting the matter with section C. While these are rights parents have , not everyone understands this, especially in stressful or seemingly unpredictable situations. Libertarians believe that the government should only intervene when absolutely necessary with strict adherence to due process. By mandating written notices upon initial contact, HB312 reduces the risk of abuse in the system, prevents coercive tactics, and upholds the non-aggression principle. No one, especially not the state, should initiate force, fraud, or coercion against peaceful individuals and families. Libertarians always uphold parental rights. We commend the sponsors for championing this bill and urge all legislators to advance it through committee and to a floor vote.  Help Us Uphold Parental Rights: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: HB312 Speak out against these movements.  Maps of districts and representative 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.

Join us for our Campaign Readiness Seminar, hosted by our 2024 Libertarian Hawaii Congressional candidate, Aaron Toman. Whether you're interested in running for office, or you want to support someone else's run, this course is designed to empower you with the information and resources to run a campaign efficiently and effectively. Learn from someone who has first-hand experience running for office. Aaron Toman will be walking you through the steps to file for candidacy while sharing his hard-earned lessons along the way. He will share his successes and failures running for office; you'll learn what worked and what didn't and how it applies to you. After his slideshow presentation, he will open the floor to a live Q&A to make sure you enter the race with confidence. If you cannot attend in person, we still want you to be able to attend and participate over Zoom. We will facilitate virtual conversations as needed. Simply email our secretary with your name and express interest. This is a valuable experience you will not want to miss! 2026 Campaign Readiness Seminar by Aaron Toman DATE:  Saturday, January 24, 2026 TIME: 1-3 pm HST LOCATION: House of Glory Church 109 Haili St, Hilo, HI 96720.

In a series of emails, Hawaii Chairman Austin Martin, a representative from Region 1 of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), detailed allegations of election irregularities, judicial misconduct, and vulnerabilities in voting systems. Martin's communications, part of a broader discussion among LNC members on election fraud, highlight concerns that extend to national implications.  Ballot Disparities and Potential Outcome Changes Martin cited a specific case in Hawaii County, where a Permitted Interaction Group revealed a discrepancy of 19,000 ballots , a number that could have influenced multiple races. " In my own county, Hawaii County, the known 19,000 ballot disparity could have changed the outcome of most of the races on the ballot ," he wrote. He argued that such issues are widespread, affecting local elections more severely than presidential ones, and challenged claims that outcome-altering fraud has not been proven. Martin described this as a "non-factual political claim"  often used first by those benefiting from irregularities. Click the image to read the source Vulnerabilities in Electronic Voting Systems Emphasizing objective facts over political bias, Martin highlighted the nefarious history of voting machines and software vulnerabilities. He noted that without physically auditable paper trails, results cannot be authenticated. As an example, he referenced vendors like Smartmatic, who are facing litigation for misconduct , including bribery and corruption in other countries. "Vendors like Smartmatic (purportedly controlled by socialist Venezuela) are facing litigation and charges over election related misconduct in other countries—including bribery, and corruption,"  Martin stated. He added that these systems or their products are likely to be used in upcoming U.S. elections. Martin also referenced broader issues with election technology vendors such as Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Hart InterCivic. " The 2021–2024 Halderman/Curling expert reports  in Georgia documented that Dominion BMD and ICC systems can be fully compromised in minutes with only brief physical access and no trace left in logs,"  he explained. He pointed to forensic examinations in counties across the country, which revealed unauthorized software, deleted logs, and concealed issues. Case of Tina Peters and Whistleblower Retaliation A significant portion of the LNC’s discussions focused on Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk in Colorado, whom Martin rightly portrayed as a victim of retaliation for exposing vulnerabilities. He urged caution in accepting official narratives that label whistleblowers as criminals. "Blaming whistleblowers and prosecuting victims are common tactics in government corruption scandals, " Martin wrote. He noted that Peters remains in solitary confinement despite a pardon from President Donald Trump and an admission from Colorado Governor Jared Polis that her sentence was too "harsh." Peters is a whistleblower who preserved election data from Dominion systems in 2021 to prevent erasure during a software update. Experts confirmed signs of manipulation in the data, but Peters faced charges and a biased trial where evidence was suppressed. She was convicted on seven counts and sentenced to nine years. Trump's December 11, 2025, pardon, called her a "brave and innocent Patriot,"  though she remains imprisoned as of January 11, 2026. Her case is one of political persecution, especially compared to unpunished actions by officials like Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. Judicial and Procedural Irregularities Martin alleged widespread judicial fraud, drawing from his own lawsuits against Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago ( Martin v. Nago  and Martin v. Watson ). He said cases are dismissed on doctrines like qualified and judicial immunity rather than merits. "My cases, like many others, were resolved on the doctrines of Qualified and Judicial Immunity, not a procedural or factual defect on my own part,"  he said. In Hawaii's 2022 election cycle, Hawaii State officials illegally swore in the governor before certification, amid pending challenges. Original certification documents and oaths were "lost or destroyed". The courts have overlooked these violations by granting immunity and targeting whistleblowers like Martin. As an official election observer in 2022, Martin attempted to file an incident report on vulnerabilities but was removed without explanation. He stated he was later characterized as a "disruptive criminal. " He compared this with similar retaliation patterns in the Peters’ case. You can watch Chairman Martin confront Scott Nago on his decision in his follow-up: Voter Rolls and Verification Issues Martin raised concerns about unverifiable voter rolls, particularly in Hawaii, where state records are withheld, leading to disparities with county data. He referenced a complaint he escalated to the U.S. Department of Justice in February, which resulted in a lawsuit against Nago and Hawaii over the issue . "We have no way of even verifying most states' voter rolls,"  he wrote, emphasizing the need for state records in fraud detection and claims under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Broader Implications: Libertarian National Committee Debates Election Integrity Martin criticized dismissing cases on procedural grounds as potential cover-ups and expressed hesitation toward narratives intertwined with conspiracy theories, but insisted facts from eyewitnesses like himself demand action. Chairman Martin sees these issues as existential for the Libertarian Party (LP), arguing that ignoring election fraud and judicial racketeering would undermine the party's credibility. "Is there any other issue the LP should care about more than election fraud & judicial racketeering?" he asked.  “By taking a principled stand here, we are going to affect the overall political dynamic around this issue profoundly. We can accomplish something meaningful just by raising awareness and making our position known on this matter — it's low-hanging fruit. Low effort, high impact.” The discussion elicited responses from other LNC members, including Keith Thompson (Region 3 Rep), who agreed on electronic vulnerabilities but disagreed on evidence of outcome-changing fraud. He sees Peters' case as an unlawful breach rather than proof of fraud. “I'm hesitant to go full-on into "voting machine fraud" territory because it's far too often intermixed with baseless conspiracy theories.” This internal debate showcases ongoing tensions within the LP over election integrity, with Martin's detailed accounts drawing from personal experiences and national examples. The party has not yet issued an official statement on the matter.

The Hawaii Elections Commission meetings have recently addressed several matters related to the 2024 General Election and ongoing election administration. Topics included the Permitted Interaction Group (PIG) report on Hawaii County ballot discrepancies, chain-of-custody procedures, tracking logs from BallotTrax and Hart InterCivic, USPS mail verification, the ERIC voter information-sharing system, voter registration verification processes, Help America Vote Act (HAVA) compliance, accuracy issues with meeting minutes, Sunshine Law appeals, audit requests, and extensive calls for leadership accountability. Chair Michael Curtis: Partisan Control Instead of Neutral Leadership Curtis repeatedly shut down testimony about the 19,000+ ballot discrepancy identified in Commissioner Osterkamp’s PIG report on Hawaii County, labeling it “fallacious” and “rage-bait” even though it was in Osterkamp’s Permitted Interraction Group (PIG) Report and agendized. This directly contravenes the Sunshine Law (HRS §92-1 ). He repeatedly cuts off certain testifiers mid-sentence as “off-topic”. He claimed in January that selective silencing is his absolute prerogative as chair, and misattributed motions to factionalize debate. These are also blatent violations of Robert’s Rules of Order which requires chair neutrality. He also blocked a motion to remove Nago by invoking vague sunshine law concerns, delaying it until the following meeting on January 7th. When the January 7th convened, it was nowhere to be found on the agenda anyway. The motion was finally heard after Nago’s report, but it did not pass, despite overwhelming public outcry against his opaque and back-to-back failures. Chief Election Officer Scott Nago: Basic Incompetence in Core Duties Nago’s reports avoid addressing PIG findings, voter data reconciliation, and litigation. He admitted the ERIC interstate voter-sharing system has unknown error rates and is withheld from the Department of Justice as “private”, even from government officials. He wrongly described the definition of chain of custody as the physical envelopes being placed in a box and sealed for 22 months, and the definition of inventory as how many SVRS entries there are. This reveals that the Chief Elections Officer holds a fundamental misunderstanding of his legal requirements and the basic mechanisms of his professional field. Nago also confirmed Hawaii County has no physical transfer logs or verification, yet he still only offers electronic solutions in the future. Translation: “Trust us brah” . He, like Chair Curtis, dismissed USPS data showing 19,000 excess ballots as irrelevant. He also outright admitted that voter registration relies almost entirely on self-attestation with minimal checks. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit   against Scott Nago in his official capacity for denying access to the full statewide voter registration list in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, NVRA, and HAVA. Multiple commission motions demanding compliance (including chain-of-custody records) and even for his removal failed, despite massive public support. Conflicts of Interest & Systemic Dysfunction Commissioner Osterkamp was in opposition to allowing media and news outlets at audits, claiming it would fuel “conspiracy theories.” The State Auditor rejected the Commission’s request for an audit it, forcing another delay for county-level requests. The Attorney General’s office invoked attorney-client privilege to close discussion of lawsuits against Nago and Curtis. The AG simultaneously represents both the accused and the commissioners on OIP requests, an open and direct conflict of interest. He also sought to personally manage all OIP complaints against the Commission, including those filed by Commissioner Cushnie. Sunshine law appeals revealed repeated testimony denials, minute omissions, and AG dismissals of obvious violations, despite the law’s explicit mandates for transparency. Confusion persisted, with one commissioner even asked aloud, “What and where are the commission rules?”, a shocking admission of ignorance from someone who has served on the board for months. New Commissioner Dalton improperly voted to approve prior minutes she never attended. Hand-count motions for 2024 envelopes passed narrowly amid opposition. Testimony consistently demands Nago’s and Curtis’s removal, yet they remain month after month. The commission unanimously refused to forward findings to the Governor due to the commissioner’s shared institutional mistrust. Despite being framed as “partisan rage-bait” by the accused, this is not a left-right issue. Voices from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and Libertarians express the same alarm. Coverage in Civil Beat and Aloha State Daily documents resignations, repeated audit calls, and growing division over mail-in voting. 100+ testifiers routinely sit through 7 hour long meetings in the middle of the workweek to demand change.  The DoJ Lawsuit On December 22, 2025, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii unanimously passed a “Resolution in Support of the U.S. Department of Justice Lawsuit Against the Hawaii Office of Elections and Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago” . Our resolution endorses the DOJ action, demands full compliance with federal election laws, supports continued federal oversight of Hawaii’s noncompliance, and affirms that transparency and accountability strengthen—not threaten—election integrity. Full text available in our December 2025 Membership Newsletter. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii calls for: Full support for the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to enforce federal election law requirements against the Hawaiʻi Office of Elections and Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago. Full compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act, including the prompt and transparent disclosure of voter registration records as required by law. Continued exercise of federal jurisdiction by authorities to address systemic noncompliance with election transparency and record-access requirements in the State of Hawaiʻi. Affirmation that election integrity is strengthened by lawful oversight, public accountability, and adherence to constitutional and statutory obligations. Your Call to Action Contact your state legislators today. Attend and testify at Elections Commission meetings to apply direct public pressure. Meetings are held at the Office of Elections (802 Lehua Avenue, Pearl City) or virtually (details on each agenda). Testimony is generally limited to 2-3 minutes on agenda items and can be given remotely or in person. All agendas, minutes, notices, and archives are posted here: https://elections.hawaii.gov/about-us/boards-and-commissions/elections-commission/  Sign up for email notifications on that page so you receive agendas and regular meeting notices automatically.

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