Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting March 16, 2026 Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting Held March 16, 2026 Call to Order: 7:25 Roll Call: Austin Martin, Abbra Green, and Bryce Thon Minutes and revisions from March 02, 2026: passes without objection. Agenda: passes without objection Unfinished Business: N/A New Business:  Floor open  to Discussions & motions beginning at “ARTICLE VII: Vacancy, Suspension, and Disciplinary Action”: Section 1 : Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to strike “unless the chair appoints another Sustaining or Lifetime Member with prior Executive Committee notice. Non-officer appointments need no second but must allow discussion if unseconded.”  and insert the word “regular”  after the word “next ” on line one. Passes without objection. Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to strike “or Special Convention where the appointee is confirmed unless contested and seconded, triggering an election.”  And to change “should be announced and filled promptly by the State Committee.”  to “must be timely announced and should be promptly filled” passes without objection. Section 2.1 : Motion by Abbra Green, second by Bryce Thon to strike “Except where otherwise stated”  Passes without objection. Section 2.2 : Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to change “a”  to “any”  and to add a new subsection: “C. Any disciplinary motion must be served to the accused with the notice in no less than ten days before decision-making”  Passes without objection Section 2.4 : Motion by Austin, second by Bryce, to strike “executive”  and add “truthfulness of the”  before “claim” , add “not subject to reasonable dispute”  after “evidence” , and to authorize restyling by the secretary to support the list formatting (a.b.c.). passes without objection. Section 2.5 : Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to add the word “entire”  before “state committee”  and strike “members present” , add “and is”  before “effective” , and add “emergency”  before “suspensions” , and Add new sentence to end: “If no hearing has occurred within 30 days to sustain or reverse the suspension, the suspension shall expire, and the member shall be restored” , and merge 4 to the end of subsection 5 (emergency suspensions). Passes without objection 2.6 (now 2.5) : Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon,  to change “for”  to “after”  and to add the word “emergency”  before “suspensions”  and to add “special”  before “hearings”.  Passes without objection. Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to strike all parentheticals containing “e.g.”. Passes without objection. 2.9:  Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to replace the entire 2.9 with “All non-exonerating disciplinary actions must be approved by a 2/3rds vote of the entire State Committee .” Passes without objection. Section 3 : Motion by Bryce, second by Austin to replace “two-thirds”  with “majority” , passes without objection. Assignments:  Review the bylaws draft once edited for accuracy. Add comments or have motions ready for the next meeting. Discussions and motions will begin at “Article VIII County Affiliates” . Adjournment:  8:56 pm The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting  is Monday, April 06, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

Last session  we proved what a small, principled team can do. With just three core contributors, LPHI tracked 93 bills, testified on 72, and delivered a remarkable 77.42% success rate in shaping outcomes. 2026 Legislative Activism Report Check out our 2026 Legislative Activism Report . This is our organized list of over 200 measures we’re tracking and testifying on this year. This report is updated regualrly. Bookmark it and check back often. The titles will take you to our blog posts covering the topic, and the bill numbers will take you directly to the Hawaii state page for the measure. Our Top Priorities #1: SB2054 – Defend Hawaii (SUPPORT) This historic bill prohibits the Hawaii National Guard from being deployed to assist federal troops, federal law enforcement, or out-of-state Guard when the Governor objects. It’s our flagship defense of state sovereignty, local disaster response, and resistance to unwanted federal overreach. LPHI helped get it the proposal on the floor, and are heading the fight to get it approved. HB540 – Ban fluoride in public water (SUPPORT) : stopping forced medication. SB1437 & HB1118 – Vaccine exemption attack (OPPOSE) : protecting parental/religious rights. HB264 – Parental rights in custody cases (SUPPORT) : block legalized kidnapping schemes. HB2512 & HB2199 – Bodily autonomy in healthcare (SUPPORT) . We are also laser-focused on blocking sweeping fireworks prohibitions, new gun restrictions, climate mandates, rental price controls, and occupational licensing expansions. 2026 Trajectories The threats are persistent, but so is our momentum. Several 2025 bad bills returned in 2026. The kidnapping measure is deferred yet again, making it a defeated measure for the past three years in a row. The vaccine-exemption bills are back as SB1437 & HB1118 . We have already started seeing early deferrals as partial wins. You can see the deferred bills in the new dedicated section of our report. 29 of the measures we opposed (government expansion, new restrictions, taxes, and licensing schemes) versus 3 we supported. The fight never ends. Special interests keep reintroducing overreach, but our consistent activism works. We’ve seen a substantial increase in volunteers willing to contact their representatives, testify, post flyers and social media content, and more! By replicating and scaling last year’s playbook, we are positioned for even greater impact. What We’re Expecting Ahead  The 2026 session is in full swing. With many bills already moving through committees and more hearings scheduled weekly, we expect: A breakthrough win for sovereignty (Defend Hawaii), medical freedom, and direct democracy reforms. Intense battles on cultural rights, self-defense, and parental authority. Continued pressure on taxes, housing regulations, and mandates that hurt working families. We have successfully replicated our activism model while growing our team of testifiers and donors. We can now turn more deferrals into permanent defeats and more SUPPORT bills into law. Early signs are encouraging, and our community is more engaged than ever. Join the Fight You don’t have to do this alone. Our report, testimony templates, hearing calendar, and personalized guidance are all free and ready. Four simple steps to become a legislative superstar: Click the bill links in the report.  Check the updated hearing schedule.) Submit testimony ( our guides make it easy ). Donate to The Libertarian Party of Hawaii  to expand our reach. Ready to go further? Contact us at lphisecretary@gmail.com  We’ll pair you with issues that matter most to you and provide tailored advice to help you amplify your voice. Not a member yet? Join the only party in Hawaii that puts individual liberty first. Your testimony and support can be the difference between another victory and another loss. Let’s make 2026 our strongest year yet!

In June 2025, President Trump federalizes over 4,000 California National Guard troops and deploys them to Los Angeles against Governor Gavin Newsom's explicit objections :  “President Trump turned the National Guard against the communities they swore to serve. This is unlawful and immoral. Under state direction, California National Guard members have always been deployed in support of our communities – acting as surge medical staff in crises, helping with wildfire management, supporting fentanyl interdiction, and now, as the President withholds food stamps from hungry families, the Guard is distributing food to those in need. The National Guard deserves better than being treated like Trump’s toy soldiers – and when they’re returned to California command, we’ll get them back to doing the real work they signed up to do.” It appears that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Ostensibly to quell protests against aggressive federal immigration raids, this federal action escalated into blatant and excessive overreach with armed troops patrolling city streets and clashing with demonstrators. It led to allegations of excessive force, racial profiling, and illegal detentions. Profoundly Un-American U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer delivered a scathing rebuke in Newsom v Trump , ordering the deployment's end and calling it "profoundly un-American" while highlighting a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act , which bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement without clear justification. As the federal judge wrote in the December 10, 2025, order: "It is profoundly un-American to suggest that people peacefully exercising their fundamental right to protest constitute a risk justifying the federalization of military forces." The court further held that the federalization orders under 10 U.S.C.  § 12406 lacked any colorable basis, as they failed to demonstrate a present inability to execute federal laws with regular forces. Judge Breyer enjoined the deployment, directing the return of control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.  Why This Matters for Hawaii This federal power grab exposes the fragility of state sovereignty. It's precisely why LPHI is championing the Defend Hawaii Act . Amid widespread support from groups like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, ACLU Hawaiʻi, and many individuals, the Hawaii National Guard stands as nearly the sole organized opponent. In testimony summarized by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Guard expresses serious concerns that SB2054 could place commanders and service members in a "complex and potentially precarious situation,"  exposing them to significant legal risks including potential criminal liability under state or federal law. The perceived dilemma is that service members have a longstanding military obligation to obey lawful orders from superiors. If the Governor objects to a federal or out-of-state deployment request under the bill, following the Governor's directive might be seen as "non-assistance", risking prosecution, claims, or other liabilities. They also cite complications in dual-status frameworks, fearing blurred command lines could lead to personal jeopardy without clear safeguards. The Guard's position overlooks a key reality. Under current law and the bill's design, the primary risk to service members arises if they disobey the Governor. SB2054 reinforces state command in Title 32 or state active duty status, where governors already retain authority to refuse federal requests. The bill's narrow scope means non-assistance liability would only theoretically emerge if service members ignore the Governor's explicit objection and assist anyway. The bill prohibits this precisely to prevent such conflicts and protect them from being pulled into unlawful federal operations.  The bill prohibits what the Constitution already bars, but it does so proactively through state law to prevent the very risks the Guard fears. It turns a constitutional principle into a lawful and enforceable shield tailored to Hawaii's context. It clarifies boundaries to eliminate ambiguity and reduce risk. Limited to state-controlled units (Title 32 or state active duty) and triggered only by the Governor's explicit objection to specific in-state deployments, SB2054 aligns duties with the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers, shields Guard members from being forced into constitutionally dubious federal operations (such as those violating the 4th Amendment), and ensures they follow clear, lawful gubernatorial directives. Courts Protect, Not Punish the Guard The Newsom v. Trump  ruling directly refutes the Hawaii National Guard’s narrative, showing that unlawful federal deployments can be successfully challenged in court, with judges enforcing constitutional limits rather than punishing state-aligned refusals. The opinion emphasizes that adopting an interpretation allowing indefinite federal control over state troops "would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully". It is a scenario that "would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government." It invokes the Tenth Amendment's protection of state sovereign interests, citing   Bond v. United States  for the principle that  "action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States."  By clarifying that federalization orders remain judicially reviewable and must meet narrow statutory preconditions with no perpetual authority post-exigency, the court demonstrates that assertions of gubernatorial objection like Defend Hawaii empowers do not expose Guard members to personal jeopardy. Instead, they align with constitutional checks, reduce ambiguity, and shield service members from being forced into ultra vires operations that courts have deemed unlawful.  From Hawaii Department of Defense . The Absurdity of Capitulation: Is the Constitution Worth Defending? Are they really suggesting that the Constitution isn't worth even a legal fight? That it's better to risk lives through unconstitutional capitulation? Their reasoning borders on absurdity when viewed through the lens of the Constitution they claim to defend. The courts are in place so that the people’s constitutional rights are protected, and the National Guard is arguing it’s better to go along and get along at the expense of Hawaii.  Let's take a look at constitutional foundations the National Guard is dismissing. The 10th Amendment  reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, including primary authority over unfederalized militias. Federal law echoes this: Governors retain command under Title 32  and can refuse requests. Defend Hawaii enforces these boundaries by prohibiting Hawaii's Guard from assisting federal or out-of-state forces if the Governor objects. This shields members from federal operations that violate constitutional protections as seen in the mainland. The 2nd Amendment  declares a "well regulated Militia" essential to a free state's security. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 46 , an armed populace loyal to decentralized state governments forms an "insurmountable" barrier against federal ambition. In District of Columbia v. Heller , the Supreme Court affirmed the militia's role in checking centralized power as the people's safeguard. By preventing our Guard from being commandeered against the state's will, Defend Hawaii preserves this design, so Hawaii's militias focus on our islands' disasters and communities above federal agendas. The Senate Committee on Judiciary's report  urges:  “Your Committee finds that President Trump has recently federalized and deployed national guard units in various states, despite the objections of those states' Governors… This measure will reinforce the State's sovereignty by ensuring that state resources are not used to support operations that lack alignment with the State's democratically elected leadership.” Acknowledging the Guard's concerns, the committee rightly counters that service members may need to confront "difficult legal positions" and refuse unlawful orders based on conscience: “Your Committee notes the concerns raised by the Hawaiʻi National Guard on this measure, specifically that this measure may create a complex and potentially precarious situation for Hawaiʻi National Guard Commanders and service members by exposing them to significant legal risks that may manifest as both state and federal criminal liability.  This legal dilemma arises from the legal obligation for service members to obey orders from their superiors, which stands in stark contrast to the possibility of being held accountable for those orders if they are later determined to be unlawful.  While your Committee acknowledges these concerns, your Committee believes that the United States has reached a place where members of the military, including members of the Hawaiʻi National Guard, will be forced to face difficult legal positions where individuals must decide whether the orders they are receiving are legal and whether they are willing to refuse those orders if in their own conscience they believe they should.” Take Action | Support SB2054 With Pacific isolation and unique history of external injustices in Hawaii, such overreach could be catastrophic. Defend Hawaii prevents this by recognizing our Governor has the authority to block unwanted deployments so that resources remain local. This bill is a pragmatic victory for the Bill of Rights, born from LPHI's decades of advocacy. Urge the full Senate and House to Support SB2054 without weakening amendments. You can read our simple instructions on testifying here . Contact legislators, and join us in reclaiming sovereignty. Hawaii can lead the nation in honoring the Framers' vision of an armed and free people. Build Momentum Your support helps us defend Hawaii in the legislature and beyond! Share this post far and wide Become an Official Member of LPHI Donate with a one-time or recurring payment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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