Search Results

Hawaii's farmers and ranchers need more housing options for their workers. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii agrees with that premise. But HB1737 , which is currently moving through the Legislature under the banner of expanding farm employee housing, does something that should concern anyone who values private property rights and local governance. It imposes new statewide restrictions on privately owned agricultural land across the state, potentially overriding county rules that are already working. What the Bill Does HB1737 amends two sections of Hawaii Revised Statutes, Sections 205-4.5 and 205-2(d)(7), to introduce a statewide definition of "farm employee housing." Under the new definitions, any farm on land classified as agricultural by the state Land Use Commission would be subject to a new 800 square foot cap per farm employee housing unit, a restriction on the total land area that can be used for farm dwellings and employee housing combined. The bill also adds a prohibition on submitting any portion of the property to a condominium property regime under Chapter 514B. These restrictions apply statewide, to private farms and ranches, not just to state-funded agricultural parks. The State Is Not the Right Level for This Hawaii's counties have been regulating farm employee housing on their own, and some of them have been doing it well. Hawaii County alone has approved nearly 200 requests for additional farm dwellings over the past decade. Those county rules in some cases allow employee housing units larger than 800 square feet. If this bill passes, farmers who have built or are planning employee housing in compliance with their county's rules could find themselves out of compliance with a new, stricter state standard. The argument for this bill is that the lack of a statewide standard has created confusion and inconsistency. But the solution to inconsistency is not to impose a ceiling from Honolulu that makes state law more restrictive than what local communities have already worked out for themselves. Land use decisions belong as close to the land as possible. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii believes private owners are better positioned than the state to decide what is built on their own land. A Restriction on Private Property Rights The condominium prohibition in this bill deserves particular attention. The bill bars fee owners of farm dwellings from submitting any portion of their property to a condominium property regime in order to separate ownership of employee housing units from the primary dwelling. This is a restriction on how private landowners may organize and convey property they own. Take Action | Oppose HB1737 Hawaii's farmers deserve real relief. They deserve a Legislature that removes barriers rather than erects new ones on their land. Track and oppose hb1737 on the Hawaii State Legislature website and submit testimony if a hearing is open. Written testimony submitted before the 24-hour deadline will be posted online prior to the hearing. The next hearing is set for 04/09/2026 at 10:01 am HST. You can use our testimony guide on the Legislative Action page if you need help getting started. Support the work LPHI does holding the line on property rights and local governance throughout the legislative session: Track HB1737 and Submit Testimony Become an Official Member Donate Once or Recurring

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii opposes SB2868  & HB1875 . It explicitly expands the exact same statutory shield framework enacted in Act 2 (SLH 2023) to protect “lawful reproductive health care services.” That Reproductive Health Protection Act was passed to shield providers and patients from out-of-state liability after Dobbs. This bill simply inserts “gender-affirming health care services” into the identical protections. It covers everything from malpractice immunity and insurance mandates to restrictions on record disclosure. It also adds new “protections against abusive litigation” that apply equally to both reproductive-health providers and gender-affirming-care providers. We reject this on principle. Bundling the two issues in this way is not neutral protection of bodily autonomy; it is the opposite. It uses the reproductive-care shield as a Trojan horse to grant one side of a separate, highly contested medical debate. It grants special immunity from market consequences, patient lawsuits, and parental oversight, especially when minors are involved. We do not support the government tilting the scales by carving out privileged classes of providers and procedures. Libertarians champion individual liberty, bodily autonomy, and personal responsibility. Adults have the absolute right to make their own medical decisions. Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their minor children. The government has no business inserting itself into the doctor-patient-parent relationship to grant one side special legal armor while leaving patients, families, and dissenting providers exposed. This is the opposite of protecting autonomy.  It distorts the private insurance market by forbidding carriers from underwriting risk according to their own actuarial judgment. It shields providers from legitimate malpractice claims, even when experimental or irreversible interventions are performed. Let science, ethics, and informed consent prevail.  We already support genuine bodily-autonomy legislation such as HB2512 and HB2199, which protect every individual’s right to refuse or choose medical interventions without coercion. HB1875 is not that bill. It is the opposite: it protects providers from patients.  The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  When the government begins carving out protected classes of providers and procedures, it ceases to be a neutral referee and becomes an active participant in harming the individuals it claims to “protect.” We have seen this pattern before. Special protections quickly become mandates, and mandates quickly become censorship of dissenting medical choices. Help Us Prevent Hawaii from becoming a bigger Medical Malpractice Sanctuary The next hearing will be held on April 07, 2026 at 10:15am HST for the House Bill. Read the bills’ summaries & text: SB2868  & HB1875 . Follow these simple steps  to track and testify Call your representatives.  and ask them kill SB2868 & HB1875, the “Medical Malpractice Sanctuary Bill” 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.

We are happy to announce that our Defend Hawaii Act is still going strong. Questions have been raised by a number of representatives on whether to add title 10 to strengthen the language. This would make the bill much closer to the original LPHI draft . The recent Newsom v. Trump ruling provides precedent .  From the last Committee Report:  “Your Committees additionally note that the President, as Commander in Chief, is vested with the authority to deploy Title 10 forces to enforce federal law under the Federal Insurrection Act.  This authority has historically been used to deploy troops to enforce desegregation laws in Southern states, despite the vocal opposition from state governors and local elected officials.  Your Committees believe that these issues raise concerns that merit further consideration and requests further examination by your Committee on Judiciary, should it choose to deliberate on this measure.” Chairman Austin Martin's Testimony in Response: Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair(s), and distinguished members of the JHA Committee: Aloha. My name is Austin Martin. I am the original author and proposer of SB2054, the Defend Hawaii Act. I appear before you today not only as an architect but as a proud Hawaiian committed to safeguarding our state’s sovereignty, our National Guard, and the constitutional design of our republic. I strongly urge you to pass SB2054, SD2, HD1 without further weakening amendments. This measure is simple, targeted, and essential. It amends HRS §121-30 to prohibit Hawaii National Guard units—when operating under state control or Title 32 status—from assisting, cooperating with, or providing resources to federal troops, federal law enforcement, or out-of-state National Guard forces deployed within Hawaii if the Governor objects. A narrow carve-out preserves compliance with any truly required federal or state law. Nothing more, nothing less. This language directly addresses the core problem we have witnessed in real time. The recent Newsom v. Trump litigation in California exposed how federal administrations can attempt to federalize or commandeer National Guard assets for domestic operations—even over a governor’s objection—under statutes like 10 U.S.C. §12406. Hawaii must not wait for a similar crisis on our soil. SB2054 places a clear, procedural safeguard in state law so that our Guard cannot be drawn into adverse domestic deployments against the expressed will of Hawaii’s chief executive. The bill respects every relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent on federalization while leaning into an originalist understanding of the Second Amendment’s Militia Clause. The Framers designed the militia as a state-controlled force “necessary to the security of a free State”—not as a federal instrument for politically controversial operations on American soil. By codifying the Governor’s check at the state level, SB2054 creates a clean statutory record that will support that original constitutional meaning of the 2nd Amendment if ever tested in court. Critically, this legislation imposes zero new costs on the State of Hawaii. It requires no additional appropriations, no new bureaucracy, and no expansion of state programs. It is a pure limitation on misuse—nothing more. It also poses no risk to federal funding. The Guard’s Title 10 and Title 32 funding streams remain untouched; the bill only governs in-state assistance when the Governor has already objected. Federal dollars for legitimate training, disaster response, and overseas missions continue without interruption. Opponents may raise “readiness” concerns. That objection does not withstand scrutiny. The Governor’s check will almost never arise in true combat deployments or genuine emergencies. It will arise, if at all, in the narrow class of politically charged domestic disputes where rapid federal deployment is itself the controversy. In those scenarios, a brief procedural safeguard—or even judicial review—protects the public interest far more than it harms readiness. Hawaii’s Guard exists first and foremost to defend Hawaii. Keeping it available for hurricanes, floods, and local security is the highest form of readiness, not the lowest. We have already seen discussions about reinforcing Title 32 protections in light of the California precedent. If the Committee wishes to make that protection even more explicit, I stand ready to assist. The original vision of SB2054 included measured gubernatorial checks on both Title 32 and Title 10 deployments; the narrower focus of the present bill remains a pragmatic and constitutional step forward. I respectfully suggest maintaining these original elements to strengthen and balance this bill:  Suggested Targeted Amendments   To fully achieve SB2054’s goal of protecting state sovereignty, we recommend the Committee add the following exact wording in two places: Add the following definition to the definitions section: “ Federal deployment” means any activation of the Hawaii National Guard under Title 10 or Title 32 of the United States Code, including in-state or out-of-state missions which are executed by or under federal authority .” Add the following core restriction as a new subsection in the operative provisions (right after the current language on HRS §121-30): “No unit or member of the Hawaii National Guard shall be deployed for federal service, whether in-state or out-of-state, under Title 10 or Title 32 of the United States Code, unless:  “The U.S. Federal Government provides constitutional authorization; or The Governor of Hawaii provides express written consent, following consultation with the Hawaii State Legislature.” These targeted additions form the constitutional backbone that turns a procedural measure into a robust shield. Chair Tarnas and members, SB2054 is not radical. It is restorative. It restores the constitutional balance the Framers intended between federal and state authority over the militia. It protects our Guard from being commandeered into missions that Hawai‘i’s elected leadership has already rejected. And it does so at no cost, with no risk to federal funding, and without impairing legitimate national defense. I respectfully ask for your “Ayes” on SB2054, HD1. Let us send a clear message: Hawaii will defend Hawaii. Mahalo nui loa for your time and service. I am happy to answer any questions. Respectfully submitted,   Austin Martin   Libertarian Party of Hawaii — State Chair Libertarian National Committee — Region 1 Member Original Author and Proposer, SB2054 – Defend Hawaii Act Help Us Defend Hawaii Track and testify on the bill  to make sure the Defend Hawaii Act becomes law. Thank you to all who have already contacted their representatives and submitted testimony. This initiative has been the biggest by far in terms of both activism and support that our party has seen in the last few years. It is success stories like these that highlight the impact of both the work of LPHI, and the voice of the individual.

The Hawaii Elections Commission continues to face serious questions about transparency, accountability, and competence in managing our elections. Recent critiques, include detailed concerns over ballot discrepancies, chain-of-custody failures, voter registration verification issues, ERIC system errors, and repeated violations of the Sunshine Law. We’ve seen a troubling pattern of dismissing public testimony, blocking motions, and resisting oversight. These problems have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, including demands for removal of key officials and greater compliance with federal laws like HAVA and the NVRA. You can read more about past meetings on our blog . More Election Integrity Issues On March 11, 2026, Dylan Andrion presented the Permitted Interaction Group Report  for Hawaii County. Findings included an array of election integrity issues: County election officials did not provide documentation demonstrating compliance with HAR §3-177-453, which requires a complete and current accounting of ballots issued, spoiled, and received. Counties did not provide verifiable daily ballot counts for ballot envelopes collected from drop boxes or received through the United States Postal Service. Chain-of-custody documentation across counties appears inconsistent and incomplete, and no standardized statewide reconciliation reporting format was produced for the 2024 General Election. Ballot accountability procedures appear to rely primarily on entries within the Statewide Voter Registration System rather than independently verifiable reconciliation records. USPS mail processing systems used for ballot return envelopes produce an exact automated count of returned mailpieces, which can be used to reconcile ballot envelope totals within the election chain of custody.  Chain of custody should begin when ballots are ordered, but instead they are tracked from the first scan. USPS is required to track ballot mail through special bar code systems to allow for individual counting, unlike Commissioner Dalton (former USPS worker tasked with asking her former colleagues) claimed. Reconciliation has not been satisfied for 2024. Independent verification was not possible. Adrion ended with a list of remedies including protocols and independent verification processes: the Elections commission should document the verified problems with the 2024 general elections. Public testimony was heard on the PIG Report, but Chair Curtis stifled discussion on the report, stating discussion will be added to the  April 01,2026 agenda  instead. Upcoming Hawaii Elections Commission Meeting  Among other issues mentioned above, the agenda also includes a response from Claire McAdams as a representative of the Office of the County Auditor. McAdams resigned from the Election Commission board in November, and is now acting in a new copacity to ironically convey that an audit would be a conflict of interest for the Office of the County Auditor. The next commission meeting will be held on April 1, 2026, at the Office of Elections, 802 Lehua Avenue, Pearl City, HI 96782. You can also join remotely via Zoom for oral testimony. Livestreams are also provided on each agenda. Agendas and meeting materials are posted in advance on the official site . You can also Sign up for the email list  to receive notices for upcoming Elections Commission meetings. Testimony is typically 2-3 minutes on each agenda item. Vacancy: Chair of HI Elections Commission Shortly after the meeting, Chair Curtis published his Notice of Anticipated Vacancy  due to his term ending soon. We encourage all liberty-centric individuals to apply. This position must be filled by a leader with an eye toward transparency and accountability and who respects the law and Roberts Rules of Order.  Individuals interested in volunteering should submit a resume with a cover letter via email to elections.commission@hawaii.gov or via mail.  Commissioners cannot take an active part in political management or campaigns while serving.

A recent Treasury release shows the federal government holding about $6 trillion in assets against nearly $48 trillion in liabilities. Fortune covered the story here . When you include long-term promises like Social Security and Medicare, the total rises above $130 trillion over the next 75 years. That number is so big it’s easy to shrug off. It doesn’t feel real. So it helps to bring it down to earth. Imagine a household earning around $50,000 a year, spending far more than it brings in, and sitting on over a million dollars in obligations with very little in assets. Most people would recognize that situation immediately; it’s not sustainable. Now, the federal government isn’t a household. It can tax, it can borrow, and it can print money. But those powers don’t make the problem disappear. They just change how the consequences show up. Instead of a sudden bankruptcy, the effects come more slowly. Prices rise. Savings lose value. Debt grows faster than the economy. And future generations inherit commitments they never agreed to. It’s less like a crash and more like a long, quiet erosion. For Hawaiʻi, this matters more than most places. Our economy is deeply tied to federal spending, from military presence to infrastructure and programs. At the same time, we already deal with one of the highest costs of living in the country. That means if federal fiscal problems lead to inflation or instability, we feel it quickly. And intensely. This isn’t really about one political party or another. It’s about a pattern that’s been building for decades. Year after year, spending exceeds revenue. Long-term promises expand without clear funding. And there’s very little political incentive to slow things down, because the costs are pushed into the future. From a libertarian perspective, there’s also a deeper issue here. When government accumulates massive obligations, it’s effectively making decisions on behalf of people who don’t yet have a voice. It commits future workers, families, and communities to pay for today’s policies. That raises a basic question of fairness. Who gets to decide how much of the future is already spoken for? At the same time, relying on debt and money creation to sustain government spending distorts the economy. It rewards proximity to power over productivity. It quietly transfers wealth through inflation. And it makes it harder for individuals and families to plan for the long term. None of this means collapse is guaranteed, or that solutions are simple. But it does mean the current path isn’t something we can ignore forever. The longer these trends continue, the fewer good options remain. For Hawaiʻi, the takeaway isn’t just to look to Washington and hope for reform. It’s to think about resilience here at home. Strong local food systems, more independent energy, tighter communities, and a culture of fiscal responsibility at the state and local level all help buffer against larger instability. Big numbers in federal reports can feel distant and abstract. But the reality behind them isn’t. It shows up in the cost of living, in the value of our savings, and in the opportunities available to the next generation. The real question isn’t whether the system can keep going a little longer. It’s whether we’re paying attention early enough to adapt before the consequences become unavoidable.

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.