No public official should enjoy a permanent shield from accountability, especially those charged with holding others accountable. The End Judicial Immunity Act is a short but bold legislative proposal designed to restore balance and protect civil liberties by ensuring that Hawaii’s courts serve the people rather than insulate those who wield power. Judicial immunity is a doctrine rooted in common law that has expanded throughout the years through federal court decisions. It grants judges near-absolute protection from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their "official capacity". It has often created a class of untouchables, eroding public trust and leaving victims of judicial overreach with few meaningful remedies. No One Is Above the Law The principle that government officials are bound by the same laws as citizens is foundational to liberty. When judges violate constitutional rights through biased rulings, due process failures, or overreaching orders, current precident frequently bars victims from seeking civil redress. This contradicts the principle of equal justice. Our Act affirms that judges, like everyone else, must face consequences for clear violations of rights. Public service is a responsibility, not a license for misconduct. Hawaii deserves a judiciary that upholds the Constitution without bias or favor. When stories of judicial misconduct surface and affected populations have no effective recourse, cynicism grows. From families entangled in family court disputes to individuals facing unfair administrative actions, the lack of civil accountability can leave lasting harm. By ending blanket immunity for rights violations, we will empower citizens to pursue justice. We can incentivize higher standards on the bench and rebuild faith in the system that governs so many aspects of life. Judges are human. They can err, act with bias, and often exceed their proper role. Absolute immunity insulates honest mistakes and serious infringements on liberty alike. Actions such as improper detentions, unwarranted property seizures, or denials of fundamental fairness are egregious infringements. Government power must be checked to prevent it from becoming tyranny, especially in the courtroom. The legislation also reinforces the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. State judges cannot prioritize conflicting state rules over federal constitutional protections. This ensures the uniformity and primacy of individual rights across Hawaii. Under our Act, claiming “I thought it was lawful” would not serve as a valid defense for violating clearly established rights. The standard applied to ordinary citizens would be applied to those on the bench. Judges, trained professionals sworn to uphold the law, should be held to the highest standard. Their job relies on the knowledge and application of law. When the System Betrays the Individual This bill proposal stands in protection of the mother in Honolulu fighting for the custody of her children. She works her way tirelessly through the system only to face a judge who ignores evidence and issues rulings driven by personal bias rather than law. She loses years with her keiki, drains her savings on attorneys, and is told by higher courts that the judge is untouchable, even if the misconduct was glaringly obvious. When passed, this law will stand in defense of the small business owner on the Big Island whose property is seized through an unconstitutional order, destroying his livelihood, while the judge who signed it walks away completely shielded from accountability. These are unfortunately not theoretical victims. They are your neighbors, your ohana, who once believed the justice system existed to protect them. Instead, they discovered the hard way that the very people entrusted to uphold the Constitution can violate their most fundamental rights without having to answer for their crimes. These victims of the state are all around us; I would wager you know at least one. This is the answer to ending the pattern of state abuse and vindicating it's survivors. No public official should enjoy a permanent shield from accountability, especially those charged with holding others accountable. When a judge violates clearly established constitutional rights, the victim is left harmed and abandoned by the very system designed to deliver justice. They carry the trauma, the financial ruin, the broken families, and the deep disillusionment alone. The End Judicial Immunity Act is a bold legislative proposal designed to restore balance, protect civil liberties, and ensure that Hawaii’s courts serve the people rather than insulate those who wield power. Critics of reform often warn of a flood of lawsuits that could intimidate judges. We disagree. Targeted accountability for rights violations, paired with existing procedural safeguards strikes the right balance. Reform deters dishonorable conduct while preserving independence for good-faith decisions. Accountability and judicial integrity are indeed compatible. Help Us End Judicial Immunity The End Judicial Immunity Act advances core libertarian principles by eliminating special privileges for government actors, maximizing protection for individual rights, and holding our government accountable to the people of Hawaii.We invite all Hawai‘i residents who value justice, fairness, and liberty to join us. Sign Our Petiton to show lawmakers Hawaii wants to End Judicial Immunity. You can read the exact, brief language prior to signing. Download our free Activism Packet for bill text, talking points, handouts, templates, sign-up sheets, qr codes, and more: Put the Packet to Use by urging others to sign the petition. Share This Article on social media and send it to your friends and family.

Did you know that in 1999, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii unanimously adopted the Liberty Penguin as its official mascot? ❓🐧❓ Several affiliates embraced the playful “LP” (Liberty Penguin) as a cooler, more memorable symbol for the party of liberty. Hawaii’s adoption was the fourth, and even earned a brief spotlight in local news. A 1999 Honolulu Star-Bulletin article notes that the party wanted a “cooler” image and officially chose the Liberty Penguin as its mascot. The Liberty Penguin represented a fun, grassroots effort by state parties in the ’90s to give Libertarianism a lighter, more approachable face. Details on our own party’s penguin are an intriguing piece of hidden LPHI lore. The penguin seems to like a low profile. We haven’t been able to track down the original mascot, but we have had some fun playing around with the concept. Help Us Preserve Party History Your Secretary has been working hard to preserve party history. If you have old photos, newsletters, meeting notes, stories, or any other tidbits about any chapter of the Libertarain Party of Hawaii history, please help preserve our party’s heritage! Send them to lphisecretary@gmail.com.

The Hawaii DOGE committee is working to make our state government leaner, more transparent, and truly accountable to the people. Tell us what you’ve seen. Gripes: Share examples of waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiency, or bureaucracy gone wild (a bloated program, redundant spending, slow service, or outright misuse of taxpayer dollars). Praises: We also need to know about the bright spots where the government actually got it right (a department that saved money, delivered services efficiently, cut red tape, or showed real innovation). Every submission helps us build a clear, evidence-based case for reform in Hawaii. Government Efficiency Survey Email your story to lphisecretary@gmail.com with the subject line “Hawaii DOGE”. Please include in your Government Efficiency Survey: Your experience Where in Hawaii and when it happened Any details, photos, documents, or links that support it (optional but very helpful) We never share personally identifiable information without permission. We respect your privacy and will only use submissions to advance the initiative.

Senate Bill 2694 is now sitting on Governor Green’s desk, and Hawaiʻi residents should pay close attention. This bill would authorize automatic annual shipping rate increases for interisland water carriers, primarily benefiting Young Brothers, the state’s dominant interisland shipping company. The measure allows the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish “automatic adjustment mechanisms” enabling shipping companies to raise rates every year, with increases of up to 5% annually through at least 2029. (LegiScan) This comes after Young Brothers already received a massive 25.75% rate increase approved by the PUC in late 2025. (Maui Now) Supporters argue the bill helps carriers keep pace with inflation and avoids large one-time increases after years of regulatory delay. But the deeper issue is this: Hawaiʻi does not have a healthy competitive market for interisland shipping. It has a heavily regulated system dominated by a single major carrier. Instead of addressing the lack of competition, SB2694 effectively normalizes automatic price increases within a protected market structure. Why This Matters Everything in Hawaiʻi depends on shipping. Food. Building materials. Appliances. Vehicles. Household goods. Farming supplies. Small business inventory. When shipping costs rise, nearly every sector of the economy feels it. The first-order effect is obvious: higher shipping prices mean higher consumer prices. But the second- and third-order effects are even more damaging: Local families face even higher costs of living Small businesses become less competitive Neighbor island residents pay disproportionately more Farmers and producers face higher input costs New businesses become harder to start Economic centralization increases Dependence on a single dominant carrier deepens Innovation and market entry become less likely Over time, policies like this create a feedback loop where government regulation protects concentrated market power, concentrated market power drives higher prices, and residents are told higher prices are inevitable. They are not inevitable. The Real Solution: More Competition The answer to monopoly pricing is not guaranteed annual rate hikes. The answer is reducing barriers to entry and allowing more competition in interisland shipping. Competition pressures companies to improve efficiency, lower prices, and provide better service. Protected systems do the opposite. When businesses know price increases can be built into regulation itself, the incentive to innovate and reduce costs weakens. A freer and more competitive shipping market would strengthen Hawaiʻi’s economic resilience far more than automatic rate adjustments ever could. A Principled Position From a liberty-oriented perspective, government should not be empowering politically connected or government-protected industries to automatically pass rising costs onto the public. Markets work best when consumers have choices and businesses must compete for customers. SB2694 moves Hawaiʻi further away from that model. Even many legislators reportedly expressed discomfort with the bill while voting for it, arguing they felt there were few alternatives under the current system. (https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com) That should itself be a warning sign: when policymakers believe residents must simply accept permanent cost increases from a dominant carrier, something is fundamentally broken in the structure of the market. Hawaiʻi residents deserve better than managed decline and perpetual price increases. We deserve policies that encourage competition, resilience, affordability, and decentralization of economic power. Contact Governor Green Now Governor Green still has the opportunity to veto SB2694. Respectfully urge him to reject automatic shipping rate hikes and instead pursue reforms that increase competition and lower costs for Hawaiʻi residents. Contact Governor Green here: Governor Green Legislative Comment Portal Please be respectful, concise, and principled in your message. The more Hawaiʻi residents speak up now, the harder this issue will be to ignore.

Seeking fellow Hawaiians who believe in individual liberty, smaller government, and more personal freedom: Hawaiʻi’s elections consistently see low candidate participation. The last cycle left nearly 20 districts uncontested. That creates a real opportunity. If you’ve ever considered running for office, this is the time to step forward. In districts without competition, simply getting on the ballot dramatically increases the likelihood of giving voters a meaningful choice or even winning outright. Costs are low, risk is minimal, and the impact is tangible. There is also a strategic benefit for the broader movement. Every Libertarian candidate on the ballot strengthens our ability to maintain ballot access, without relying on burdensome petition efforts. By stepping up, you’re not just running a campaign; you’re helping secure long-term access, expand representation, and advance the principles of individual liberty across the islands. If you’re willing to put your name forward, we’ll support you all the way through the process. The window to file as a Libertarian candidate for the 2026 elections is closing soon. Candidate filing ends on June 2, 2026. If you’ve ever considered running for office to defend liberty in Hawaii, now is the time to act. Become a Libertarian Candidate Thinking about running for office yourself? Contact Libertarian Party of Hawaii today! Prepare to Win We’ve made it easier than ever to get ready. Check out our Candidate Readiness Seminar featuring 2024 congressional candidate, Aaron Toman. These resources cover the practical steps to run an effective campaign in Hawaii. Quick steps to get started: Coordinate with LPHI early so we can assist with filing, signature gathering, messaging, and campaign setup. Confirm eligibility and district residency requirements for the office you’re considering. Review current races and see where there’s no competition on the Hawaii Office of Elections website. Complete the nomination paper and gather the required number of signatures. Submit your filing either online or in person, along with the filing fee or petition alternative. Help a Libertarian Candidate Want to join a Candidate Team? Fill out our volunteer sign-up sheet and help support Libertarian candidates across the islands. Help with media dispersment, event coordination, signature gathering, and more. Whether you want to run yourself or support a candidate, your involvement matters. Hawaii needs more voices that will push back against overregulation, high taxes, and government overreach. Every Libertarian who steps forward brings us closer to real change. Act now to help us put Libertarians into office!

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii’s (LPHI) 2025 State Convention was projected to have around nineteen participants from the state of Hawaii. However, in the last 48 hours before the event, we faced an excessive surge of last-minute membership applications from out of state with no prior history of engagement with our affiliate. The Executive Committee worked very hard to balance these numbers out at the last minute after recognizing the risk of an out-of-state takeover. You could feel the tension building among members in the room after the revelation that this convention had the potential to remove local control of our Hawaii affiliate. The already overwhelmed credentials committee spent the morning working through the backlog, which delayed the convention by over two hours. When Aaron Toman (LPHI candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in 2024) finally presented the credentials report, the numbers sat at 88 credentialed remote Zoom attendees and 15 members physically present in Hilo. The room in which LPHI's leadership, bylaws, and future would be decided was outnumbered nearly six to one by people attending from laptops across the mainland. Not only was this level of turnout unprecedented for Hawaii, our 2025 convention turned out having more attendees than any prior Libertarian convention that year. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii 2025 Convention, Part One The Operation Evidence reveals this was a calculated, data-driven operation organized by the LP Alliance. Founded in November 2024, the LP Alliance is a national inter-caucus coalition. They describe themselves as encompassing a wide array of factions. They do not seem to have a single coherent ideology, but appear united by antagonism toward conservative opinions. However, they do have a verifiable and coherent strategy. Their stated goal is to gain enough organizational control of state affiliates to reshape the national party from the inside out. “From phone banking to candidate consulting to fundraising to coordinating rides and lodging, we do everything in our power to make sure that the right people are at the right conventions to run for and support Ally-backed slates.” ~ LP Alliance They utilize national networks, phone banking, and candidate consulting to ensure their preferred voters can flood targeted affiliate conventions. As early as December 2024, their organizers were directed to a restricted communications channel to coordinate state-by-state research to document seasoning requirements and bylaw gaps to exploit. On August 30th, their target was Hawaii. Kelly Nguyen was the on-site organizer for the LP Alliance. She had been an elected At-Large member of the LPHI Executive Committee in 2023 for a few short weeks before abruptly resigning, only to reappear at the 2025 convention in Hilo. The LP Alliance's publication, The Torch, later identified her explicitly as "the Alliance's on-site organizer." Nguyen's role was managing credentialing readmissions for the remote Alliance delegates. A former LPHI Executive Committee member was back in the room, working the floor for the faction trying to take over the party she had abandoned. The operation had a clear structure. A remote bloc would supply the votes, Nguyen would manage the ground, and Kyle Davis, and other Zoom attendees, would run parliamentary interference and back-end communication channels in order to prevent LPHI from protecting itself from takeover. Parliamentary Warfare When Aaron Toman moved to limit voting to Hawaii residents and lifetime members, Davis immediately raised a Point of Order to kill it. The motion died before it could reach a vote. Andrew Chadderdon then cited Robert's Rules of Order on whether remote attendees could legally vote at all, and Chairman Austin Martin called a recess, reviewed the rules, and reversed the ruling to confirm remote participants were ineligible to vote. The quorum collapsed to the 15 people physically present in Hilo. The ruling was immediately appealed by Daniel Lutz, seconded by Kelly Nguyen. The Chair's ruling was upheld among the in-person delegates. A motion by Nguyen to adjourn for lack of quorum was not well-taken. What followed was a sustained effort to destabilize whatever was left through parliamentary attrition. "As expected, the MC removed the people in Hawaii, lol." "As we told everyone, the MC planned to violate the members of Hawaii. They did exactly what we said would happen." ~ Kyle Davis, via Zoom chat This was their manufactured narrative, written before the convention started. Control the vote and win outright, or lose and claim fraud. Either way, they had a story ready to publish for their mainland pals. Parliamentarian and former LNC Secretary, Caryn Ann Harlos was on speakerphone with Nguyen throughout the proceedings, participating as a non-voting "observer." When Aaron Toman asked Harlos for clarification, she acknowledged a conflict of interest on the record. She could not fully respond because she had "other clients in this event," which was not disclosed from the onset. With the remote delegates properly excluded and the disruption finally exhausted, the convention held its elections. LPHI lifetime member Feena Bonoan suggested the nomination of Austin Martin for Chair. The man they came to remove was re-elected unanimously by every in-person delegate who cast a vote. The convention then passed a unanimous motion to authorize a Special Convention within 12 months to cover the agenda item that remained, the Bylaws and Platform revisions. . The Organization The LP Alliance is a broad inter-caucus structure founded in November 2024. Their goal is to gain enough organizational control of state affiliates and the LNC to reshape the party from the inside out. Their publication, The Torch, is their ideological platform edited by Amanda Griffiths. They have published a piece titled "The NAP is Woefully Outdated" and have authored work challenging the Non-Aggression Principle's prohibition on offensive political violence. Her co-organizer, Kyle Davis, sits beside her on the national Bylaws & Rules Committee, despite being openly opposed to the party’s Non-Aggression Principle. The Alliance acts as a domestic arm of a high-stakes internationalist network. Their leadership maintains a close relationship with international political figure Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux, a high-level LP insider, advisor to former foreign head of state, and the the Regional Coordinator for France’s Renaissance party. He oversees Macron’s ruling party’s presence and activities in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He serves as the Regional Vice-chair for Eastern Europe and Central Asia for the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties. He is also associated with the Georgian party, “Girchi – More Freedom”, a splinter from the original libertarian Girchi Party who aligned with NATO powers in an apparent effort to undermine and subvert the sovereignty of the nation of Georgia. While Crevaux manages foreign political principals, the LP Alliance acts as the domestic vehicle to integrate these internationalist agendas into U.S. party operations. Internal communications show Kyle Davis describing the Alliance as "effectively a refounding" of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties to focus on international messaging. All of this may present a significant legal risk under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Data Acquisition Months after the August 30th convention, Kyle Davis sent a formal demand to LPHI for their complete membership list. He demanded every member's name, address, and voting weight, citing HRS Chapter 414D, Hawaii's Nonprofit Corporations Act. He threatened lawsuits and court-ordered inspections against the Hawaii affiliate for noncompliance to his demands. This was part of a documented pattern of data acquisition for the LP Alliance. Kyle Davis reportedly admitted in direct communications that he had already downloaded the national LP membership and voter database. In those conversations and even on the LP Allies podcast, Davis made statements seemingly indicating that this data was shared or used in ways inconsistent with authorized LP data-sharing policies. LPHI blocked the targeted attempt to integrate Hawaii’s data into an unauthorized national list. HRS Chapter 414D does not apply to LPHI. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is a qualified political party organized under HRS Chapter 11, Part V, His demand was legally invalid and imposed no obligation on LPHI whatsoever. “Because LPHI is not subject to Chapter 414D, the record-inspection provisions you invoke simply do not apply. Your demand is therefore legally invalid and imposes no obligation on LPHI." ~ Chairman Austin Martin Since the threat lacked legal merit, Davis could not publicly complain about their "legal rights" being violated without exposing the flaw in their own argument. The Island Spirit Remains The Bylaws & Platform Committee has been meeting monthly since the convention. Every meeting is recorded and publicly available. Our bylaws are being rebuilt in public, with our members and for our members. LPHI is active, growing, and doing the work that brought most of us into this party in the first place. We are tracking and testifying on over 200 measures this legislative session. The Defend Hawaii Act has glided through hearings. Our candidates are preparing for campaign season. Real relationships, real candidates, real legislative impact, real aloha is ground that no outside operation can take from us. It was built here, by people who live here and love this place. Our island spirit has preserved the libertarian heart of LPHI.

Bylaws & Platform Committee Meeting DATE: Monday, April 20, 2026 TIME: 7:00 pm HST  Files: Bylaws & Platform Committtee Call to Order: 7:15pm HST Roll Call: Austin Martin, Nicholas Zehr, Abbra Green, Bryce Thon, Viewing: Celina Monge Minutes and revisions from April 06 & March 16, 2026: Passed without objection.  Agenda: Passed without objection. Unfinished Business: N/A New Business: Article III, Section 3: Motion by Austin Martin, second by Bryce Thon to change “fees for membership rights, determined by membership level” to "annual donation thresholds which determine membership level." Passed without objection.  Article III Section 3.a: Motion by Nicholas Zehr, second by Austin Martin to replace “may be lowered by the Executive Committee by 2/3rds approval at any time. The annual dues may be raised by the Executive Committee once per term, no later than ninety days after convention by 2/3rds approval, and with thirty days’ notice provided to the membership.” with "may be changed by a special or regular convention, by two-thirds vote, with sixty days' prior notice." Passed without objection Article IV, Section 1.b: Motion by Abbra Green, second by Nicholas Zehr to add: "pursuant to Article III." Passes without objection. Motion by Abbra Green, second by Bryce Thon to Remove "Ensure that deadlines required by these Bylaws or state law are met" from Article IV, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. Add new subsection 1.g: "Officers shall ensure that deadlines required by these Bylaws or state law are met." under joint duties in Section 1 Passes without objection. Article V Section, Section 4.b: Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to add "with prior notice" and strike: "for cause". Merge into article IV 6.a.2. Passes without objection. New Article IV 6.a.2 reads: “Automatic Vacancy:  If any State Committee member is absent for two consecutive regular committee meetings, that member’s position shall be deemed vacant with prior notice. The vacated member may seek reinstatement at the following regularly held meeting, provided another member in good standing is willing to sponsor the motion. This motion may be brought in the meeting immediately following automatic vacancy without prior notice. This provision shall not be construed to affect the Chair’s ex-officio membership status concerning subcommittees, nor to disparage the state committee’s prerogative to excuse absences.” Article VI, Section 2.a: Motion by Bryce Thon, second by Nicholas Zehr to replace "by five (5) State Committee members" with "subject to the State Committee" Passed without objection. Article VI, Section 4.b: Motion by Austin Martin, second by Abbra Green to replace with "Obtain EC approval, subject to State Committee or Special Convention." Passed without objection Motion by Abbra Green, second by Bryce Thon to Strike subsection d. Passed without objection Adjournment: 8:34pm HST The Next Bylaws & Platform Committee is Monday, May 04, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. HST

The University of Hawaii Systems is once again silencing the peaceful petitioning of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) advocates. On April 7, 2026, YAL State Chair and Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chair Austin Martin  was helping a student gather signatures to reform campus weapons policies. Campus security demanded they seek prior permissions or otherwise seclude their activities into a designated free speech area. When they stood their ground and invoked the First Amendment , administrators admitted they would need to “ review the policy. ” Despite the blatant acknowledgement that university officials do not understand their own rules, they called the Hawaii Police Department anyway, and issued a trespass warning. Very shortly after the advocates left campus, the community college sent a warning message to all students cautioning them to notify authorities if they saw Austin Martin.  Dusting Off the Old Script   It is the exact same unconstitutional playbook the UH system used and lost in 2014 . Back then, UH Hilo YAL leaders Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone set up a table in the Campus Center Plaza during a university event. They offered free copies of the U.S. Constitution and liberty literature. Director of Student Affairs Ellen Kusano ordered them to stay behind the table and to stop approaching anyone. When the students cited their constitutional rights, she replied, “It’s not about your rights in this case, it’s about the University policy that you can’t approach people.” Then, the university doubled down with an email to every student organization: “RISOs may not approach people to solicit information… each person should be able to freely choose whether to listen to your solicitation or not.”  They went as far as to herd students into a tiny “free speech zone”  that covered just 0.26% of campus. All of this was justified by the broad Board of Regents rule (§ 20-13-7)  that banned “solicitation”  anywhere on campus and, at the time, gave administrators total discretion on how to define the term The students sued, resulting in the university agreeing to a settlement in 2014 and adopting Executive Policy EP 10.206 (effective December 1, 2014), which requires campuses to protect non-commercial speech. The current official policy , still posted on the UH Hilo website, could not be clearer: “Campuses will implement the solicitation policy as set forth in Section 20-13-7 of the Administrative Rules for the University of Hawaiʻi in a manner to permit students to approach others on campus and to distribute non-commercial literature such as petitions, circulars, leaflets, newspapers in all areas generally available to students and the community.” Petitioning to change campus policy is definitively constitutionally protected and non-commercial speech. Yet here we are in 2026, and the same campus, under the same UH system, is treating signature gathering for self-defense rights as if it were criminal.  Inexcusable Parallels The pattern is unmistakable. The University of Hawaii Systems implemented textbook institutional DARVO  (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender) to evade accountability for violating constitutional rights: D eny: Administrators deny responsibility, and deny wrongdoing, and deny constitutional rights. Administrators in both instances denied any First Amendment violation by deliberately mislabeling protected political petitioning and literature distribution as “soliciting”  or “commercial activity,”  The exact same semantic gaslighting used in 2014 to shut down Constitution handouts is used in 2026 to stop self-defense petitions, even though the university’s own post-2014 policy explicitly protects this activity. This stage has the effect of predisposing observers to side with a specific manufactured narrative. A ttack: They moved to marginalize, silence, and remove advocates from campus. Peaceful advocates were intimidated through prior-approval demands from the Board of Regents, limiting what areas they could use their rights in, detention threats, trespass warnings, and police calls. R everse Victim & O ffender: They reversed roles by positioning themselves as the noble protector of the heckler’s “comfort” . They characterized speech as “harassment”, tactically claiming that is making others feel uncomfortable. In 2026 a campus-wide alert was blasted, defaming the Chairman. The goal of this stage is to cast the actual victim as the aggressors who cause “intimidation”  or “uncomfortable feelings” It was the same heckler’s veto that justified both the 2014 and 2026 First Amendment violations. This is a deliberate, repeating institutional tactic to suppress liberty. Déjà Vu for Free Speech UH Systems lost the 2014 fight, revised its policies, and publicly committed to constitutional compliance. Yet mid-level administrators either never got the memo or feel entitled to ignore it. Either way, the results are the same. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted on police calls, potential lawsuits, and the systematic suppression of speech. The right to keep and bear arms  is fundamental to self-defense and personal liberty. The First Amendment is not optional on any public grounds. No government bureaucrat gets to decide whose message is too uncomfortable to be heard, and the heckler’s veto has no place in a free society. The administration should be providing mandatory First Amendment training for all campus security and staff until this pattern ceases. They should have already implemented their clear, system-wide directive ending the weaponization of free speech. Hawaii’s students deserve better than Groundhog Day for liberty. The University of Hawaii Systems owes taxpayers full and immediate respect for the Constitution. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii will continue to stand with every student, every group, and every citizen who refuses to let government officials treat the  Bill of Rights  as a suggestion. Free speech and self-defense are not privileges, they are inherent in every Hawaiian. Contact Us Have your rights been violated by the State of Hawaii? We’d love to hear your story. Contact us anytime. Help us spread liberty throughout the islands by making a one time or recurring payment to the Libertarian Party of Hawaii:

This resolution was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii on April 09,2026. WHEREAS , the Libertarian Party of Hawaii is committed to the principles of non-aggression, individual liberty, and peaceful foreign relations, rejecting the initiation of force by governments, including through military adventurism abroad; WHEREAS , the Libertarian Party of Hawaii honors the courage and sacrifice of U.S. service members, and believes they should only be placed in harm’s way when it is necessary for the direct defense of the United States; WHEREAS , the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran, support for Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq War, and subsequent interventions in the region, has repeatedly demonstrated the terrible reality of the principle of Blowback and the law of unintended consequences: despite best intentions, US foreign actions with respect to Iran have consistently fostered enmity and escalated conflicts beyond the control of policymakers, often at great cost to American lives, liberties, and taxpayer dollars; WHEREAS , events in international affairs are inherently unpredictable and not within the full ability of the United States government to control or dictate, and attempts to do so through coercive means have historically led to prolonged entanglements, loss of civil liberties at home, and the erosion of global peace; WHEREAS , any military action against Iran, whether preemptive strikes, regime change efforts, or full-scale war, would violate the non-interventionist stance of America’s Founding Fathers, enshrined in the Libertarian Party platform, which advocates for free trade, diplomacy, and the avoidance of all entangling alliances that drag the nation into unnecessary wars; WHEREAS , such actions would likely result in further bloodshed and destabilization of the region, increased terrorism risks, economic disruptions including higher energy prices, and the potential for broader conflicts involving other powers, all while infringing on the sovereignty of nations and the rights of individuals; WHEREAS , such conflicts impose significant costs on American taxpayers, contribute to inflationary pressures through energy market disruptions and money printing, and risk the lives and well-being of U.S. service members; WHEREAS , on February 28, 2026, the United States, in coordination with Israel, launched a massive military assault on Iran, including strikes on Tehran and other cities, resulting in the reported death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous senior officials, with the explicit goal of regime change, as confirmed by President Donald Trump and Israeli officials; WHEREAS , Iran has responded with missile strikes on Israel and U.S. bases in the region, escalating the conflict and risking a broader regional war involving multiple nations, further illustrating the uncontrollable nature of military interventions and the immediate blowback from such actions; WHEREAS,  these strikes were initiated without a congressional declaration of war, violating the U.S. Constitution's requirement that Congress hold the sole power to declare war, and bypassing legislative oversight, which sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach and the erosion of checks and balances; WHEREAS , while modern administrations have relied on Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) and executive authority to justify military action, the Constitution explicitly vests in Congress the power to declare war, and the continued erosion of this requirement undermines democratic accountability and the rule of law; WHEREAS , the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war solely in Congress, and unauthorized executive military actions undermine the rule of law and separation of powers; WHEREAS , the conflicts with Iran risk toppling the delicate political balance between the two factions of Islam, possibly leading to the emergence of a dominant faction between Sunni and Shia Muslims, ultimately risking the formation of a new, unified, belligerent Caliphate or Neo-Ottoman Empire in the Middle East; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED  that the Libertarian Party of Hawaii strongly condemns the U.S. military intervention and war against Iran that began on February 28, 2026, including airstrikes, regime change efforts, and any support for proxy forces, as these actions violate the non-interventionist principles of the Libertarian Party and perpetuate a cycle of violence and blowback; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the LPHI urges its members and supporters to educate the public on the devastating consequences of this intervention, including the lessons of blowback from past and present actions, and to advocate for a foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED  that LPHI calls for an immediate shift toward diplomacy, de-escalation, free trade, and peaceful engagement as the primary tools of U.S. foreign policy; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this amended resolution shall be disseminated through official Libertarian Party of Hawaii channels, including the blog, newsletter, social media, to amplify the voice of liberty against the ongoing war.

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.