FW: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 2, 2026, 8:31:52 PMSep 2

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 12:31:41 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

And also thank you to Mr. Flores for the good discussion. I am curious if the most recently proposed amendment would satisfy his concerns, or if we could come up with something that would alleviate his concern while keeping the intent of the motion intact.

Keith Thompson

At-Large Representative

Libertarian National Committee

Keith.Thompson@LP.org

LP.org/ThompsonDonor

From: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Cc: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

That’s fine, Mr. Thompson.

Thank you for asking.

Hopefully you and your colleagues on LNC can come up with language that is agreeable to all.

I believe this is an extremely important issue and look forward to following that discussion on the public list.

J.M.

On Sep 2, 2026, at 2:12 PM, Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org> wrote:

To Mr. Miller - would you be okay if we took this discussion to the public list?

I do not want to put you on blast, especially without you consenting to it. I appreciate you writing us and I don't want you to be concerned that we would broadcast your statements without your approval.

In this case, however, I think we've had more meaningful discussion as a result of your email than has taken place in the public thread. If you're okay with it, I think it would be appropriate to publish this thread.

Keith Thompson

At-Large Representative

Libertarian National Committee

Keith.Thompson@LP.org

LP.org/ThompsonDonor

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 1:09 PM
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

I appreciate the discussion, Alex!

My understanding, which is admittedly only surface level, is that the Cibola County issues - both in 2004 and 2007 - were brought to light by the affected voters and not proactively by the federal government.

This does mean that people were disenfranchised, because the time to correct it was longer than the election window.

And the DoJ's actions were justified in that case, the same as any other victim going to court seeking a remedy to an injustice.

But these were resolved without a federal voter list.

To me, this is vaguely similar to some immigration issues. We've had cases where citizens were wrongly deported by ICE. Should we therefore have a centralized list of eligible American residents? Currently, checking one's citizenship can take a while because information is spread across birth and death certificates, immigration and naturalization databases, passport records, and Social Security administration records - surely, having central control would be more efficient.

I do think it would be more efficient. But while it may help in some instances, it would also certainly be a power abused by the federal government even if there are cases where central control could help.

When it comes to voter lists, I do agree with you that the federal government has sometimes stepped in to correct an injustice. Yet they did so in the past without such control, and I think the federal government should necessarily have some friction between departments when it comes to the collection and sharing of data.

I think we may be able to come to an agreement on it, but I do hope we can stop short of calling for a federal list of eligible voters.

Keith Thompson

At-Large Representative

Libertarian National Committee

Keith.Thompson@LP.org

LP.org/ThompsonDonor

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 12:53 PM
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for sitting with it, you've got the clause right.

I think you're most of the way there, but there's a gap. Adding "unjust voter purges" is the right instinct, but the clause still bans federal lists of eligible voters outright, with no exception. DOJ's ability to catch an unjust purge, including the kind that hit Native voters in Cibola County, New Mexico, depends on that same federal access to voter data. As drafted, we'd be calling for elections free from unjust purges while banning the only federal tool that catches them.

I'd want language that carves out an exception for that kind of enforcement specifically, rather than adding a purge clause alongside an unqualified ban on the tool that catches purges. However, I'm not sure amendment would be in order, given that balloting is already underway.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2026 06:53:01
To: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>; joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

I do appreciate Mr. Flores' point and I'm taking a bit to consider it.

While we absolutely should stand against the current attempt to seize power, I do not believe that "federal control" on its own is necessarily worse than "state control" - there's no Libertarian principle necessitating the power of local government to abuse someone's rights. In the case of gay marriage, for example - we shouldn't oppose its legalization simply because it came from the federal government. States have no rights.

To the concern that the DOJ could be used to prevent unjust voter purges - that's valid.

The reality is that they're far more likely to push for an unjust purge, themselves - at least under the current DOJ. But I do see Mr. Flores' point that the resolution may not be narrow enough in scope to surgically attack only the injustice of the DOJ and not the instances where they're overturning a state-level injustice.

Mr. Flores - would it be accurate to say that your objection to the motion is this clause:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee calls for election administration to remain with the States and with local jurisdictions, free from federal lists of eligible voters, federal vetoes over mail ballots, funding threats, and penalties aimed at coercing local officials; and

And would something like this satisfy your concern:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee calls for elections to be free from unjust voter purges, from federal lists of eligible voters, from federal vetoes over mail ballots, and from federal coercion aimed at steering the outcome of any election; and

Thanks,

Keith Thompson

At-Large Representative

Libertarian National Committee

Keith.Thompson@LP.org

LP.org/ThompsonDonor

From: Barbara Engelhardt <barbara.e...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 8:28 AM
To: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Respectfully, I don’t believe this resolution will make front page news. Though I could be wrong, I also think most people already know how they intend to vote on it. I suggest we get on with it, and then move on.

Barbara Engelhardt

LNC Reg 4 Alt Rep

From: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 4:15 AM
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Mr. Flores,

Thank you. I understand your point of view, although I disagree.

As I assume you are aware, we’re seeing Trump’s unconstitutional executive order restricting mail in ballots play out in real time.

Trump, through unconstitutional executive order 14399, directed the Department of Homeland Security to build a federal database of all eligible voters and directed the USPS to only deliver mail in ballots to voters on Trump’s “USPS approved list of eligible voters”.

Trump, through the DHS and the USPS he controls, does not have the authority to use the Postal Service to judge which mail in ballots to accept and which to reject, as he is attempting to do.

And why do I surmise this executive branch vetting of mail in ballots will occur more forcefully in blue states rather than red states.

But I digress on that point.

That’s why this resolution is so timely and of importance. ~1/3 of all voters vote by mail.

If something like this is to be done at all, which it shouldn’t be, it needs to be done through the legislative branch, through Congress, not through the executive branch by presidential decree, that is, by executive order.

Perhaps you can draft a more focused resolution, that you could support, dealing with this current egregious executive branch overreach.

Joseph Miller

On Sep 1, 2026, at 11:30 PM, Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Miller,

Thank you for weighing in. You're raising the same distinction Ms. Hogarth already pointed out to me, that the resolution targets executive branch action, not judicial remedies. I agreed with her on that point and corrected an earlier argument of mine that relied on court ordered relief, which does fall outside what this resolution condemns.

I want to be clear I share the concern driving this resolution. The current administration's push for statewide voter files, run against DHS's SAVE database to hunt for noncitizens, is exactly the kind of executive overreach the Party should oppose, and I'm not raising this to defend it.

Where I land differently is on how broadly the resolved language reaches. It calls for election administration to be free from federal lists of eligible voters, without qualification. That same language covers DOJ's Section 203 authority to request voter registration data from Navajo and Apache counties, and its NVRA Section 8 authority to challenge unlawful purges of Native voters, the kind of authority DOJ used in Cibola County, New Mexico. This administration isn't currently exercising that authority for those purposes, as its Civil Rights Division has been gutted and redirected toward the very overreach this resolution is responding to. But the resolution doesn't condemn current use, it condemns the tool. As written, it would put the Party on record against Section 203 and Section 8 enforcement itself, not just against how this administration is misusing federal power right now.

That's the basis for my no. It isn't a disagreement that the overreach you and Ms. Hogarth are both responding to is real. It's that the resolution is written broadly enough to foreclose the tools that protect voters, including Native voters, going forward.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

From: in...@lp.org <in...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 1:33:56 PM
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

The following message has been submitted via the Contact the LNC webform.

Joseph Miller (joseph....@yahoo.com) writes:

Mr. Flores,

Ms. Hogarth’s resolution simply condemns the “executive-branch efforts to assume control over elections”, that is, from Donald Trump himself, or Steven Miller, or any of his other sycophants, from gaining control over elections “through executive orders, Homeland Security grant conditions, Postal Service rules on mail ballots”.

It does not say anything about the legislative or judicial branches of government being involved to secure elections, if needed.
The federal courts exist to remedy states violating people’s constitutionally protected rights.
See 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for example.

I am not sure why so many on the LNC are confused to this fact.
But here we are.
All of you should be voting yes to this resolution, IMO, it’s simply about executive branch overreach.
Joseph Miller

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 3, 2026, 11:30:59 AMSep 3

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 3:30:48 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

I'm not sure that amendment would work or if it would even be in order since balloting is already happening.

For anyone still deciding how to vote, one more thing I want to add before the window closes.

This resolution assumes only two jurisdictions exist. It calls for election administration to remain with the States and with local jurisdictions, full stop. That premise is the same one the LNC already rejected when it passed the tribal and national sovereignty resolution unanimously, establishing that First Nations are a distinct jurisdictional category, not a subset of state or county authority.

In practice, states essentially treat reservations as just another county, or split a reservation's population across multiple districts, effectively erasing tribal sovereignty at the ballot box. When this resolution calls for election control to sit with states and localities, it reinforces exactly that framework, one where a sovereign nation's citizens have their political participation administered entirely by a government that isn't their own, with no third category in the picture at all.

This isn't an argument for federal power. It's the opposite of that argument. It's a reason this resolution, as written, quietly writes tribal sovereignty out of the conversation 3 months after the LNC already voted to write it in.

I'd ask anyone still deciding to weigh that alongside the other concerns raised in this thread before casting a vote.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2026 17:31:41

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 5, 2026, 12:11:41 AMSep 5

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 4:11:26 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Alex,

You write "When this resolution calls for election control to sit with states and localities, it reinforces exactly that framework, one where a sovereign nation's citizens have their political participation administered entirely by a government that isn't their own, with no third category in the picture at all."

This is incorrect, but at this point I'm not inclined to spend time explaining why just to see you strain yourself to move the goalpost again.

Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 03 September 2026 11:30:48

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 5, 2026, 1:59:11 AMSep 5

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 5:59:01 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: joseph miller <joseph....@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Ms. Hogarth,

No goalposts have moved. There is no strain. The wording of the resolution has and continues to be the issue. I'm not even the only person who has raised issues about it. Had there been literally any workshopping or amending done prior to a vote being started, I'd very likely have been able to vote yes, as I agree with the spirit of the resolution.

Hopefully more of that can happen as things move forward. Have a great weekend.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores

Region 9 Representative

Libertarian National Committee

alex....@lp.org

lp.org/flores

1-800-ELECT-US

From: Susan Hogarth <susan....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, 04 September 2026 21:11:26

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 7, 2026, 10:08:20 PMSep 7

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Rose Leatherman <rose.le...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:07:30 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Jus...@Justinodonnell.us <Jus...@Justinodonnell.us>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

Mr. O'Donnell,

Thank you for taking the time to address some of the concerns that were raised about the newly formed GSLP, and its petition for affiliation.

Forwarding this to the public list, as requested.

Rose Leatherman

Region 8 Alternate

From: in...@lp.org <in...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, 07 September 2026 21:06:07

To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

The following message has been submitted via the Contact the LNC webform.

Justin O'Donnell (Jus...@Justinodonnell.us) writes:

Aloha, esteemed members of the LNC!

It has been an exciting time following the LNC business list today, although I’m sure it has been probably more of a chore to be participating in it for most of you!

However, there were a few things I saw mentioned that I would like to discuss, and perhaps provide some needed context for understanding, in regards to the affiliation petitions from New Hampshire.

Firstly, with a note of levity, should the committee decide for some reason, that Mr Martin’s interpretation of the bylaws is correct, absent all sensible rationale otherwise, and the Committee is obligated in fact, to affiliate the first group to request it properly, then I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Membership of Granite State Libertarians, for accepting our petition for affiliation, since only one petition was submitted with with actual signatures, and the same petition was also the only one to include a set of bylaws that properly adopts the statement of principles of the Libertarian Party as its own.

But setting aside that absurd reading of the bylaws, let us also consider that Mr Martin's understanding of the bylaws, is at least as strong (or not) as his understanding of New Hampshire Law. He asserts that the GSLP Bylaws membership structure would be incompatible with the National Bylaws, yet fails to cite a chapter or verse in his scriptures, and blatantly forgets that the only mention of such in the national bylaws pertains to the autonomy of the affiliate to govern its own internal affairs. Mr Martin also asserted that he believed this membership structure to be in violation of the law, due to problems he failed to articulate. But it is curious he would suggest such, because the inspiration for the system was actually the NH GOP that LPNH’s proposed Vice Chair, Mr. Pratt, is so fond of publicly endorsing and supporting in his hypothetical role as an affiliate chair. In particular, the Manchester New Hampshire GOP Committee extends general membership to anyone who registers to vote as a Republican, and declares themselves to be so. But they don’t let them vote… in fact, voting membership in the Manchester GOP Committee is restricted to those who pass an arbitrary meritocratic bar, as established by the executive committee on an ad hoc, individual, and rolling basis, judged on their attendance and performance in activities in support of the party over the past calendar year.

By providing a more broad scope template of membership than even the GOP in our fair state, GSLP is opening the doors for individuals who are liberty curious to get involved, show up, participate, and learn about us, while letting us get to know them as well. As some of our friends in the bible belt may say, you can bring the only fans girl to church, but don’t let her give a sermon on the first day!

Now, Mr Martin was not the only one to voice these concerns, as Ms Hogarth also relayed a concern from the Region 5 state chairs, in regards to the perceived fairness of the membership structure proposed. To that, I need simply point out, this membership structure would not even be the most restrictive, or complicated, when compared to existing State Affiliates. Several of which require members to go through escalating levels of activist involvement, earned positions in county leadership, and lengthier seasoning requirements before being eligible to serve on their state boards. And lets not overlook the proposed bylaws changes being considered at the upcoming special business convention of LP Hawaii, which would give the incumbent State Leadership (Mr. Martin and his Partner for all intents and purposes) the right to demand an interview with any candidate seeking to challenge them for internal office, and to declare them unfit based on the results of that interview. I’m not even joking, they renamed the section “Anti Infiltration” in their proposed new bylaws, the report is right on their website. So if trying to emulate a successful major party in structure and efficiency is bad, I can’t imagine how bad a new chair for life is going to be for the stagnation of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii.

Now, all this being said, I’m not on the board of either organization seeking affiliation, but I am a member of one. In fact, I’m a member of the only one that provided any notice for a convention of its members to adopt bylaws and elect officers, and the only one whose members did the work to petition a Libertarian Candidate onto the ballot in New Hampshire, in both 2024 and 2026. I would hope my intent is clear at this point, that I’m urging you to vote to affiliate the GSLP, under the leadership of Ms Danner and Mr Nelson, but as it stands, you have 3 options to choose from at the next meeting.

1. You can affiliate GSLP, whose members are longtime activists and supporters of the LP, including many lifetime members, elected officials past and present, multiple former LNC members, and Party Stalwarts that have been involved since the early 1970s. This group has time and again, proven that they intend to do the work required, to run candidates, promote libertarianism, and work diligently against the cult of the omnipotent state.

2. You can affiliate with LPNH, the same organization that you disaffiliated only a few months ago. The same group, the same people, the same mentality, and the same outcomes, and even the same name. An organization whose proposed Vice Chair actively speaks out against running LP Candidates, actively supports and endorses republicans, and time and again has shown nothing but contempt for this body, and this organization. Furthermore, while absent signatories to a petition, those who italicized their names on the document submitted include a NH GOP State Senate Candidate, a NH GOP State Convention Delegate (an actual elected position in NH, it’s quite unique), Two of the board members who DID vote for the infamous endorsement of Donald Trump, and a motley crew of twitter addicts who think screaming racial slurs into the aether counts as political activism.

3. You choose to affiliate neither group. This is an option, although not one reflected as a possible outcome in The Chair’s notice of motions for the upcoming meeting. However, doing this has consequences. If neither group is affiliated, then LPNH continues to use the party branding, logos, and name, while causing immeasurable reputational damage, and hurting the perception of Libertarians all over the country. However, GSLP, will continue to engage in the mission for which it was formed, to run Libertarian Candidates, Support Libertarian Policies and outcomes, and continue to fight for nothing less than a world set free in our lifetimes.

I do hope you all consider the gravity of the decision before you carefully before the upcoming meeting. Beyond the previously stated outcomes and consequences, the decision made in this matter, will likely inform the political temperature of the party moving forward for the next 2 years, coming due in El Paso.

On a personal note, please for the love of whatever gods you pray to, please schedule this order of business early enough in the meeting that interested parties can participate in at a reasonable hour.
Also, feel absolutely free to forward this entire thing to the Public List.

Yours in Liberty,
Justin O’Donnell
Lifetime Member, Libertarian Party
Lifetime Member The Affiliate Formerly Known as LPNH
Soon to be Lifetime Member, GSLP
Former LNC Regional Representative
Former LNC Platform Committee Member
2020 Candidate for US Senate (NH)
2018 Candidate for US Congress (NH-2), Winner of contested Primary with 74.6% of the vote
2022 Campaign Manager for a regrettable NH US Senate Candidate
2024 NH Ballot Access Petition Manager for Oliver-terMaat and Stephen Villee (L)
2026 NH Ballot Access Petition Manager for Stephen Villee for Governor (L)
2026 NH Ballot Access Petition Manager for Aaron Day for US Senate (I)

lnc-public_forward

unread,

Sep 8, 2026, 12:11:22 AMSep 8

to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:11:12 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; Jus...@Justinodonnell.us <Jus...@Justinodonnell.us>
Subject: Fw: FW: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC

From the desk of the LPHI Secretary Abbra Green:

"Entire LNC and Public readers:

I serve as Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii and as a member of the Bylaws & Platform Committee that authored the report Mr. O'Donnell is characterizing. I need to correct the record.

The irony here would be laughable had he not attempted an air of seriousness. Section 3 of our proposed bylaws is titled "Non-Discrimination and Anti-Infiltration Policy." Its first line bars the Party from discriminating on protected characteristics.

Mr. O'Donnell has taken that provision and spun it into a story about incumbents purging their rivals. He is accusing an anti-discrimination policy of being discriminatory.

LP Hawaii's bylaws are our members' business, to be settled on our own convention floor. Mr. O'Donnell inserted a false description of proposed Section 3 into a message about the New Hampshire affiliation dispute, despite claiming to have read it.

1. His claim is that incumbent leadership can "demand an interview with any candidate seeking to challenge them for internal office" and "declare them unfit based on the results." That is false.

2. The policy is not limited to internal office challengers. It covers anyone seeking nomination, office, candidacy, contracts, or employment.

3. The interview is not triggered by simply being a candidate. It is triggered by a disclosed conflict of interest with entities opposing Party goals. Where there is no disclosed conflict, there is no interview, and the interview is not mandatory.

4. There is no "declare unfit" power anywhere in the text. The only potential consequence is corrective action under Article VII, which covers the due process for disciplinary actions, if a majority Executive Committee places finding on the record. Notably, he omitted the due process subsection entirely.

The text pasted directly from the official report:

“Section 3. Non-Discrimination and Anti-Infiltration Policy

a. The Party shall not discriminate based on characteristics protected by applicable law or immutable personal characteristics, and shall not be required to recognize ideological, political, or associational beliefs as protected classes.

b. The Party may take defensive measures consistent with the NAP against organized entities or coordinated efforts that demonstrably advocate or engage in the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion, or that seek to undermine the Party's autonomy through deceptive or hostile means.

c. Members seeking nomination, party office, or any kind of candidacy, contract, or employment must disclose in writing any conflicting relationships or employment with entities opposing Party goals (per Article II) to the Executive Committee, which may choose to interview the member.

d. Upon a finding, by a majority of the Executive Committee, that a member has a substantial and material conflict of interest or has knowingly concealed required disclosures, the State Committee may take corrective action pursuant to Article VII.

e. Officers and executive members shall disclose conflicts of interest within thirty days of the start of term (or at the first meeting, whichever is earlier) and annually thereafter, or at any time when such conflicts may arise.

f. No adverse action under this Section shall be taken without notice, an opportunity to respond, and a recorded vote.”

Perhaps this is an honest mistake drawn from skimming rather than reading, but our Special Convention is days out. A provision drafted by our committee and adopted without objection is being rebranded on this list, so I wanted the record straight.

Given other games playing out on the list this week, I can't help but think that it was mentioned in a conversation on an unrelated topic in order to do damage before our members have the opportunity to vote. From here, I will just take note on who picks up the false bread crumbs and who genuinely has reading skills.

In Liberty,

Abbra Green

Secretary, Libertarian Party of Hawaii

Bylaws & Platform Committee

Please include in public list."

————————————————————

PS: from Austin Martin:

Aloha!

I would note I did not actually articulate what Mr. O'Donnell seems to think I meant. If someone wants to challenge the status of our new LPNH affiliate, the challenge would have to be for good cause and would take the form of a disaffiliation, because an affiliation contract has already been executed. If the signatures are allegedly invalid, we would need a positive finding of the LNC to determine that, since the contract is self-executing, requiring no vote.

If they misrepresented the individual consent which is signified by the signatures presented, that would be legit cause for disaffiliation. But if we do not take that step, two, perhaps even three purported LPNH affiliates could sue us for breach of contract.

A self-executing contract would need to be voided for cause by disaffiliation; not deemed "invalid" on a mere assertion of a single critic.

Mahalo!

Austin Martin

————————————————————

On Mon, Sep 7, 2026, 5:50 PM Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com> wrote:

Entire LNC and Public readers:

I serve as Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii and as a member of the Bylaws & Platform Committee that authored the report Mr. O'Donnell is characterizing. I need to correct the record.

The irony here would be laughable had he not attempted an air of seriousness. Section 3 of our proposed bylaws is titled "Non-Discrimination and Anti-Infiltration Policy." Its first line bars the Party from discriminating on protected characteristics.

Mr. O'Donnell has taken that provision and spun it into a story about incumbents purging their rivals. He is accusing an anti-discrimination policy of being discriminatory.

LP Hawaii's bylaws are our members' business, to be settled on our own convention floor. Mr. O'Donnell inserted a false description of proposed Section 3 into a message about the New Hampshire affiliation dispute, despite claiming to have read it.

1. His claim is that incumbent leadership can "demand an interview with any candidate seeking to challenge them for internal office" and "declare them unfit based on the results." That is false.

2. The policy is not limited to internal office challengers. It covers anyone seeking nomination, office, candidacy, contracts, or employment.

3. The interview is not triggered by simply being a candidate. It is triggered by a disclosed conflict of interest with entities opposing Party goals. Where there is no disclosed conflict, there is no interview, and the interview is not mandatory.

4. There is no "declare unfit" power anywhere in the text. The only potential consequence is corrective action under Article VII, which covers the due process for disciplinary actions, if a majority Executive Committee places finding on the record. Notably, he omitted the due process language entirely.

The text pasted directly from the official report:

“Section 3. Non-Discrimination and Anti-Infiltration Policy

a. The Party shall not discriminate based on characteristics protected by applicable law or immutable personal characteristics, and shall not be required to recognize ideological, political, or associational beliefs as protected classes.

b. The Party may take defensive measures consistent with the NAP against organized entities or coordinated efforts that demonstrably advocate or engage in the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion, or that seek to undermine the Party's autonomy through deceptive or hostile means.

c. Members seeking nomination, party office, or any kind of candidacy, contract, or employment must disclose in writing any conflicting relationships or employment with entities opposing Party goals (per Article II) to the Executive Committee, which may choose to interview the member.

d. Upon a finding, by a majority of the Executive Committee, that a member has a substantial and material conflict of interest or has knowingly concealed required disclosures, the State Committee may take corrective action pursuant to Article VII.

e. Officers and executive members shall disclose conflicts of interest within thirty days of the start of term (or at the first meeting, whichever is earlier) and annually thereafter, or at any time when such conflicts may arise.

f. No adverse action under this Section shall be taken without notice, an opportunity to respond, and a recorded vote.”

Perhaps this is an honest mistake drawn from skimming rather than reading, but our Special Convention is days out. A provision drafted by our committee and adopted without objection, is being rebranded on this list, so I wanted the record straight.

Given other games playing out on the list this week, I can't help but think that it was mentioned in a conversation on an unrelated topic in order to do damage before our members have the opportunity to vote. From here, I will just take note on who picks up the false bread crumbs and who genuinely has reading skills.

In Liberty,

Abbra Green

Secretary, Libertarian Party of Hawaii

Bylaws & Platform Committee

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

From: Abbra Green <lphise...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 6:01:31 PM
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Cc: lnc-p...@googlegroups.com <lnc-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: FW: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC