Skip to main content

Why ballot access in Oklahoma matters to the Libertarian Party

Ironically, the very toughest ballot access provisions exist in Oklahoma, and even the Libertarian Party may not be able to meet those requirements in time to get Bob Barr on the ballot. Moreover, the Sooners don't even allow write-ins.

Which is doubly unfortunate given that Oklahoma--as evidenced in Delaware Curmudgeon's recent post-- has just served notice to the Feds that under the authority of the Tenth Amendment

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.


So there are obviously libertarian-leaning folks out there in Okie-land. We just have to figure out a way for them to be able to vote their conscience and their true political beliefs.

Ironically, as a Libertarian who opposes big government, I find myself wondering about a constitutional amendment guaranteeing universal ballot access standards.

On the other hand, the Demopublicans would probably skew the language on that to forever keep Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Socialists, and Naderites out of the running, so never mind.

Comments

OK, here's your first. Not so much on the post itself, but just a comment about comments: there is quantity and there is quality.

I prefer quality, myself.
Ooops. The above comment should have been made on the Ron Paul/Michele Obama post.

Now there are two !
tom said…
I find myself wondering about a constitutional amendment guaranteeing universal ballot access standards.

Federally imposed ballot access standards would be a very bad idea.

First of all they would probably look a lot more like Oklahoma's than Tennessee's or Delaware's, and we'd also have stuff like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act to deal with during ballot access campaigns too.

And secondly, uniform requirements would preclude efforts like the Free State Project which try to concentrate libertarians in the "easy" areas to build local libertarian governments.
Anonymous said…
As always, a conflict between principle and pragmatism.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...