Libertarians—Barr(ed) in Twenty States

 by Allen Mendenhall  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Libertarians will not attain ballot access in all fifty states because restrictions are simply too onerous.

Former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who gained prominence while serving on the Judiciary Committee during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, became the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in May, reaffirming that he has abandoned Republicans for good.  The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in America; it has attained ballot access in thirty states, but is still fighting “no holds Barr” in the other twenty.

As Michael Idov intimated in the June issue of The New Republic,¹ Barr faces plenty of obstacles in his bid for president.  Idov described — hilariously if not condescendingly — the pandemonium ensuing after Barr’s nomination at the Libertarian National Convention.  Idov recalls that Barr did not appeal to sci-fi Libertarians wearing Guy Fawkes masks, nor to strip-clubs’ rights Libertarians (who no doubt had been out all night before).  Some of these freedom aficionados renounced party membership right on the spot; others arranged an alternative nominating convention in the hallways.

Needless to say, Barr’s first challenge will be convincing these “traditional” Libertarians that he is, in fact, a Libertarian, since his track record suggests otherwise.  As a congressman, Barr voted in favor of the Patriot Act, coauthored the Defense of Marriage Act, endorsed the Iraq War, and promoted the War on Drugs.² The dapper Georgian was in many ways a cookie-cutter conservative — only with a throwback, Rhett Butleresque mustache complete with “frankly-my-Dems-I-just-don’t-give-a-damn” attitude.  Barr’s stances on the Second and Sixteenth Amendments may have appealed to gun-carrying and fiscal Libertarians, but not to civil Libertarians, who make up a vast majority of party members. 

When the Republican Barr ran for reelection in 2002, one year after Georgia redrew its congressional districts, Libertarians played a role in his defeat.³ In television ads, they exploited Barr’s opposition to medical marijuana and thereby alienated the few Libertarians who voted, occasionally, for Republicans (whose anti-government rhetoric often smacks of Libertarianism).

Apparently, Barr didn’t hold grudges. In fact, he converted.

Since his days in congress, Barr has reneged on many earlier positions.  His role as an expert for the ACLU continues to raise Republican eyebrows.  He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration generally and of the Patriot Act in particular, going so far as to found a group called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, which seeks to eliminate the Patriot Act and preserve individual privacy rights.⁴  Barr repeatedly has expressed regret over his vote for both the Patriot Act and the Iraq Resolution, and he now wishes to curb government regulation of marijuana, which he likens to Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s and early 1930s.⁵

Because of his embrace of federalism, Barr also opposes federal legislation defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.⁶ Despite these transformations, many left-leaning Libertarians consider Barr a right-winger who appeals to only “conservative” constituents.  Barr must therefore persuade Libertarians that his flip-flopping signals a true ideological shift — not some form of political opportunism.

Or must he?

Perhaps Barr can make up for voter apathy among civil Libertarians by courting disenchanted conservatives unwilling to vote for John McCain. Barr’s stances on taxation, for example, have been more consistently “conservative” than McCain’s, and it would not be surprising if economic conservatives began favoring Barr for that reason.

Barr will face a second obstacle — ballot access regulations, which vary from state to state.  These regulate which names appear on ballots (or, more often the case, which do not).  The U.S. Constitution, under Article I, Section IV, grants states autonomy to choose where, when, and how to carry out federal elections.  This power, although rightly granted to states, has led to more restrictions than freedoms.  States often (mis)use this power to deter “frivolous” candidacies and, in doing so, threaten some of the most treasured privileges of American citizenship: the right of citizens to run for political office, to form political parties, and to petition the government.

Libertarians will not attain ballot access in all fifty states because restrictions are simply too onerous; they may hope for write-in votes, but those never win elections (unless you are Strom Thurmond).  Besides, Republican Ron Paul is more likely to attract Libertarian write-ins even though he has formally left the race.

Not just libertarians, but politicians from all constellations of belief should have access to the voters — and the voters to them. That is the way of democracy. Pay attention as Libertarians seek petition signatures to overcome ballot access restrictions. Put aside your opinions of Libertarians or of Barr and consider what participatory democracy means to you.  And then, if you live in one of the twenty states where Libertarians have yet to attain ballot access, sign a petition.  Show that you’re for free and open elections.  That is the best option, “Barr” none.

Endnotes

1.  The New Republic:  http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=5e5abfbb-46eb-464b-9095-4df1d1f8159e.

2.  Reason Magazine article:  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28960.html.

3.  http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13831.shtml.

4.  http://libertycoalition.net/node/23.

5.  Bob Barr on the issues: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/.  Barr on marijuana and the drug war:  http://www.bobbarr2008.com/snippets/2/bob-barr-on-the-colbert-report/.

6.  http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1234&wit_id=2874.

Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Allen Mendenhall