5/3/98
The Libertarian Party was founded in Colorado 26 years ago, and it's remained relatively strong here. So libertarians elsewhere will be watching the outcome of its bargain with the state. 
     The party held its state convention in Lakewood, Col., last weekend (April 25-26), and everyone was in a sunny mood because it has been officially recognized as a Minor Political Party. 
     That comparatively exalted status is possible because of a bill just signed into law, and it's important because it means the party can get its candidates on the ballot simply by nominating them at its convention, rather than having to collect petition signatures. 
     Minor parties can qualify by having at least 1,000 registered voters, by petitioning for minor-party status, or by winning 5 percent of the vote in a statewide race. The libertarians are comfortably in with 2,900 registered voters, but other parties will no doubt follow. The more the better, if it encourages people to get involved in politics. 
     Of course, there are a few little hoops to jump through. Not too many, and not too onerous, but libertarians, of all people, ought to be at least a bit indignant that the state is asserting control over how they conduct their political affairs. 
     The law specifies what topics must be included in the minor party's constitution and bylaws, including a statement that the time and place of any meeting to elect party officers must be published 15 days before the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in each county where its members live. 
     I'm sure it's a good idea, but why does it have to be a (ital)law(endital)? 
     A minor party's name must not have more than three words (not counting ``party''), and may not use an existing party's name in whole or in part. So the Germans can choose between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, but Coloradans can't have either. An American branch of the Monster Raving Loony Party would apparently be permitted, but not the Dancing Ken Monster Raving Loony Party, which won 375 votes in Cheltenham, England, in the May 1997 parliamentary election. 
     And more substantively, the law prohibits a minor party from nominating a candidate who has not been a party member for a least a year, which means it can't support a major party candidate it strongly prefers to a rival. 
     This bill ends with the notorious ``safety clause,'' in which the general assembly declares ``this act is necessary for the immediate preservation or the public peace, health and safety.'' 
     That's a lie, and the truth is that legislatures pass laws because they have the power. The libertarian contribution to the nation's political debate is the constant question, ``Why is the government doing this?'' 
     Libertarians are inclined to answer ``no good reason'' more often than other people, but America would be a better and freer place if more people at least paused to ask ``is this necessary?'' 
     Still, the point of political activisim is not merely to ask the right questions, or even to have the right answers; it's to achieve the right policies. For a minor party, that requires allies, probably a different coalition of allies for every issue. It's important to avoid issues that turn off nearly everybody. 
     That is to say, I wish they'd stop going on about decriminalizing drugs. I wasn't able to attend the whole convention, but the one major speech I did hear was given by a red-meat talk show host from San Francisco, who apparently wanted to trash the entire judicial system to save California's medical marijuana initiative. 
     It's not that simple. There's an old political story that Americans would vote against the First Amendment if it were on the ballot and not identified as part of the Bill of Rights. I don't know whether that's true, but suppose such an initiative passed somewhere. Wouldn't libertarians be the first to demand that somehow it be prevented from going into effect? The problem isn't that judges have the power to overturn unconstitutional laws; it's that they sometimes overturn the wrong ones. 
     OK, it was an after-dinner speech, not a law review article, but there are better issues. Jury nullification is one. It's an outrage that a juror in Colorado's Gilpin County was convicted of contempt and fined $1,200 for failing to volunteer that she believed jurors had the right to judge the law as well as the evidence. Asset forfeiture is unjust when people lose their cars or their homes in cases where nobody is even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. 
     I'd like to see the libertarians fight battles they can win, because they do have a lot of the right answers.