Richard Winger, (7/15/2008 4:22:38 PM)

I hope the lawsuit succeeds. In 2004, Oklahoma voters were the only voters in the 50 states who couldn't vote for anyone for president, other than Bush and Kerry. If this lawsuit doesn't succeed, Oklahoma voters will be the only ones in the nation to again have only two choices for president.

matt w, Tulsa (7/15/2008 4:50:54 PM)

You know, I'm not a big Barr fan, but he should atleast be given a chance in all states, and besides that what is the need to mention that he is on the board of the NRA.... it has nothing to do with his viability as our next potential president.

Graychin, Eucha (7/15/2008 5:35:02 PM)

Oklahoma's requirements for getting a third party on the ballot have always been very strict. Too strict. But what's the basis for a lawsuit?

Would Barr on the ballot help McCain or Obama?

The Patriot, (7/15/2008 5:43:01 PM)

Two choices are all you need in Oklahoma. Dumb and Dumber. Put a third choice on the ballot and there might be chaos.

Travis, Tahlequah (7/15/2008 6:05:54 PM)

The conventional wisdom says Barr would help Obama by pulling more voters from McCain than from Obama. I do not know the election laws in Oklahoma, but if they are that restrictive they need to be changed. I am not a Barr fan but he should be allowed on the ballot, after all, he is the 3rd largest parties' candidate for president.

jshuey, (7/15/2008 8:45:37 PM)

The real issue here is not Bob Barr nor the Libertarian Party. It is the two "major" parties conspiring to effectively limit competition and thus the choice of Oklahomans. If nothing else it is a civil rights issue...denying American citizens the opportunity to cast a vote for whomever they desire.

truth4freedom, (7/15/2008 10:11:35 PM)

Good for Barr. I intend to write in Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party but I would much prefer Oklahoma allow access to the ballot without employing voter supression tactics at the behest of the big two parties. Enough is enough. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils gain. I would encourage everyone to vote out the incumbents at all levels of federal government.

Tannim, (7/16/2008 12:50:45 AM)

Nevada??? The Libertarian National Convention was in DENVER!

and "restrictive" should nopt be in quotes as that term in this case is NOT subjective. It is objective fact!

Can't the LSM get anything right any more?

138 CSS CATM NCO, Terre Haute (7/16/2008 9:29:05 PM)

I suspect the mention of Mr. Barrs' membership in the NRA was done by the paper in an attempt to defame him by reason of association to the Association.

Should the law suit suceed, it would allow other write in candidates such as Dr. Ron Paul. At the very least, he is seriously pro constitionist.

alan3303, (8/25/2008 1:42:17 PM)

I feel this article was left out some facts and points.

Bob Barr submitted 9,000 signatures; this is 4,000 more than was required before 1974 in Oklahoma. (It was at this time that our state legislation changed our ballot access from typical to the hardest in the nation. Why did they do this? Because the major parties wanted to silence the citizens of Oklahoma who had just voted 20.3% strong for a presidential candidate who wasn't a member of either of the two parties - 1968 presidential election)

Our current state officials are working diligently to keep us the most restrictive ballot in the country. Last election nearly 38 state representatives ran un-opposed. Though the opposite party probably couldn't make a decent challenge in the respective districts I would venture to guess conservative third parties could have turned it into a fight. I wonder why our representatives have voted to maintain our strict access?!?!

For comparison requirement to get on the republican presidential primary ballot is still 5,000 signatures or a check for $5,000. During the general election however our state representatives feel it is necessary to require 44,000+ signatures to get on the presidential ballot! Does this not strike anyone else as stifling Oklahomans choice? (Barr would have easily made it onto a republican primary ballot)

We are known as one of the most populist states in the country, full of independent minded citizens who force to the government to take a back seat to our will. Yet on one of the most crucial factors of freedom and liberty we have let our state legislators take away our choice. And since Oklahoma is turning more and more conservative (which I must confess I am as well) we are essentially creating a system where a private party uses whatever rules they want to determine their candidate and then puts them on a public ballot un-opposed. Instead of free elections where all citizens choose among many choices we are getting system reminiscent of the sham elections of Pre-War Iraq and other dictatorships around the globe. Only in this case instead of a single dictator we have been given a single party.

I am truly ashamed we have let it get this far in Oklahoma of all places….

I will continue to contact my local representatives expressing my concern over the ballot policy of the last 25 years as I hope you do. We have to let our representatives know they are not pulling the wool over our eyes and we are aware of some of their more selfish actions they have taken at our expense in office. Bills to correct this injustice have not made it out of committee in our state – they are killed very quickly.

However:Current republican platform says:

"We support less restrictive ballot access for all political parties and candidates.” (III.G.6.)

Yet they can’t seem to get it done!!!