States Deny Ballot Access to Gay Libertarian Candidate
Some state Libertarian parties are denying presidential candidate Chase Oliver ballot access because of his views on gender-affirming care.
Several state chapters of the Libertarian Party are attempting to block Chase Oliver, the party’s official presidential nominee, from the ballot because of his hands-off stance on access to gender-affirming care.
Oliver won the party’s nomination at its national convention in May, following seven rounds of balloting. Mike ter Maat, a former police officer, won the vice presidential nomination.
Oliver has previously said he hopes to get at least 2% of the vote in the presidential race and “continue to be a fly in the ointment of the two-party system.”
He was critical of Donald Trump appearing at the Libertarian convention, where the former president was booed and jeered at by many convention attendees. He has also been critical of Democratic President Joe Biden and independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The 38-year-old Oliver, who won the votes of 60% of Libertarian Party convention delegates, represents the party’s more traditional wing, emphasizing the decentralization of the federal government; support for individual rights and freedoms, including advocating for the federal government to take a “hands off” approach to issues like reproductive rights and same-sex marriage; a right to individual privacy; demands for government transparency; elimination of restrictions like the drinking age and the age at which a person can purchase and legally partake in cannabis; and the elimination of barriers to free trade and migration.
But some within the Libertarian Party — namely a right-leaning paleoconservative group known as the Mises Caucus, of which Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle is a part — have attempted to align the party with a right-wing populist platform in line with what the current-day Republican Party espouses.
Among those policies are more stringent restrictions on immigration; opposition to abortion; opposition to “identity politics” and “political correctness,” usually couched in terms of opposing individual rights for LGBTQ people; support for use of force by the state against left-wing protesters, with some even advocating for the complete elimination of leftists; opposition to police accountability; and an embrace of conservative social values, including moralizing about people’s individual life choices.
One libertarian told the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hatewatch” project that the Caucus’s aim is “to sabotage the LP to sideline it over the next few years for Donald Trump,”
Some state party affiliates have been taken over by members of the Mises Caucus. Those people are now seeking to block Oliver, their party’s nominee, from gaining ballot access, with some even calling for the party to strip him of the nomination.
As reported by the Libertarian magazine Reason, in Colorado, the state Libertarian Party has announced that it intends to nominate Kennedy, best known for his anti-vaccine activism, instead of Oliver.
The Party argued in a post on X that backing Kennedy would “disrupt the authoritarian duopoly machine,” claiming that Kennedy was a “viable alternative” and a “choice that transcends the traditional partisan divide and promotes individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government.”
Last week, the secretary of the Libertarian National Committee, Caryn Ann Harlos, used her legal authority as national secretary to submit the Oliver/ter Maat ticket to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, while the Oliver campaign submitted a slate of presidential electors to the state.
It remains to be seen how the state will resolve the issue of two dueling candidates claiming to be a single party’s nominee, although Kennedy is likely to make the ballot as an independent, regardless of how the conflict is resolved.
Meanwhile, in Montana, the state’s Libertarian Party announced in June that it would not put Oliver on its ballot, claiming that the party does “not believe his campaign advances our goals in this state.” The state party also encouraged other states to block Oliver from appearing on the ballot as the party’s nominee.
The Montana affiliate also responded to a post on X from “Gays Against Groomers” lambasting Oliver for his position on gender-affirming care. Oliver does not support government-imposed bans on transgender health care treatments, although he has not explicitly or affirmatively endorsed any specific medical interventions.
Gays for Groomers misrepresented this position as outright, full-throated support for specific treatments, and called for the Libertarian Party to find a new nominee.
The Montana Libertarian Party responded, “The broader liberty movement does not support Chase Oliver, and he does not represent Montana.”
In Idaho, the state Libertarian Party’s secretary, Matt Loesby, published an open letter demanding that the national party rescind Oliver’s nomination due to his opposition for state-imposed bans restricting medical care for all people, including minors. The state Libertarian Party retweeted Loesby, although Loesby told Reason that the party had made no formal decision to keep Oliver off the ballot at this time.
In New Hampshire, the state Libertarian Party wrote on X that it would not endorse nor support Oliver in this year’s election, claiming he does not align with the party’s values.
The party claimed that Oliver “defends the chemical castration of children and drag shows for kids,” claiming that its members are “teaching our children the values of reason, freedom, and family.”
Loesby told Reason he would “reconsider” opposing the nomination if Oliver were to “publicly recant his position regarding so-called ‘Puberty Blockers,’ and recognize them as child sexual abuse.”
Reason journalist Brian Doherty writes that transgender issues “are the flash point” for the most vocal opponents of Oliver, who adheres firmly to the idea that the state should not interfere with private medical decisions or parental rights.
Steve Dasbach, a former party chair serving as Oliver’s campaign manager, told Doherty that this much opposition to a Libertarian nominee is “highly unusual,” especially considering that Oliver’s positions on a multitude of issues, including parental rights and medical freedom, are “straight out of the party platform.”
He did note that some Libertarians erroneously believe that Oliver supported mask or vaccine mandates because he personally chose to wear a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic, but believes Oliver will be able to iron out any misunderstandings.
“We are confident we’ll ultimately be able to work these issues out and Chase will appear on the ballot in all states where the [Libertarian Party] is qualified,” Dasbach said. “It’s just a matter of Chase and Mike and our campaign working with the LNC and those state parties to address their concerns.”
Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.