On July 25, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party filed this petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the case in which, in 2008, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire refused to give the Libertarian Party the name protection that virtually every other state routinely gives to all political parties. Even though the Libertarian Party national convention clearly nominated Bob Barr for President in May 2008, the Secretary of State printed two “Libertarian” presidential candidates on the November 2008 ballot. The U.S. District Court Magistrate, and the First Circuit, then ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not give parties a freedom of association right to prevent non-nominees of the party from using the party label on the general election ballot. The First Circuit did not even mention the only on-point precedents that ruled to the contrary, nor did the First Circuit mention the U.S. Supreme Court decision California Democratic Party v Jones, which has a great deal of language in support of party associational rights. COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) helped pay the costs of the petition. COFOE thanks everyone who has contributed to the organization, which is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, and other organizations that support their ability to compete in elections.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
No *assumed name* stuff in the DARK AGE NH regime ??? — common law or even statutory.
If this ruling stands, does this mean that another group – say in Alabama – and that is not officialy associated with the regular Democratic Party, can take the name “Democratic” and use it as part of their party name?
Take it to the Supreme Court, LP, and win!!
#2, the issue of whether a single word that is part of one party’s name can be used as part of another party’s name is a separate issue.
Because there have been several parties with “Socialist” in their name, in the United States, for the entire period 1898 through the present, generally courts and state legislatures don’t say that just because a word is part of one party’s name, therefore that same name can’t be in any other party’s name.
In recent years we have had the Republican Moderate Party on the ballot in Alaska, although it no longer exists. In 1896 there was the National Democratic Party, also known as the Gold Democratic Party, which was on the ballot even though the Democratic Party was also on the ballot. In the 1970’s in some states both the American Party, and the American Independent Party, were on the ballot in many states.
The New Hampshire issue concerns the exact same party name being used by competing candidates, one of whom was nominated by that party and the other one not nominated.
The “Independents Party” (of New York State Committee) a non-enrolled registered voters only independent nominating committee will be another interesting varient to this party committee ballot access naming litigation string.
different from ballot qualified “Independence Party” (of NY) State Committee
Don’t these clown parties realize that they will always be treated with contempt under first-past-the post?
Regardless of what mechanism NH used in determining who got what label, almost any NH voter would interpret the ballot as reporting the political party that is sponsoring the candidates. Once NH discovered that the LP was not, in fact, sponsoring Phillies and Bennett, it should have realized that continuing with its existing procedures would have been deceitful to voters. This should have prompted them to make a correction.
Failing that, the US Courts should require them to be more adaptive in the future.
the LP here in New Hampshire there goal is to turn New Hampshire into a Libertrian State Here one of there links….http://freestateproject.org/
and if you look up these so called people who are involved, there not what they seem to be, but a bunch of trouble makers ask official in Keene and Manchester alone how many Arrest they have made and how many warrants are issued on these people