New Hampshire Bill to Let Signers Sign for More than One Political Party

Two of New Hampshire’s Libertarian Party legislators have introduced HB 1239. It deletes the restriction that doesn’t permit anyone to sign a petition to put a party on the ballot, if that signer had already signed the same type of petition for some other party.


Comments

New Hampshire Bill to Let Signers Sign for More than One Political Party — 12 Comments

  1. Glad to see the Libertarians using their representation in the NH legislature to push for ballot access reform. That’s something we could use here in IL, that’s for sure.

  2. Do we know whether the current law’s written or been interpreted to ban signing multiple party petitions within a year, an election cycle, or a lifetime? Michigan’s similar law (MCL 168.685) isn’t clear on the point, alas.

  3. The Election Law Committee also heard testimony on
    HB 1448, relative to the definition of “party” for election purposes.
    HB 1479-L, relative to the nomination of political candidates.
    HB 1568-FN, allowing voters to register as members of political organizations.

  4. All offices are separate.

    NO primaries.

    ONE *election* day.

    Equal nominating petitions or filing fees for each office — to get on the *election* ballots.

    PR and AppV

  5. I hope this bill passes. Petitioning for ballot access is difficult enough as it is, but it is a lot more difficult when a registered voter can only sign for one political party, especially with the signature requirement in New Hampshire being what it is, and it being a low population state.

  6. It amazes me that such a discriminatory law has remained in effect for so long. I really hope that these guys succeed. I was beginning to think Oklahoma would never ease ballot access and then they did right before the 2016 election. They are still moving forward with many good ballot access bills.

  7. Why does a party have to qualify at all?

    Is it because New Hampshire uses segregated partisan primaries to nominate candidates?

  8. Separate is NOT Equal — Brown v Bd of Ed 1954 — like a billion years ago — end of *legal* racial segregation in public skoools — and later in other legal subject areas.

    Typical SCOTUS MORONS at work — 1868 (14th Amdt) to 1954 — mere 86 years of gross legal moronity.

    Note also very brave white Elephants in rebel areas in 1861-1865 (ie Union spies) — who would also need *equal protection* in 1865 onward.

    1968-2018 — mere 50 years of legal moronity by SCOTUS regarding EQUAL ballot access.

  9. “Well damn, for once Ogle posts something at least a little constructive.” – Aiden

    On the subject of voting systems Ogle (when he isn’t playing in his fantasy football league) is actually quite knowledgeable. Demo Rep has his/her moments as well. There is just a whole lot of crappola in between!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.