On July 21, the New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral argument in Libertarian Party and Constitution Party v State of New Hampshire, no. 2005-0606. The case challenges the New Hampshire definition of “political party”. That definition was a group that had polled 3% for Governor, from 1891, until 1997. In 1997 the legislature changed it to 4% for either Governor or U.S. Senator. The Libertarian Party had polled over 4% for U.S. Senator in 1996, but the new law excluded looking at past election returns, so that didn’t help. Since 1996, no party other than the Democrats or Republicans has been able to poll 4%. New Hampshire is the only New England state that has not had any qualified parties (other than the Democrats and Republicans) in the last ten years.
The case depends on the New Hampshire Constitution, which says that elections must be fair and equal, and that all candidates must be given an equal opportunity (under the law) to win.
All five justices of the Supreme Court asked questions and made comments. It seemed that they were very skeptical of the state’s reasons for raising the vote test from 3% to 4%. They asked, if a minor party meets the 4% test in the near future, could the legislature raise the vote test again? The attorney for the state said that the legislature could pass any definition of “party” it wishes. That response didn’t seem persuasive. The justices also voiced skepticism that if the definition of “party” were any easier, that the voters would be confused. They even brought up the fact that Iraq’s first free election had 111 parties on the ballot.
richard,
when I argued the case today for the libertarians in NH(and everyone else who believes that democracy means equal access to the ballot), I several times referred to information I first received from you ( even gave you credit once!). Thanks so much for the help and the work you do. The arguments seemed to go very well with the justices, who appeared to be deeply concerned about the blatant raising of the threshold to keep the libertarians off the ballot.
I was there for the arguments and I thought it went extremely well. The justices seemed very skeptical of the state’s case. It was a good day for the minor parties.
How about an individual candidate, with no party affiliation, a true independent. A simple, striaght forward process should be in place to allow these “brave” souls to be on the ballot. These are the people from our state who have “no strings attached” Our country as a whole desparately needs these people who can create and vote on legislation that is based on democracy rule #1…the will of the majority.