New Hampshire Bill Killed, Would Have Made Ballot Access Far More Difficult

On June 8, the New Hampshire legislature refused to pass SB 193, even though for a while it appeared that the bill would pass. It would have provided that the petition to qualify a new political party contain language telling potential signers that if they signed the petition, and if the petition succeeded in getting enough valid signatures, all the signers would automatically be converted to being registered members of that party.

Similar laws have been held unconstitutional in nine other states. Courts have stressed that voters have a right to support putting a party on the ballot without having to say that they are members, or that they themselves are organizing the new party, or that they should automatically be considered members. When these nine court precedents were pointed out to the bill’s sponsors, certain other legislators proposed that the bill be amended to say that the petition form should carry a checkbox, asking each signer if he or she wants to be treated as a member of that new party, but also making it clear that voters could sign the petition and yet not be forced into becoming a registered member of that party.

However, some influential members of the Election Law Committee then said that they were not interested in making the choice voluntary, and refused to amend the bill, so it died. Thanks to Representative Seth Cohn for this news. Cohn proposed making the bill voluntary instead of mandatory. He intends to introduce a superior bill in 2012, which will ease the petition burden. For 2012, the petition to create a new party requires 13,698 valid signatures. The procedure to create a new party has existed since 1996, and it is so difficult, it has only been used once, in 2000, by the Libertarian Party.


Comments

New Hampshire Bill Killed, Would Have Made Ballot Access Far More Difficult — 3 Comments

  1. Pingback: New Hampshire Bill Killed, Would Have Made Ballot Access Far More Difficult | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  2. Corrections:

    The House passed this bill unanimously a week earlier, the objection was raised in the Senate (due to the change of SB193 from their own version to this very different version.)

    It was NOT the Republican sponsors who said they were not interested in changes… it was some members of Election Law, and to my understanding, bipartisan. (Others did support the change.) I argued for the option before the House of moving forward with the ‘optional’ change (via a Committee of Conference with the Senate on the bill), and it was voted down 240-97, killing the bill. The folks who supported killing the bill were also the ones who refused to remove the mandatory clause.

    I have introduced the bill as written with the one change (voluntary not mandatory), not because it’s the best bill (I’d like to see smaller numbers required, for one thing), but because I was and am offended by the behavior of certain individuals (NOT the Sponsors) who tried to push an attempt to make 3rd party politics harder in the name of making them easier, and when given the chance to do the right thing, refused.

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.