On June 3, Kenneth Blevens, Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010, filed a motion in state court to require that in future elections, all candidates have a chance to be listed first on general election ballots. Blevens had filed his lawsuit in 2010, but it was too close to the election to ask for any relief in the 2010 election. The case is Blevens v New Hampshire Secretary of State, Merrimack County 217-2010-cv-0759.

In 2006 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in Akins v Secretary of State that the state must treat each candidate equally, in the matter of placement on the ballot. As a result, New Hampshire now rotates party columns, so that in one-third of the state, the Democratic Party column is listed first; in one-third of the state the Republican Party column is listed first; and in the remaining third of the state, the column in which all minor party and independent candidates are placed is listed first. That last column is headed “Other Candidates.”

The problem is two-fold: (1) squeezing all minor party and independent candidates into the same column and denying them their own separate column heading is not equal; (2) aside from that, the November 2010 ballot did not rotate the names of the candidates within that “Other Column”, so that Blevens was always on the bottom within that column (although that column only had two U.S. Senate candidates within it).

New Hampshire is the only state that, as a matter of state policy, never gives a party column heading to an unqualified party. However, in New Jersey, where each county has its own ballot design, most New Jersey counties also won’t give a party column heading to unqualified parties. New York also has bad ballot format, but at least New York does give a party column to some of the unqualified parties.

Wisconsin will soon be holding recall elections against 6 Republican State Senators, and 3 Democratic State Senators. In Wisconsin, the recall process is different than it is in most states. If a Wisconsin recall petition gets enough signatures, the recall election ballot does not ask the voters to either retain or oust that particular incumbent. Instead, a successful recall petition merely means that a new special election is held, and the incumbent is free to run in that special election.

If only one person files in each party’s primary in any of these particular special recall elections, then there is no primary for any party, and the general election for that particular seat will be in July. But if even one party has more than a single member running, then there is a primary (for whichever party has more than one person running) in July, for that particular district. In that case, the actual special recall election is postponed to August.

It appears from this article that both major parties are recruiting candidates to run in primaries in these special elections. For example, if a Republican State Senator is being recalled, Republicans may recruit a candidate to run in the Democratic primary in that district, so that the special recall election in that district is postponed to August. That gives the incumbent Senator more time to campaign. Also, it gives the incumbent Senator’s supporters a chance to campaign against the likely party-supported Democratic challenger, by forcing the mainstream Democratic challenger to win a Democratic primary.

The newspaper story refers to “fake” Democrats and “fake” Republicans. Wisconsin doesn’t have registration by party, and is an open primary state. Therefore, any individual, no matter what his or her convictions, is always free at any time to run in any party’s primary. This system makes it possible for Democrats (for example) to place someone in a Republican primary, even though that person is loyal to the Democratic Party and is only running to injure the bona fide Republican.

A Superior Court in Vermont will hold a trial in Trudell v Markowitz on July 14-15. This is the lawsuit that challenges the June petition deadline for independent candidates, and for the nominees of unqualified parties. The Vermont primary is in August. Between 1890 and 1939, the independent candidate petition deadline had been in October, and between 1939 and 2009, it had been in September. The change from September to June, made in 2009, was drastic.

The judge in this case had already ruled against the state’s motion to dismiss the case. The prior procedural ruling makes it clear that the state must explain why it needs a deadline in June.