On Wednesday, the New Hampshire House expects to take up HB 1188, which cuts the number of signatures required for independent candidates down to only two-thirds of the existing requirements. For example, the statewide requirement would drop from 3,000 to 2,000. The bill also lowers the petition to create a new ballot-qualified party from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5% of the number of registered voters, which is a modest improvement in midterm years, although not much of an improvement in presidential years.

Petitioning is more difficult in New Hampshire than in any other state. New Hampshire is the only state that limits a petition sheet to just one voter. Each sheet has many blanks that must be filled out, which increases the workload. Also it isn’t easy for a petitioner to keep possession of so many separate pieces of paper. Also, New Hampshire is one of only eight states that has a distribution requirement for statewide petitions. Partly because of these details, the Green Party has never been on the ballot for a statewide candidate in New Hampshire, except for President in 2000.

New Hampshire only required 1,000 signatures for statewide petitions, and had no distribution requirement, until the 1980’s.

The House will also be voting on HB 1264, which authorizes interim study on what the requirements should be for petitions to create a new ballot-qualified party. That is expected to pass easily. HB 1188 only passed the Election Law Committee on an 8-6 vote, so the House vote is somewhat difficult to predict.

Proposition 14 will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California. It provides for a “top-two open primary”. The original language that was to appear on the ballot was: “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections”, all in bold print. Then, in smaller print, “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”

On March 2, Allen D. Clark, a union official, had sued to overturn that language. He proposed, “Elections. Primaries”, in bold print. Then, “Changes primary election process for congressional, legislative and statewide races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Does not require candidates to disclose their registered political party preference. Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot. Ensures that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of their registered political party preference. Does not change primary election for President, party committee officers, and nonpartisan offices.”

On March 5, the legislature and the plaintiff agreed to settle out-of-court. The compromise settlement was for this language: “Elections. Primaries.” (in bold print). Then, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof, indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election.”

The proponents of Proposition 14 do not agree with this compromise and have obtained a court hearing, set for March 9, to intervene in the lawsuit. As will be noted, the biggest difference between the various versions is that the proponents of Proposition 14 want to have “Greater Participation in Elections” as part of the Title of the measure (not just the description of it on the ballot, but as part of the name). However, when Washington state first used a top-two open primary in 2008, primary turnout was lower than it had been in 2004, when Washington used a classic open primary. Also, when Louisiana first used a top-two system for state office in 1975, turnout was lower than it had been in the closed Democratic primary of November 6, 1971, and turnout in 1979 was also lower than it had been in 1971.