New Hampshire Ballot Access Bill to be Introduced Next Month

Posted on by December 18, 2010
2

In January, New Hampshire Representative Tim Comerford (R-Fremont) will introduce a bill to set up a two-tier system of qualified parties.  A group that polls 2% for Governor or U.S. Senator would be a qualified convention party, and a group that polls 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator would be a qualified party that nominates by primary.

The bill will also make it possible for voters to register as members of unqualified parties, and election administrators would recognize those registrations and keep a tally.  Currently, the New Hampshire voter registration form has a blank line in the question about political party choice.  But even though any voter can write in the name of an unqualified party, elections officials treat such voters as independents.

New Hampshire is the only New England state in which only the Democratic and Republican Parties are ballot-qualified.  During the last 90 years, New Hampshire has never granted qualified status to any party, other than the two big parties, except that the Libertarian Party was qualified from November 1990 to November 1996.

Representative Comerford was elected in 2008 at the age of 22.  He is on the Election Law Committee in the House.

U.S. Court of Appeals Hears Interesting Case on Right to be a Candidate

Posted on by December 17, 2010
1

On December 16, the 11th circuit heard arguments in Grizzle v Kemp, 10-12176, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2009 Georgia law that says no one may run for a local school board if they have an immediate family member who is a school principal, assistant principal, or on administrative staff, in a school in that district.  The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional on April 21, 2010.

The two plaintiffs were both denied the ability to run for re-election, in 2009, after the new law took effect.  See this story.

In 1982, in Clements v Fashing, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for federal office.  However, there was no majority opinion.  Instead, there was one decision signed by four justices, and a contrary opinion also signed by four different justices, and one justice who wrote separately.  This has prevented the Clements case from having much influence.

The issue of qualifications to hold any particular office is distinct from the ballot access issue.  When a law provides that a certain type of person is not eligible to hold the office, the person can’t even claim the office if he or she wins by write-in votes.  By contrast, ballot access concerns whether someone who is eligible to hold the office is able to gain a place on the ballot.