On October 6, Survey USA released a poll for the New Hampshire U.S. Senate race. It shows: Shaheen (Dem.) 48%, Sununu (Rep.) 40%, Blevens (Libt.) 7%, undecided 5%.

If Ken Blevens polls as much as 4%, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party will once again be ballot-qualified. It was ballot qualified between November 1990 and November 1996, back when the vote test was 3%. In 1997 the New Hampshire legislature raised the vote test to 4%, but expanded the vote test so that U.S. Senate would count, instead of just Governor. In the entire history of popular elections for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, no independent or minor party candidate for U.S. Senate ever polled as much as 4%, except that Blevens himself polled 4.53% for U.S. Senate in 1996. However, the 1997 law change was written so that Blevens’ polling over 4% in 1996 did not count toward making the party ballot-qualified.

In the entire nation, the best Libertarian showing in a U.S. Senate race with both a Democrat and a Republican in the race was in 2000 in Massachusetts, when Carla Howell polled 11.9%.

On October 6, U.S. District Court Judge David Russell, a Reagan appointee, denied injunctive relief in Barr v Clingman, civ-08-730-R. However, he set a briefing schedule for the declaratory relief part of the case.

Judge Russell had also upheld the Oklahoma presidential petition procedures in 1996, in Natural Law Party v Henley; and he had done so again in 2000 in Nader v Ward. In 1996 he wrote that the law does not place a “significant, severe or substantial burden on either presidential or vice-presidential candidates’ access to the ballot or on voters’ right to vote.” Judge Russell had also upheld Oklahoma’s failure to provide for write-ins, in COFOE v McElderry in 1993. However, unlike his actions in those three previous cases, at least this time he kept the case alive so that more evidence can be presented in the next four months.

Oklahoma voters who desire to vote for Barr, or Nader, or Baldwin, or McKinney, or any other presidential candidate besides Obama and McCain, ought to consider setting up a “freedom ballot”, as was done in Mississippi in 1964. Many adult black citizens in Mississippi were not permitted to register in 1964, so they set up alternate voting sites, with their own ballots and their own registration procedures. With the existence of the internet, such activity ought to be easier than it was in 1964.

Another alternative for people who are really unhappy about losing their free vote, would be to sit in at the polls. This was done in Indiana in 1988. One particular voter refused to leave the polls until he was permitted to cast a write-in vote. Indiana banned write-ins at the time, and Indiana was one of four states which kept Ron Paul off the November 1988 ballot as the Libertarian nominee for president. The voter was arrested and taken to jail, but Indiana’s ban on write-ins was struck down shortly afterwards in Paul’s lawsuit.

On October 6, the First Circuit (headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts) issued a ruling in Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party v Dalmau, 07-2700. It is somewhat of an oddity that the First Circuit includes Puerto Rico, since the other areas within the First Circuit are four New England states.

The new First Circuit decision reinstates a federal lawsuit filed by the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party in 2007. That lawsuit alleges that the Puerto Rico Election Commission knowingly aided a fraudulent petition in late 2004 on behalf of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico became a qualified party for the first time in 2007, after struggling mightily to collect 116,000 signatures and have them validated. The law required 97,000 signatures (5% of the last gubernatorial vote). Another unqualified party, the Civil Action Party, had won a landmark federal case in the First Circuit invalidating a Puerto Rican law that no one but an attorney who is also a notary public can circulate petitions to put a new party on the ballot. After that case was won, the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico party finally established itself as a qualified party, after years of struggle.

In the meantime, the Puerto Rican Independence Party had failed to poll 5% of the gubernatorial vote in 2004, so it had gone off the ballot. It had only polled 2.7% of the gubernatorial vote in 2004. Puerto Rico law lets the three largest parties each have an officer on the Electoral Commission. The lawsuit alleges that the Electoral Commission used its access to the list of registered voters to help the Puerto Rican Independence Party petition to regain qualified status, even to the extent of forging 43,000 signatures in a single weekend (November 12-14, 2004) during which the weather was so stormy that a state of emergency was in effect.

If the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party succeeds in having the Puerto Rican Independence Party knocked off the ballot, then the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party can claim one of the three posts on the Electoral Commission. Also, the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party alleges that its petitioning efforts were hampered in the period 2005-2007 because it lost almost 7,000 signatures of people who had already signed for the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

The U.S. District Court had refused to adjudicate the dispute, claiming that it had no jurisdiction, but now the case returns to that court.