On September 20, a subcommittee of the New Hampshire election laws House Committee held another hearing on HB 48, the bill to ease ballot access. This meeting, like the one on September 12, was 90 minutes long. It seems likely that the subcommittee will approve some bill that eases ballot access, or the definition of “party”. It is fairly likely the bill will lower the number of signatures needed for a group to qualify all of its nominees. Currently that petition is 3% of the last vote cast. That procedure has existed since 1996 and has only been used once. Currently it requires 12,524 valid signatures. The bill may amend that to a flat 5,000 signatures. Thanks to Ken Blevins for this news.

Congressman Ron Paul’s bill to outlaw restrictive ballot access for independent candidates for the US House, and for the US House nominees of unqualified parties, is HR 3600. It sets a ceiling of 1,000 signatures. The bill does not include US Senate candidates or presidential candidates.

There is more need for ballot access reform for US House, than for the other federal offices. The state ballot access laws for US House are so bad, no independent candidate for that office has qualified under Georgia’s existing law since 1964, and no minor party candidate has qualified in a regularly-scheduled election since 1942. Also, North Carolina has never had an independent candidate for US House on its ballot, and South Carolina has never had an independent candidate for US House on its ballot.

The South Carolina historical record might easily confuse anyone, because in the past an Independent Party was on the ballot in South Carolina. When one looks at old election returns for South Carolina, one needs to know that the South Carolina term for “independent candidate” is “candidate nominated by petition.”

Other states with extremely severe ballot access requirements for independents for U.S. House are California and Illinois.

On September 19, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on the National Popular Vote Plan bills, H678, H710, S445, and S452. Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, and California attorney Barry Fadem, testified in favor of the plan. As is customary in Massachusetts legislative hearings, no vote was taken on the hearing day itself. Massachusetts has two-year legislative sessions.