On July 21, the New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral argument in Libertarian Party and Constitution Party v State of New Hampshire, no. 2005-0606. The case challenges the New Hampshire definition of “political party”. That definition was a group that had polled 3% for Governor, from 1891, until 1997. In 1997 the legislature changed it to 4% for either Governor or U.S. Senator. The Libertarian Party had polled over 4% for U.S. Senator in 1996, but the new law excluded looking at past election returns, so that didn’t help. Since 1996, no party other than the Democrats or Republicans has been able to poll 4%. New Hampshire is the only New England state that has not had any qualified parties (other than the Democrats and Republicans) in the last ten years.

The case depends on the New Hampshire Constitution, which says that elections must be fair and equal, and that all candidates must be given an equal opportunity (under the law) to win.

All five justices of the Supreme Court asked questions and made comments. It seemed that they were very skeptical of the state’s reasons for raising the vote test from 3% to 4%. They asked, if a minor party meets the 4% test in the near future, could the legislature raise the vote test again? The attorney for the state said that the legislature could pass any definition of “party” it wishes. That response didn’t seem persuasive. The justices also voiced skepticism that if the definition of “party” were any easier, that the voters would be confused. They even brought up the fact that Iraq’s first free election had 111 parties on the ballot.

North Carolina’s H88 passed the Senate on July 20. See several postings below for a description of why this bill is nothing to cheer about; it makes some things better but others worse.

On July 20, a mid-level New York state court ruled unconstitutional a law that makes it illegal for one political party to spend any money in support of a candidate who is running in another party’s primary. In this case, the Working Families Party spent $126,000 to assist one of the candidates for Albany County District Attorney while that candidate was running in the Democratic primary of 2004. Avella v Batt, Supreme Court, Appellate Div., 3rd, no. 98847. The decision was based largely on the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Eu v San Francisco County Central Committee, which struck down California laws that made it illegal for parties to endorse or oppose candidates in their own primaries.