Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v. Gardner, 638 F.3d 6

NH general election ballot had four columns plus an 'Offices' column; 'Other Candidates' listed three Libertarian-affiliated pairs, two of whom were not party nominees; Libertarian Party challenged on First Amendment grounds alleging voter confusion and dilution, and on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection; district court granted summary judgment for Secretary; case discussed mootness but held not moot; NH law differentiates between party/organization nominees and individual candidates; substitution and qualification rules constrain ballot placement; plaintiffs sought removal of Libertarian label from Phillies and Bennett rather than substitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Libertarian rights were burdened by Libertarian designation on ballot	Libertarian claimed exclusive access/substitution rights.	State may limit substitution to recognized parties; designation aids informed voting.	No unconstitutional burden; designation permissible.
Whether NH's ballot labeling infringes Libertarian rights to exclusive use of its name	Libertarian asserts rights to exclusive name use; removal would prevent confusion.	Ballot is not a forum for political expression; state may constrain use of party names.	No right to compel removal; designation constitutional.
Fourteenth Amendment claim of unequal treatment between recognized and unrecognized parties	NH treats recognized parties differently, disadvantaging Libertarian without party recognition.	Differences reflect legitimate interests; not unconstitutional under traditional scrutiny.	Distinctions constitutional; no actionable disparate treatment.
Whether case was moot and capable of repetition yet evading review	Election timing could reproduce issues in future.	Pertinent since Libertarian may face similar conditions; but mootness analysis favors dismissal only if no live controversy.	Case not moot; potential for repetition and review remains.

Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2010) (extensive mootness and ballot access discussion guiding analysis)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (sliding scale approach for evaluating election regulations)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (balance between burdens on rights and state interests in elections)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (ballot access/expressive function of ballots; rejection of meaningful party message rights on ballot)
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (Sup. Ct. 1974) (existing political party structures and sore-loser considerations)