Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v. Gardner
126 F. Supp. 3d 194
D.N.H.2015Background
- New Hampshire law allows ballot access for parties that received ≥4% in prior Governor or U.S. Senate election or for third parties that submit nomination papers signed by registered voters totaling ≥3% of prior turnout.
- In July 2014 the legislature enacted HB 1542 adding a requirement that nomination papers "shall be signed and dated in the year of the election," effectively compressing the petitioning window to roughly Jan 1–early August of an election year.
- Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH), a small third party with limited membership and recent experience qualifying via petition drives (notably 2012), sued the Secretary of State seeking to enjoin enforcement as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- LPNH argued the same-year rule severely burdens ballot access by shortening collection time, forcing petitioning into campaign season, and preventing petitioning in the off-year; it estimated increased cost to mount a successful 2016 drive (~$50,000).
- The State defended HB 1542 as a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation aimed at ensuring a current, measurable showing of support and avoiding ballot clutter, false positives (dead/moved signatories), and administrative burdens.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment the district court applied Anderson balancing and concluded the law imposes only a reasonable burden that is justified by the State’s interests; it denied LPNH’s motion and granted the Secretary’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 1542’s same-year signing requirement imposes a severe burden on ballot access | HB 1542 compresses petitioning from ~21 months to ~7 months (winter limits, loss of fall events), forces petitioning into campaign season, and bars off‑year collection — together creating a severe burden and higher cost | The time window is comparable to upheld regimes; winters and lost fall events do not prevent collection; major parties face primary burdens; burdens are reasonable and nondiscriminatory | Not severe; court finds only a reasonable, nondiscriminatory burden on ballot access |
| If not severe, whether the State’s asserted interests suffice under Anderson balancing | The State’s asserted interests are post hoc, redundant (existing regime already prevented clutter), and insufficient to justify the new restriction | State seeks to ensure a current, measurable showing of support to avoid ballot clutter, administrative costs, and invalid signatures; these are legitimate and weighty interests | The State’s interest in requiring a current demonstration of support and avoiding ballot clutter outweighs the burden; HB 1542 is constitutional |
| Whether LPNH showed intentional discrimination against Libertarians | LPNH points to selective legislative history and Secretary’s earlier statements as evidence of targeted intent | State notes lack of direct evidence of discriminatory intent; law is facially neutral and applies to all third parties | No adequate evidence of intentional discrimination; claim fails |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny to apply | LPNH argued for intermediate or strict scrutiny given practical effects | State urged rational-basis for this modest burden | Court declined a discrete tiered label and applied Anderson sliding-scale balancing (more than trivial but not severe burden), requiring a sufficiently weighty state justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework: balance burden magnitude against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (severe burdens trigger strict scrutiny; otherwise apply balancing)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upholding petition thresholds and time periods as reasonable)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (short petition windows can be constitutional)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (context-specific evaluation of ballot-access burdens)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (validating state interests in regulating ballot access)
- Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) (non-severe burdens require sufficiently weighty state interests)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (states may address potential electoral problems proactively)
- Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2010) (sliding-scale approach; precedent on modest burdens)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (applying balancing to voting regulations; accepting asserted state interests as relevant)