MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Political organizations can gain access to the New Hampshire general-election ballot either by receiving at least four percent of the total votes cast for Governor or U.S. Senator in the preceding election or by submitting nomination papers signed by enough of the State’s registered voters to equal at least three percent of the total votes cast in the prior election. In 2014, the New Hampshire state legislature amended the State’s ballot-access laws to require nomination papers to be signed during the same year as the general election. In this action, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (“LPNH”) contends that the new same-year requirement is an impermissible ballot-access restriction that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Same-Year Nomination Papers Requirement
Candidates for political office in New Hampshire typically gain access to the general-election ballot by winning their party’s primary election.
To qualify for the general-election ballot, third parties must submit the requisite number of nomination papers to local election officials in the towns or wards where each signer is registered to vote no later than the Wednesday five weeks before the primary. N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 655:41, I. Local officials must then certify the validity of all nomination papers no later than two weeks before the primary. Id. Because the New Hampshire primary falls on the second Tuesday in September, this requirement effectively establishes an early August deadline for the submission of nomination papers. See N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 653:8, 655:41,1.
In July 2014, the New Hampshire legislature passed House Bill 1542 (“HB 1542”), which amended Section 655:40-a to provide that “[n]omination papers shall be signed and dated in the year of the election.” N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 655:40-a (emphasis added). Because nomination papers must be filed by August, the new law requires third parties that seek to access the general-election ballot to collect the requisite number of nomination papers within a window of roughly seven months, extending from January 1 until early August of the election year itself. See N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 653:8, 655:40-a.
The record contains few details that explain why the legislature passed HB 1542. When the House Election Law Committee referred the bill to the full House, it explained:
This bill was requested by the Secretary of State. It requires that nominating petitions for a political organization seeking placement on the ballot for the state general election shall be signed and dated in the year of the election, beginning January 1 of the political cycle. This will reduce the number of invalid signatures, due to death or relocation, which might arise if signatures are submitted earlier.
Doc. No. 37-3 at 13.
Representative Melanie Levesque, one of the bill’s sponsors, observed before the bill’s passage:
When a third party attempts to collect nominating papers, they normally would start right after the general election. This would lead to signatures that could be two years old, and very difficult to verify. Collecting these papers in the same year of the election facilitates verification, although limiting the time in which to collect signatures.
Id. at 20 (minutes summarizing testimony).
After this litigation began, LPNH submitted interrogatories to the State that requested, among other things, a “des-cri[ption of] all state interests that [the State] claim[s] HB 1542 advances.” Id. at 62. In response, the State said:
In order to obtain ballot status a political organization should be able to show some reasonable level of support to justify the increased and significant cost of printing ballots and the additional complexity added to the ballot design impacting the voters [sic] ability to read and understand the ballot. The time frame for collecting signatures in the current statute makes it less likely that the supervisors of the checklist will be asked to review petitions where the signatory has either passed away, moved, or has otherwise been disqualified.
Id.
B. LPNH
The Libertarian Party is a prominent third party in the United States. Describ
LPNH, however, has struggled recently to garner widespread support in New Hampshire. Richard Tomasso, the current state chairman of LPNH, estimates that only about 150 New Hampshire residents are registered members of the national Libertarian Party, and fewer than that are registered members of LPNH itself. See Doc. No. 37-6 at 4 (Tomasso Dep. at 9:7-11:6). Only about twelve people attended LPNH’s last party convention in March 2015. Id. (Tomasso Dep. at 11:22-12:1). LPNH identifies no current member of the New Hampshire legislature as one of its members. Id. (Tomasso Dep. at 18:21-19:7).
LPNH last qualified for ballot access in New Hampshire as a formal political party in 1996, when the threshold required to avoid the nomination papers requirement stood at three rather than four percent of votes cast in the previous general election. Since then, it has qualified for ballot access under the nomination papers process twice, in 2000 and again in 2012.
Based on voter turnout in the 2010 general election, qualifying for ballot access in 2012 by nomination papers required third parties to collect 13,843 valid signatures.
LPNH began its 2012 petition drive in late July 2011 after the Libertarian National Committee (the “LNC”), the governing board of the national Libertarian Party, agreed to give $28,000 to LPNH to support its drive. LPNH spent those funds on paid professional petitioners because,’it explains, “paid support — including professional petitioners — is a necessity in conducting a successful petition drive of this magnitude.”
After September 23, 2011, the initial $28,000 infusion from the LNC ran out. LPNH lacked its own funds to hire paid petitioners on any significant scale, so it aimed instead to finish the petition drive by relying on volunteers supplemented by any paid petitioners that it could afford with its limited resources. But this strategy met with limited success. Although the intervening months between September 2011 and the August 2012 deadline offered at least two promising opportunities for petition collection — the Presidential primary in January 2012, and town elections in March 2012 — LPNH struggled to recruit even a handful of volunteers to collect petitions on either occasion. See Doc. No. 37-6 at 30 (Tomasso Dep. at 115:12-13) (explaining that LPNH “manage[d] to get a couple people out for” the January Presidential primary); Def.’s Ex. Z (March 2012 email from Tomasso reporting that LPNH “had very poor turnout for help on town election day”).
Between roughly September 2011 and late July 2012, LPNH collected only about 5,000 additional raw nomination papers. As the early August deadline loomed, the LNC decided to allocate an additional $4,000 to LPNH to hire paid petitioners and finish the drive. This final effort succeeded, and LPNH submitted its last nomination papers for verification just before the August 2012 deadline.
All told, LPNH spent roughly $40,000 of its own and the LNC’s funds on the 2012 petition drive, although LPNH contends that this figure does not reflect certain out-of-pocket expenses. Most of these funds were spent on professional petitioners, who charged anywhere from $1 to $3 per signature for their services at various times during the drive. Although some of the paid petitioners charged more per petition as the deadline approached and the demand for their services rose, at least one paid petitioner continued to charge only $1 per signature as late as April 2012. See Doc. No. 37-6 at 21 (Tomasso Dep. at 78:15-79:7).
Based on voter turnout in the 2014 midterm elections, LPNH will need to submit approximately 14,800 valid nomination papers to qualify for the 2016 general-election ballot. Assuming a validity rate of seventy-five percent, therefore, it will likely need approximately 20,000 total unverified nomination papers to meet the requirement. LPNH estimates that funding a paid petition drive for the 2016 election will cost roughly $50,000. Doc. No. 36-1 at 31. This figure is higher than the $40,000 cost of the 2012 drive, LPNH asserts, because the January 1 start date will limit petition collection to the election year itself, when paid petitioners charge more for their services.
C. Procedural History of This Action
LPNH brought this action against William Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, in July 2014 shortly after the General Court passed HB 1542. It seeks a declaration that the same-year requirement prescribed by HB 1542 is unconstitutional and an order enjoining the State from enforcing it. Doc. No. 1 at 16-17. The parties proceeded through an expedited discovery schedule and submitted cross-motions for summary judgment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The evidence submitted in support of the motion must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Navarro v. Pfizer Corp.,
A party seeking summary judgment must first identify the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
On cross motions for summary judgment, the standard of review is applied to each motion separately. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. AGM Marine Contractors, Inc.,
III. ANALYSIS
Ballot-access restrictions implicate two separate, but related, constitutional rights that derive from the First and Fourteenth Amendments: “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs,” and “the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.” Williams v. Rhodes,
At the same time, states have a strong interest in conducting orderly elections. “[A]s a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if
To balance these competing interests, “the Supreme Court has developed a flexible sliding scale approach for assessing the constitutionality of [ballot-access] restrictions.” Barr v. Galvin,
[A court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.... Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
Following Anderson and its progeny, therefore, I first consider whether HB 1542 imposes a severe burden on ballot access. After determining that the law instead imposes only a reasonable and nondiscriminatory burden on LPNH’s ability to access the ballot, I then identify the state interests that HB 1542 serves and conclude that those interests are sufficient to sustain the law against LPNH’s challenge.
A. Burden Imposed by HB 1542
To establish its claim that HB 1542 imposes a severe burden on ballot access, LPNH first contends that its experiences during its 2000 and 2012 petition drives demonstrate that the State’s petitioning process was already onerous before the
1. Compression of the Petition Collection Window
LPNH first objects to HB 1542 because, on its face, the law shortens the collection window for nomination papers from 21 months to seven months. In LPNH’s view, a seven-month petition-collection period is too short, especially considering that the period encompasses the winter months when, in its view, it is practically impossible to collect nomination papers.
Both the Supreme Court and the First Circuit, however, have repeatedly upheld petition requirements comparable to HB 1542 in both the number of petitions required and the length of time allowed to collect them. These precedents effectively foreclose any argument that the petitioning window provided by HB 1542 is too short on its face. In Jenness v. Fortson, for instance, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s policy requiring third parties to collect petitions from five percent of all eligible voters over 180 days.
I recognize that the analysis of ballot-access restrictions is not bound by any “ ‘litmus-paper test’ that will separate valid from invalid restrictions,” Anderson,
Instead, and reminding this Court of Anderson’s fact-specific framework, LPNH argues that two unique characteristics particular to New Hampshire distinguish this case and render the petition-collection window prescribed by HB 1542 a severe burden on ballot access. First, LPNH maintains that New Hampshire’s harsh winters preclude signature collection during the winter months, shortening the petitioning period even beyond what HB 1542 allows on its face. I am unpersuaded by this argument. Although snowstorms and bitter cold undoubtedly limit the ability of third parties to gather signatures on certain winter days, LPNH’s own experience during its 2012 petition drive establishes that it is not impossible to collect petitions at all during the winter. See Doc. No. 37-20 at 24 (LPNH petitioning spreadsheet showing that LPNH collected over 1,000 signatures in December 2011). Moreover, even if adverse weather sometimes hinders petition collection during the winter, LPNH can use that time to advance its petition drive in other ways that do not require prolonged outdoor exposure, such as fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Finally, even if New Hampshire winter did practically shorten the petitioning window to five months, as LPNH maintains, that five-month period would still fall within the benchmarks upheld by the Supreme Court and the First Circuit. Winter in New Hampshire, therefore, neither distinguishes the HB 1542 petition-collection window from binding precedent nor imposes a severe burden on ballot access.
LPNH also argues that the shortened petition-collection window bars it from collecting signatures at certain prominent New Hampshire public events that take place during the fall before an election year. Although this observation is true as far as it goes, it does not establish any severe burden imposed by the shortened petitioning period. County fairs and certain city elections, which occur in the fall, may well provide promising opportunities for signature collection, but numerous public events that are equally promising still take place during the new petitioning period. For instance, third parties can collect signatures at local public gatherings within the new petitioning period like town meetings, which occur in the spring, and local farmers markets, which occur in the spring and summer. In Presidential election years, the Presidential primary, which takes place in January, offers third parties another opportunity to ask registered voters for signatures.
2. Conflict Between Petitioning and Campaigning
LPNH next argues that HB 1542 imposes a severe burden on its ability to access the ballot because it places the petitioning period squarely within the campaign season preceding the general election. That placement, LPNH argues, imposes a severe burden because it forces third parties to focus exclusively on petitioning during a period that they would otherwise devote to campaigning, placing them at an unfair disadvantage compared to the major parties. But for several reasons, this new burden, although not trivial, is also not severe.
First, even assuming, as LPNH claims, that third parties cannot begin campaigning until they complete the petitioning process, the petitioning window that HB 1542 prescribes still leaves a significant amount of time available for general electioneering. Because the petitioning deadline falls in early August, political organizations that qualify for ballot access still have the entire period between the deadline and Election Day in early November to focus solely on campaigning, a period that includes all of September and October. As Rich To-masso, LPNH’s state chair, testified during his deposition, “the time immediately prior to the election is the most important time for campaigning.” Doc. No. 37-6 at 8 (Tomasso Dep. at 26:6-8). HB 1542 does nothing to restrict third parties that qualify for ballot access from campaigning during this period.
Beyond this, however, I do not accept LPNH’s underlying premise that campaigning cannot begin until the petitioning requirement is fulfilled. For one thing, the record does not support LPNH’s position. Instead, it suggests that petitioning, although perhaps not fully equivalent to campaigning, still offers third parties and their prospective candidates an opportunity to interact with the public and promote their views. In a March 2012 email to solicit volunteers to collect petitions at town elections, for instance, Tomasso wrote, “If you want to run for office as a Libertarian, [town election day] is a great time to meet your .voters and do some early campaigning.” Def.’s Ex. V at LPNH-1052. An August 2000 LPNH newsletter comments that the petitioning process, which allows “thousands of voters ... to meet Libertarian candidates and activists,” provides the party “an effective outreach tool.” Doc. No. 37-14 at 2. Moreover, the record also suggests that LPNH conducted at least some campaign activities during its 2012 petition drive before it had finished the petitioning process. LPNH itself concedes that it “did ... have some candidates engage in campaigning prior to completing the petitioning drive” in 2012. Doc. No. 36-1 at 14. And John Babiarz, LPNH’s former state chair and 2012 gubernatorial candidate, testified during his deposition that he “had to focus [himself] on campaigning” rather than petitioning during that year’s drive. Doc. No. 37-7 at 25 (Babiarz Dep. at 93:22). The record, in short, does not substantiate LPNH’s assertion that the petitioning requirement forecloses • campaigning until it is fulfilled.
LPNH offers an additional argument against the election-year petitioning window beyond its own claimed inability to campaign during that period. It maintains that the putative conflict between the petitioning period and campaigning season places third parties at an unfair disadvantage compared to the major parties. In effect, LPNH argues that the January 1 start date forces third parties to complete administrative busywork at a time during the election year when the major parties
This argument overlooks the fact that the major parties must meet their own ballot-access requirement during the election year by holding primaries. New Hampshire holds its primary election on the second Tuesday of September in every election year, five weeks after the petition submission deadline and two weeks after the deadline for local officials to certify those petitions. N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 653:8, 655:41, I. During election years, therefore, major-party candidates enjoy no free pass to focus solely on the general election while third parties are trying to gather petitions. Instead, they must first compete in and win their party primaries, a process that does not end until well after the petitioning process concludes. The burden of a primary may differ qualitatively from that of a petitioning requirement, but it remains that major-party candidates face their own preliminary obstacle to the general-election ballot during the election year.
For these reasons, the placement of the petitioning window within the election year is both reasonable and nondiscriminatory. I do not doubt that LPNH would rather spend its time and resources during an election year on campaigning instead of petitioning. But the same could be said of any political party, including the major parties, which would likely prefer to avoid the sometimes factious primary process and instead select their candidates and begin campaigning for the general election before September of the election year. The challenge that political parties of all sizes face to manage multiple tasks at once, even in an election year — to both walk and chew gum, so to speak — is a simple and essential fact of American political life, not cause for heightened constitutional scrutiny. See Am. Party of Tex.,
3. Compelled Idleness During the Off Year
Finally, LPNH argues that HB 1542 imposes a severe burden on ballot access because it “forces [LPNH] to ‘sit on the sidelines’ for the entire odd-numbered year before the general election year.” Doc. No. 36-1 at 29. So far as it goes, it is true that HB 1542 precludes LPNH from collecting nomination papers during the off year. But it simply does not follow that the law completely “bar[s LPNH] from engaging in petitioning during the odd numbered year,” id. at 29-30, as LPNH contends. Even with the January 1 start date in place, LPNH remains free to plan its elec
4. Collective Evaluation
As I have explained, none of these three grounds for LPNH’s opposition to HB 1542 individually constitutes a severe burden on ballot access. The critical question, however, is whether the various burdens that HB 1542 imposes collectively cause the law as a whole to rise to that threshold. See Storer,
Either characterizing or quantifying the aggregate burden that a ballot-access restriction imposes is a somewhat arbitrary task. Ultimately, however — and as LPNH acknowledges — all petitioning requirements demand either a certain number of volunteer hours or a certain amount of money to pay professional petitioners to replace those volunteers. See Am. Party of Tex.,
LPNH tacitly acknowledges this approach by stipulating that a successful petitioning drive in 2016 will cost $50,000, assuming that HB 1542 remains in force. See Doc. No. 37-6 at 26 (Tomasso Dep. at 97:14-16). As I have explained, I view that stated cost as an aggregate evaluation of the various burdens that flow from HB 1542. Although this stipulated burden is certainly not trivial, I cannot conclude that it qualifies as severe. In comparative terms, it is not dramatically more onerous than the $40,000 cost of the 2012 petition drive. See Doc. No. 36-1 at 25. Nor does it qualify as severe in its own right. The Republican 2012 gubernatorial nominee in New Hampshire spent over $1 million on that year’s primary election alone, or around 20 times what LPNH expects its 2016 petitioning drive to cost.
B. Sufficiency of the State Interest
Because HB 1542 does not impose a severe burden on ballot access, strict scrutiny does not apply. See Burdick v. Takushi
I disagree with both positions, although I acknowledge that this disagreement may be little more than semantic. As the First Circuit explained in Barr, the Supreme Court’s ballot-access cases establish a “ ‘sliding scale’ approach for assessing the constitutionality” of ballot-access restrictions.
Thus, I decline to apply any specific and discrete level of scrutiny to HB 1542 and instead evaluate the State’s interest supporting the law under the Anderson balancing framework.
The State offers several justifications for HB 1542 to meet its burden under Anderson balancing. Its strongest argument, however, appeals to its interest in maintaining an orderly ballot by requiring candidates to demonstrate a measure of public support before gaining ballot access.
The State’s asserted justification finds powerful and extensive support in both Supreme Court and First Circuit precedents, which establish that the State’s broad regulatory interest in administering orderly elections includes a strong interest in avoiding ballot clutter. See Anderson,
The State’s strong and well-established interest in preventing ballot clutter by requiring political organizations to “make a preliminary showing of substantial support,” Anderson,
LPNH concedes, as it must, that the State has at least an abstract interest in avoiding ballot clutter. See Doc. No. 36-1 at 47. For two reasons, however, it argues that HB 1542 does not legitimately
interests justifying the challenged restriction were invalid because the restriction “was actually motivated by partisan concerns.”
IV. CONCLUSION
This case requires me to decide only whether HB 1542 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For the reasons I have explained, I conclude that it does not.
Reasonable minds can and do disagree about the wisdom of this country’s present two-party political structure, and there is little question that, for better or worse, HB 1542 promotes that structure to at least some degree by making it marginally more difficult for third parties to gain ballot access in New Hampshire. But because HB 1542 does not breach any of the constitutional ballot-access boundaries that the Supreme Court has established, it is for the New Hampshire legislature to decide whether the law serves the interests of this State’s voters.
HB 1542 prescribes a reasonable and nondiscriminatory ballot-access restriction that is justified by the State’s interest in requiring political parties to demonstrate a sufficient level of support within the State. It is therefore not unconstitutional. Thus, I deny LPNH’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 36) and grant the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 40). The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. The facts summarized in this section are undisputed. I draw them from both the summary judgment record and evidence and testimony taken during an evidentiary hearing that I held in this action on July 13, 2015. Evidence admitted during that hearing is cited in this Memorandum and Order as either "Def.’s Ex.” Or "Pl.'s Ex.” Summary judgment exhibits are cited by their docket number.
. New Hampshire also allows individual candidates to run unaffiliated with any political organization by submitting ¿ specified number of nomination papers. See N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 655:40, 655:42, III.
.The record contains much less information about the 2000 ballot-access drive, and the parties emphasize the 2012 drive as the principal example of LPNH’s experience in meeting the nomination papers requirement. Therefore, I focus here on the 2012 drive and not on the 2000 drive. I note, however, that the 2000 drive appears to have been similar to the 2012 drive in most material respects: LPNH began its drive early, in mid-1999, and finished only "a couple weeks before” the August 2000 deadline. See Doc. No. 37-8 at 7.
. The term "petitions” is often used as shorthand for "nomination papers” in this context, including by the parties to this action.
. The record suggests that paid petitioners are often more effective than volunteers for several reasons, including financial motivation and professional experience.
. In April 2015, the Republican National Committee (the "RNC”) moved to intervene as defendants in this case. See Doc. No. 30. For reasons that I explained on the record during an April 20, 2015 hearing, I denied the RNC's request to intervene as defendants but permitted it to participate as an amicus curiae.
. Although the parties agreed that this case could be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment, I held an evidentiary hearing on July 13, 2015 to address LPNH's factual claim that the State’s petitioning process was already burdensome even before HB 1542's adoption. Having heard the evidence that bears on this claim, I am satisfied that there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts that would prevent me from resolving this case on cross-motions for summary judgment.
. LPNH itself recognized the 2012 Presidential primary as a lucrative opportunity to collect signatures. Ultimately, however, LPNH was unable to capitalize on that opportunity, largely because many of its prospective volunteers chose to volunteer for Ron Paul's campaign instead. See July 13, 2015 Evid. Hr’g Tr., Doc. No. 52 at 2 (Tomasso testifying that LPNH was "competing [with the Ron Paul campaign] for a lot of the same mind share and people who shared our political beliefs.”), 3 (Tomasso testifying that LPNH could not muster volunteers to collect signatures at polling places on Presidential primary election day in January 2012 because "a lot of them were working for the Ron Paul campaign.”).
. During oral argument, LPNH suggested that comparing the petitioning process to the primary system is like "conflating apples and oranges,” June 18, 2015 Arg. Tr., Doc. No. 51 at 4, because the Republican and Democratic Parties already know that their candidates will appear on the ballot even if they do not yet know who those candidates will be. But even if the major parties are guaranteed to have their candidates placed on the general election ballot, the primary still forces them to expend time, money, and effort during the election year on an endeavor other than the general election itself.
. See "Statement of Receipts and Expenditures for Political Committees for Friends of Ovide 2012 Committee,” Sept. 19, 2012 {available at New Hampshire Secretary of State website, http://sos.nh.gov/20120919 comm.aspx?id=26519).
. I recognize that the First Circuit applied rational-basis review to the law at issue in Barr,
. The State also points to two other interests that, it argues, provide sufficient justification for HB 1542: first, avoiding confusion with the statutory provision for unaffiliated candidates to gain ballot access by collecting their own nomination papers, which had already been subject to a January 1 start date; and second, reducing the number of "false positives,” or nomination papers accepted toward-the requirement that were actually invalid because their signers had either relocated or died before the early August deadline for petition submission. I need not address these other interests, however, because the State's interest in requiring a demonstration of sufficient support independently justifies HB 1542. For that reason, Block v. Mollis, which involved a challenge against a Rhode Island ballot-access restriction similar to HB 1542, does not bear on this case, since Rhode Island sought to justify the challenged restriction there solely on the basis of the state’s claimed "false positive” interest. See
. At oral argument and in its reply brief, LPNH suggested that the State's currentness argument renders HB 1542 facially discriminatory because New Hampshire accepts older election results as a sufficient showing of support from the major parties, which qualify for ballot access by receiving at least four percent of the vote for either Governor or U.S. Senator in the previous general election. See N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 652:11. It is unconstitutional, LPNH contends, to demand same-year nomination papers from third parties to demonstrate the currentness of their support while also accepting the results of an election held two years earlier as a sufficient showing of support for the major parties. But the major parties, of course, must obtain at least four percent of votes cast at the previous general election to avoid the nomination papers requirement, while third parties need only collect nomination papers totaling three percent of that turnout. See N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 652:11, 655:42, III. This one-percent difference is a legitimate legislative approximation of potential erosion of support during the year following an election. Alternatively, the legislature could also reasonably conclude that actually casting a vote for a candidate at an election demonstrates more enduring support than signing a nomination paper. In sum, this difference between major-party and third-party ballot-access qualification does not render HB 1542 facially discriminatory.
. LPNH also protests that the State raised its interest in requiring a demonstration of sufficient and current support too late in this litigation for me to credit it. I agree that the State primarily relied on other asserted interests during the early stages of this litigation, although I note that it at least alluded to the ballot clutter interest in its responses to LPNH’s interrogatories. See Doc. No. 37-3 at 62 (“In order to obtain ballot status a political organization should be able to show some reasonable level of support to justify the increased and significant cost of printing ballots and the additional complexity added to the ballot design impacting the voters [sic] ability to read and understand the ballot.”). Nevertheless, both the State and the RNC fully briefed the sufficient support interest in their summary judgment submissions, and LPNH had a full opportunity to respond to this argument in its reply brief and at oral argument.
. Justice Scalia’s concurrence in the judgment accepted the lead opinion’s articulation of these state interests. See Crawford,
. LPNH claims in passing that HB 1542 represents an "intentional effort to discriminate against the Libertarian Party.” Doc. No 36-1 at 9 (capitalization modified). If, of course, the record supported this claim — if, for instance, direct evidence showed that members of either the General Court or either of the major parties intended HB 1542 to stifle LPNH or any other third party — then legislative motivation would be highly consequential. The record, however, contains no such evidence. To support its intentional discrimination claim, LPNH recounts how, before the 2012 LPNH petition drive began in summer 2011, Secretary Gardner initially believed that third-party nomination papers needed to be signed during the election year. See id. But after LPNH explained to him that the same-year restriction applied only to individual candidates and not to third parties under New Hampshire law at that time, he relented and told LPNH that the State would accept nomination papers signed in either 2011 or 2012. Id. at 10. After the 2012 election, however, in December 2013, Secretary Gardner's office endorsed the passage of HB 1542, which extended the same-year requirement to third parties. Id. LPNH points to no other evidence supporting its intentional discrimination claim.
I can discern no basis on which this account could support a reasonable inference of intentional discrimination against LPNH, and LPNH's brief provides no such explanation beyond merely recounting these facts. See id. a,t 9-10. More broadly, beyond its conclusory and undeveloped assertion at oral argument that the record as a whole suggests intentional discrimination against it, LPNH has offered , no other sufficient basis for its intentional discrimination claim — nor could it, given the lack of any supporting evidence in the record. Thus, I treat LPNH’s intentional discrimina