infringements on the ability of a third party to obtain access to the general election ballot in the state new hampshire i didn't have a third party can get on the ballot by obtaining a signature is equal to three  percent of the total votes cast in a prior general election now traditionally a third party such as the libertarian party has had twenty one months to complete this task roughly from the date of the prior general election  president if there had been no if it always been seven months to collect the signatures yes we would be challenging it unduly burdensome based upon a seven month window ok the senate doesn't actually ma of impulse and that we should not compare necessarily state by state and saying for instance what's good for kentucky is also good for new hampshire because each one each state as differing election schemes citizens of the state but on the party trying to the individual trying to comply with your own citizens there although i'm sorry i misunderstood so so yes i mean i think you look at the burden can the law be complied with in a seven month period  modest burden to have to gather one percent of the signatures within sixty days and now new hampshire is saying three percent in two hundred ten days that doesn't seem to be actually on whatever and there was no record in bar whatsoever on the burden of a third party to collect signatures in a time frame the issue and boy was rather annoying the the candidates that got the libertarian party nod of the convention could substitute and collect based upon the signatures that have been previously collected by an opponent there is no requirement under massachusetts law to collect signatures within eleventh circuit opinion by the uniqueness of the election law scheme that exists here in new hampshire what is different about the election law schemes that would be relevant to this issue first of the difference here out of new hampshire is the only election w stricken down that puts the collection period smack dab in the middle of the general election year that you have to collect these signatures starting in january one body building process and through other mechanisms that may exist whether a third party or one of the two major parties are you want also need to be engaged in go off by raising and campaigning and other electioneering activities that's what makes th case law enderson itself speaks to this that expression we waive the burdens that exist on third parties in general off organizational activities making third parties raise money making them organize making them recruit candidates for further away from the general the actual day of the general election creates a burden on the third party and makes it more difficult and toward unconstitutional degree in some circumstances for that good quality to compete in the political process the problem with this law unlike the eleventh circuit law is that not only do these problems exist that it's very difficult to raise money and let's say september or right here leading up to the general election people are less than and bruised but it also means that they have to sit on the sidelines that was the language from bar and they can't be doing the mechanics of getting ready for the election which is collecting the necessary signatures in order to in order to get on the ballot for the for the general election cycle on the other issues they say that the argument is there is serious basic activity zennie third party has stealing and it's a burden to compress the time in which they do these activities yes that  the initial primaries i don't know if it's different in north dakota but i tend to make it my he and the expectation now your population is constant  in the general election year in additional fund raising or campaigning what this why does as it is similar to what the rhode island why didn't walk was forced is the third party the way and they have to wait till january line to start collecting still they have to start collecting signatures the cost of collecting signatures also goes up in a general election year because i think we all like to sit there in riyadh with our thoughts of democracy and signatures are collected bake qualities but individuals trying to get ballot questions on ballots whether it's and massachusetts or elsewhere that isn't the competition for that goes out which drives up the cost to get on the ballot by forcing this entire process into the election year it also puts off that the period of time where individuals who are interested in running on the ballot as a third party candidate in the state in new hampshire can gather as many signatures as you can in a short period of time where's the focus or campaigning is interacting with the voter trying to get them to buy into your view or get them to support your view the second difference is as i doing it so that means that from the politicians with the people forming the parties if you want this all of his raising money if you raise fifty thousand dollars you'll get on the ballot if you know all races are thousand dollars you won't be able to afford enough of those people walking additions and this statute puts no restriction on when you can raise the money you could start that ten years earlier i as a as a legal matter it doesn't offer them on any restriction on when you can from the general election when interest may be lesser or when interest in an alternative to one of the two major parties maybe less or not can create an unconstitutional burden on our party secondly money the from the examples of the prior to election cycles with the libertarian party was able to complete the process by starting early they were able to determine whether or not they hold whether a verification rate was an end in  both cases it was roughly seventy five percent in this case the evidence was that if they had to wait till after she had already won or half the way to the middle of the election year they'll have no idea whether or not they are gathering signatures at  that is actually going to meet the statutory threshold because as a practical matter many of about twenty five percent of signatures collected end up being unfair thank you thank you memo was to make it easier for the people who had to verify the signature is in each city or town you put that in the legislative history and then drops out of this case it isn't mentioned and in fact an employee from the secretary of state's office says oh no we wouldn't actually have that beneficial effect so i'm sort of curious about whether you now are relying on mt although it's not mentioned in your theory as a justification for it to change or whether you would just say the larger exists now and not necessarily how it previously existed for the purpose of the original statute you look at the statute in total is to show that there is sufficient doubt not support to appear on the ballot and that is an argument that we've raised throughout the litigation and then the point i made anderson burdick a balancing test there's no requirement that you look at the underlying what was discussed in the legislative history at that time and then was made and it's also it's not the state does not need to show that there was a problem before making a change to their election law regulation so the interest seemed so little odd for you did the proposing this strange and then a know that there have been cases that have dealt with regulations that did place that petition gathering within the election here in the eleventh circuit case started discussed earlier that petition time started january twelfth and also in the american pride of texas earth wait the candidate in that case was not allowed to start gathering petitions talk after the primary which was in may and also could not gather any petitions that facts of this case in two thousand and twelve which once you switched justifications hack how does starting in january correlate to sufficient interest in the a of appeals and in this case if you look to the facts of the libertarian parties efforts in prior years in two thousand and twelve then the first two month time period of gathering signatures they were able to gather seventy five percent time how do it how do we how do we measure these birds because we're on to both these cases is usually you have a legitimate constitutional aim and then you have some collateral fact because the burden and then we w argument that within three months even if a party waited until after all the winter months have been completed it would start all of the spring in the summer to gather petitions and the argument that the candidate could not campaign at the same time that the party is also raising a gathering signatures i think is this is countered by the facts in this case that the libertarian party candidate for governor he testified in his deposition that he was focusing on campaigning during that petition believe it's a town meeting form of government most of your smaller communities crack and every year in the spring depending on the town of the city but primarily in the spring for most of them  petition so the libertarian party is on the ballot at the night still right yes it is common for people to do that i believe and then they have the opportunity in may as well correct and here the libertarian party primarily used paid petitioners originally but during a time period when they were trying to seek volunteer apart from the issue of who's paid where those excess places are to sign up people do we know that and for doing places would in terms of this case the burden was on the libertarian party to show and i every there was some testimony that county fairs were good place and they couldn't go to county fairs in the something like that track is there any evidence in the record that they were in the libertarian party was not allowed to gather signatures of people as they were going to an exit in those five hundred thousand people the polling places in hampshire i don't believe that other opportunities i think it still would be sufficient i think a seven month time period petition gatherers can go anywhere to gather petitioner's petitions and in the spring in the summer there is farmers markets they could attend there are opportunities where they can gather signatures so i think and you would look at the facts of the case specifically to determine whether the burden was unreasonable or ninety i think here the record clearly support the trial court's decision it was not a reasonable burden have three more minutes is there anything else you'd like to say yeah i think turning to the state's interest i think it's wrong settled the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that a party has sufficient support before running a full slate of candidates on the terms of a change from the prior regulation states don't have to show that there's been voter confusion before amending the regulations and i think you know they just have to show that it is a result mychael ation and it is supported by the state interests