Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/234811260/NHCLU-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 23:12:04
Document Index: 409660545

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§1331', '§ 2201', '§ 2202', '§ 139', 'arty\n2', 'arty\n25', '§ 2201', '§ 1983', '§ 1988']

NHCLU Complaint | Elections
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinNHCLU ComplaintUploaded by kathleenronayneElectionsPolitical PartiesBallotNew HampshireUnited States Senate0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Complaint filed by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Libertarian Party of New HampshireView MoreComplaint filed by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Libertarian Party of New HampshireCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW )
HAMPSHIRE, )
WILLIAM M. GARDNER, Secretary of )
State of the State of New Hampshire, in his )
official capacity, )
Civil Case. No.
I. This is a civil action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief filed, in part,
pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871,
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action seeks resolution of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Libertarian
Party of New Hampshire (the "Libertarian Party"). In particular, the Libertarian Party facially
challenges the sentence recently added to RSA 655:40-a by the New Hampshire General Court in
House Bill 1542 ("HB 1542") stating that "[n]omination papers shall be signed and dated in the
year of the election." This sentence, which becomes effective today (July 22, 2014), is
2. HB 1542's added language to RSA 655:40-a prohibits the Libertarian Party from
collecting the nomination papers necessary to qualify as a political party before January 1 of the
general election year for which the Party is seeking placement on the ballot. HB 1542 places
substantial burdens on the Libertarian Party—a party constantly struggling for recognition in our
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 18
two-party system—that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Party to qualify as a
political party under RSA 655:40-a in future general elections. Just as it did during the 2000 and
2012 general election cycles, the Libertarian Party plans to nominate a slate of candidates for
statewide and/or legislative office in future general elections pursuant to RSA 655:40-a, and to
have those candidates appear on the general election ballot. For the Libertarian Party to appear
on the general election ballot as a political organization with the ability to run a full slate of
candidates, the Libertarian Party must collect and submit "the names of registered voters
equaling 3 percent of the total votes cast at the previous state general election." See RSA
655:42, III. Under this process, using the 2016 general election as an example, the Libertarian
Party may be required to submit in excess of 13,600 certified nomination papers.
3. Such an artificial January 1 trigger for collecting nomination papers under HB
1542 puts the Libertarian Party at a distinct disadvantage compared to the "major" parties in
New Hampshire because it has no way to effectively participate in and contribute to the
statewide election during both the odd-numbered year prior to the general election, as well as the
year of the general election itself This is the case because, using the 2016 general election as an
example, the Libertarian Party must under HB 1542 "sit on the sidelines" for all of 2015 before
the nomination-collection period commences on January 1, 2016. If allowed to collect
nominations during 2015, the Libertarian Party would hope to achieve party status and be able to
fundraise and spend accordingly when it counts—in the months leading to the 2016 general
election. However, as it currently stands under HB 1542, the Libertarian Party will be collecting
nomination papers well into the summer months during this crucial time period preceding the
2016 general election; by the time the Party obtains all the nomination papers it needs (if it, in
fact, can do so under this compressed time frame), it will be too late to do significant recruiting,
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 18
fundraising, and electioneering prior to the 2016 election. These burdens exist in future general
elections beyond 2016.
In the face of these substantial burdens, the State also has no legitimate regulatory
interest in the law. Just as the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held
in a case striking down a nearly identical law, the State here "has come forward with no
legitimate regulatory interest whatsoever that would necessitate placing this enormous
speedbump on the path to party recognition (much less shown any such interest is of 'compelling
importance' or that the January 1 start date is the most narrowly tailored means available to
protect that interest)." Block v. Mollis, 618 F. Supp. 2d 142, 151 (D.R.I. 2009). Indeed, the
legislature—in response to the Secretary of State's request that it pass HB 1542 as a
"housekeeping" matter—approved HB 1542 with little discussion by voice vote and without any
evidence presented as to why these substantial burdens placed on third parties were even
necessary. HB 1542 is far more than a "housekeeping" bill. It represents an unconstitutional
effort to place substantial burdens on ballot access for third parties in New Hampshire.
5. Resolution of this issue is critical not only because the Libertarian Party's
essential rights of voting, free speech, association, and due process are at stake, but also because
of the assurance of a fair system of representative government. As the United States Supreme
Court has noted, third parties have played a "significant role ... in the political development of
the Nation." Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 185-186
(1979). "Abolitionists, Progressives, and Populists have undeniably had influence, if not always
electoral success." Id. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is no different. Thus, where
"an election campaign is a means of disseminating ideas as well as attaining political office[,]
[o]verbroad restrictions on ballot access jeopardize this form of political expression." Id. As the
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 3 of 18
Block Court similarly explained, "[society is best served when political parties outside the two
existing major parties play an active, 'robust' role in the entire campaign process—not simply
appear on the final election ballot." Id. at 153-54. HB 1542, however, prevents the Libertarian
Party from playing such a "robust" role in subsequent general elections.
6. The Libertarian Party therefore brings this action against William M. Gardner, the
Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire, in his official capacity, who is in charge of
administering New Hampshire's election laws.
7. The Libertarian Party is a political organization comprised of New Hampshire
citizens who seek to associate and express their political views, as well as to nominate candidates
for elective office as an officially-recognized political party in New Hampshire. The Libertarian
Party has a mailing address at P.O. Box 5293, Manchester, NH 03108-5293.
8. William M. Gardner is the Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire. He
is named in his official capacity only. He is in charge of administering New Hampshire's
election laws. His office is located at State House, Room 204, Concord, NH 03301.
9. Secretary Gardner, personally and through the conduct of his agents, servants, and
employees, acted under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §1331.
11. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202. e
12. Venue in the District of New Hampshire is based on 28 U.S.C. § 139I(b).
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 4 of 18
I. The Third-Party Recognition Process in New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party desires to become an officially-recognized political party
under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with a view towards engaging in further political
activity relating to future general elections. Gaining access to the ballot as a recognized political
party in New Hampshire has real and substantial advantages, as it allows the party to run an
entire slate of candidates without each individual third-party candidate needing to collect the
number of nomination papers necessary under RSA 655:42 and RSA 655:40.
14. In New Hampshire, a political organization can become a recognized political
party for ballot access purposes in two ways.
15. The first method—which is applicable to this lawsuit—is nomination by
organization, or, in other words, by a third party. Under this process, "[a] political organization
may have its name placed on the ballot for the state general election by submitting the requisite
number of nomination papers, in the form prescribed by the secretary of state, pursuant to RSA
655:42, III." RSA 655:40-a. RSA 655:42, III, in turn, provides: "It shall require the names of
registered voters equaling 3 percent of the total votes cast at the previous state general election to
nominate by nomination papers a political organization." However, even if an organization
succeeds in becoming a recognized political party under RSA 655:40-a, such recognition
terminates unless the political party nominates a candidate for governor or United States Senate
who receives at least 4 percent of the vote for such office in the election cycle for which the
party was recognized. See RSA 652:11.
16. The second method is by satisfying certain vote thresholds following the
independent candidate petitioning process. RSA 652:11 defines "party" as "any political
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 5 of 18
organization which at the preceding state general election received at least 4 percent of the total
number of votes cast for any one of the following: the office of governor or the offices of United
States Senators." Major parties—namely, the Democratic and Republican Parties—traditionally
satisfy this 4 percent threshold during each general election cycle, thereby allowing these parties
to run a slate of candidates during the next general election who are nominated by the party
through a primary process. A third party, however, can aim to satisfy this criteria by having an
individual candidate secure the 3,000 nomination papers necessary to run on the ballot for
governor or the U.S Senate under RSA 655:40 and RSA 655:42, with the hope that this candidate
will then meet this 4 percent threshold during the general election. If this 4 percent threshold is
met, the party of the independent candidate will be formally recognized during the next general
election and be able to nominate a slate of candidates after holding a primary. Once again, such
party recognition terminates after the general election in which the party is recognized unless the
political party nominated a candidate for governor or U.S. Senate who satisfied the 4 percent
threshold during the general election.'
17. This second method of obtaining third-party ballot access through an independent
third-party candidate cannot be equated with the first method that enables a third party to engage
in non-election-year party recognition and participation under RSA 655:40-a—a method which,
as explained below, HB 1542 substantially hinders by compelling third parties to engage in a
compressed nomination-collection process rather than recruiting, fundraising, and electioneering
Under this second method, the Libertarian Party held "party" status during the general elections of 1992 (during
the 1990 gubernatorial election, Libertarian Miriam Luce achieved 4.8% of the vote), 1994 (during the 1992
gubernatorial election, Libertarian Miriam Luce achieved 4.0% of the vote), and 1996 (during the 1994
gubernatorial election, Libertarian Steven Winter achieved 4.4% of the vote). At the time of the 1990, 1992, and
1994 general elections when the Libertarian achieved "party" status for the subsequent general elections, the "party"
threshold was 3 percent instead of 4 percent under RSA 652:11. As explained in more detail below, RSA 652:11
was amended in 1997 in such a way as to prevent third parties from obtaining ballot access under this method in the
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 6 of 18
during an election year. 2
Indeed, the process under RSA 652:11 and RSA 655:40 (the second
method) is not comparable to RSA 655:40-a (the first method) because RSA 655:40-a provides
the only mechanism by which an organization can gain recognition and reap the undeniable
benefits of official party status before an election. As the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island has explained, Ihfistorically, so much of the value of a minor party lies
in what it can do before an election: spark debate, introduce new ideas, educate voters, and
challenge the status quo." Block v. Mollis, 618 F. Supp. 2d 142, 153-54 (D.R.I. 2009) (citing
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 794 (1983)) (emphasis added).
18. The Libertarian Party opposes any government action interfering in the personal,
family, and business decisions of New Hampshire citizens. In essence, the Party believes that all
persons in New Hampshire should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see
fit so long as they do no harm to their fellow citizens. This philosophy can best be described as
19. The Libertarian Party has a demonstrated history of engaging in political activity
in New Hampshire and is, by far, the most active and well known third party in the state. The
Libertarian Party has run candidates in New Hampshire for more than four decades, and is
affiliated with the national Libertarian party (which coordinates national efforts and publishes a
platform describing its positions on numerous issues of public concern). The Libertarian Party
2 The existence of the party primary process under RSA 652:11 (the second method) as an alternative means for the
Libertarian Party to gain access to the ballot separate and apart from the process under RSA 655:40-a (the first
method) does not insulate I-113 1542's amendment to RSA 655:40-a from constitutional scrutiny. As the Block Court
explained: "[T]he details of a petition process added as an 'alternative' do not circumvent constitutional scrutiny just
because they exist in addition to other ballot access provisions that may be constitutional in their own right.
Pointing the [challenging third party] in a different direction in this case would, in essence, allow the State to take
away with one hand what it provided with the other .... The validity of the petition process should stand or fall on its
own constitutional merits ...." Block v. Morns, 618 F. Supp. 2d 142, 154 (D.R.I. 2009).
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 7 of 18
holds regular meetings with its members, hosts conventions just like major parties, and sends
members to the New Hampshire legislature to testify on pending bills. The Libertarian Party
also communicates with its constituents and with the public through an established website at
http://lpnh.org/
. Further, the Libertarian Party supports its candidates financially through direct
contributions and purchasing advertisements.
20. The Libertarian Party was particularly active during the 2000 and 2012 general
elections in New Hampshire when the Party successfully complied with the nomination process
that is required for a third party to be recognized on the ballot as a "party" under RSA 655:40-a
(the first method described above).
21. During the 2000 general election cycle, the Libertarian Party collected in excess
of the approximately 10,000 certified nomination papers necessary to exceed 3 percent of the
total votes cast during the 1998 general election. As a result, the Party was able to run a slate of
candidates, including the following:
• Harry Browne/Art Olivier [President/Vice President]: 0.5% (2,757 votes)
• John Babiarz [Governor]: 1.1% (6,446 votes)
• Dan Belforti [Congress District 1]: 2.0% (5,713 votes)
• Brian Christeson [Congress District 2]: 2.2% (6,118 votes)
• Rosalie Babiarz [Executive Council District 11: 16.3% (15,896 votes)
• Bob Mutter [Senate District 11]: 3.7% (843 votes)
• Eric Postpischil [Senate District 13]: 3.8% (595 votes)
• James K. Wallack [Senate District 14]: 3.4% (757 votes)
• James S. Vogt [Senate District 15]: 3.1% (728 votes)
• Kenneth E. Blevens [Senate District 16]: 3.4% (871 votes)
22. Similarly, during the 2012 general election cycle, the Libertarian Party collected
in excess of the approximately 13,600 certified nomination papers necessary to exceed 3 percent
of the total votes cast during the 2010 general election. As a result, the Party was able to run a
slate of candidates, including the following:
• Gary Johnson/Jim Gray [President/Vice President]: 1.2% (8,212 votes)
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 8 of 18
• John Babiarz [Governor]: 2,8% (19,251 votes)
• Brendan Kelly [Congress District 1]: 4.2% (14,521 votes)
• Hardy Macia [Congress District 2]: 4.4% (14,936 votes)
• Howard Wilson [Executive Council District 1]: 4.8% (6,403 votes)
• Michael J. Baldassarre [Executive Council District 3]: 4.5% (6,182 votes)
• Kenneth E. Blevens [Executive Council District 4]: 4.7% (5,705 votes)
• Richard Kahn [Senate District 14]: 5.9% (1,466 votes)
• Rich Tomasso [Senate District 16]: 3.3% (921 votes)
The nomination paper-collection process engaged in by the Libertarian Party in
2000 and 2012 was tremendously burdensome. In fact, to comply with the requirements under
RSA 655:40-a, the Party had to start collecting nomination papers well before January 1 of the
election year. For example, during the 2000 general election cycle, the Libertarian Party began
collecting nomination papers in approximately April 1999. During the 2012 general election
cycle, the Libertarian Party began collecting nomination papers in approximately August 2011.
24. The Libertarian Party would likely not have been able to obtain the necessary
nomination papers to get on the ballot in 2000 and 2012 under RSA 655:40-a had the Party been
prohibited from collecting nomination papers prior to January 1 of the election year.
III. HB 1542 and its Impact on the Libertarian Party
25. In HB 1542, the New Hampshire General Court recently added to RSA 655:40-a
the following language- "Nomination papers shall be signed and dated in the year of the
election." This sentence becomes effective today, on July 22, 2014. In short, HB 1542 prohibits
third parties from collecting nomination papers necessary to qualify as a political party before
January 1 of the election year for which they are seeking recognition. Traditionally, nomination
papers must be submitted for certification to the Supervisors of the Checklist in each town or city
where each signatory is registered for review by early August—an arduous process that requires
third parties to disaggregate nomination papers by municipality and then drop off (and later pick
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 9 of 18
up) the papers at the offices of any one of New Hampshire's 221 towns and 13 cities.
under HB 1542, third parties like the Libertarian Party only have approximately seven months—
from January 1 to approximately early August—to collect the necessary nomination papers. As
is obvious, given New Hampshire's harsh winter months, this time period for collection is, in
reality, much shorter.
Having to collect the required number of nomination papers in this limited time
window permitted by law, and not being able to commence that process until January 1 of the
election year, creates an arbitrary, unjustifiable, and ultimately impermissible burden that makes
the task far more difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish in future general elections—thereby
chilling the Libertarian Party's pre-election efforts to associate. These burdens are especially
significant because the Libertarian Party, just as it did in 2000 and 2012, plans on going through
the nomination process specified under RSA 655:40-a during future general elections, which will
include collecting nomination papers from members of the public. Successfully going through
this process will enable the Party to nominate candidates for statewide and/or legislative office in
future general elections, and to have those candidates appear on the general election ballot.
27. Using the 2016 general election as an example, if HB 1542 continues to remain in
effect, the Libertarian Party very well may be precluded from collecting the number of
nomination papers necessary under RSA 655:40-a and RSA 655:42, III. If voter turnout in 2014
minors voter turnout in 2010, then the Libertarian Party will be required to submit in excess of
13,600 certified nomination papers to get on the ballot as a party in 2016—an amount which,
indisputably, is substantia1. 4 As a practical matter, assuming a validity rate of 75%, the
3 Municipal supervisors usually must have nomination papers certified for political organizations by the last week of
August. Political organizations then pick up the certified nomination papers from the municipal supervisors and
then file the papers with the Secretary of State by the first week of September.
4 In 2010, 456,588 people voted in the New Hampshire general election. Three percent of this figure is 13,698.
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 10 of 18
Libertarian Party likely would need to collect approximately 18,000 nomination papers to
compensate for any nomination papers that municipal Supervisors of the Checklist may discard
due to alleged irregularities or technical errors. Had HB 1542 been in effect in 2013, a minor
party seeking to get on the ballot for the 2014 general election through the nomination process
under RSA 655:40-a would have been prohibited from collecting any of the 21,330 certified
nomination papers necessary to gain access to the ballot until January 1, 2014.5
Hence, even though the Libertarian Party is already in existence and plans on
commencing the process of obtaining official recognition for future general elections, it cannot,
under HB 1542, even begin the arduous and time-consuming process of collecting the necessary
thousands of nomination papers until January 1 of the general election year. Any nomination
papers collected prior to January 1 of the general election year would be considered invalid
under this statutory scheme. Thus, HB 1542 operates to suppress the number of recognized
political parties, candidates on the ballot, and voter choices.
IV. There Is No State Interest Justifying The Onerous Restrictions Imposed By HB 1542
29. The State cannot present a legitimate regulatory interest—let alone a compelling
one—justifying the onerous restrictions imposed by HB 1542. Indeed, the House and Senate
approved HB 1542 with little discussion by voice vote and without any evidence presented as to
why these substantial burdens placed on third parties were even necessary.
30. HB 1542 was recommended "ought to pass" by a vote of 15 to 1 by the House of
Representatives Election Law Committee on February 14, 2014. According to the House record
documenting this vote, "Mills 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
5 710,972 New Hampshire domiciliaries voted for the presidency during the 2012 election. Three percent of this
figure is 21,330.
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 11 of 18
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." In April 2, 2014 testimony before the
Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee introducing HB 1542, one of the House
sponsors of the bill characterized HB 1542 as a "housekeeping" bill requested by the Secretary
of State. She testified as follows: "The reason for this is when a third party would try to achieve
nominating papers, they would start right after the election. So you would have signatures that
may be two years old but were very difficult to verify. So having it in the same year of the
election makes it easier to verify. It does limit that time frame, but it allows for verification."6
These justifications fail for two principal reasons.
31. First, if anyone is to be harmed by use of "invalid" nomination papers "due to
death or relocation" collected during the time frame before January 1 of the election year, it is
the third party seeking the nomination papers—not the State. If an organization, like the
Libertarian Party, wishes to collect nomination papers during the odd-numbered year before a
general election, it does so as its own risk. Moreover, using "old" nomination papers simply
means some greater margin may be needed to cover the potentially larger number of invalid
nomination papers. But that is the third party's problem—not the problem of the State or the
Supervisors of the Checklist in each town or city verifying the nomination papers. And, most
importantly, the benefit of additional time for collecting nomination papers more than outweighs
the marginal burden to the third party of collecting a few more nomination papers. In other
words, the process is self-regulating: if the third party is worried that it will get stale nomination
6 The House of Representatives passed HB 1542 by voice vote on February 19, 2014. By a vote of 4-0, the Senate
Public and Municipal Affairs Committee recommended that HB 1542 "ought to pass." The Senate then passed HB
1542 by voice vote on April 17, 2014. The Governor signed HB 1542 into law on May 23, 2014, with an effective
date of July 22, 2014.
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 12 of 18
papers by starting too early, then it will wait. It does not need an artificial statutory date to make
Second, the State already has a regulation directly aimed at this issue: the check
on the validity of nomination papers by the Supervisors of the Checklist in each town or city
where each signatory was registered at the time of the signing. Moreover, in response to right-
to-know requests submitted by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union to the Secretary of
State's Office and the Attorney General's Office, the State has provided no contemporaneous
evidence (statistical or otherwise) prepared in conjunction with HB 1542's passage supporting
the proposition that the percentage of invalid nomination papers obtained by petition somehow
decreases if nomination papers are collected before January 1 of the general election year.
Simply put, the State cannot provide an adequate justification for a January 1 start date that
needlessly hampers the ability of a third party to compete in a meaningful way in a general
election year leading up to the actual election date.
33. HB 1542 is just one of many acts by the New Hampshire legislature restricting
third-party ballot access over the decades. For example, in 1997, the legislature amended RSA
652:11 (which addresses the second method for party recognition discussed above) by raising
from 3 percent to 4 percent the number of votes a third-party gubernatorial candidate needs to
obtain in a general election for that third party to become officially recognized for the next
general election. Though this amendment also added elections for the U.S. Senate where this
percentage threshold could be met to obtain party recognition, this increase in threshold was
designed to decrease third-party ballot access. Though the Libertarian Party had reached the 3
percent threshold during the gubernatorial elections of 1990, 1992, and 1994 under the prior
version of RSA 652:11, the Libertarian Party—or any third party for that matter—has been
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 13 of 18
unable to qualify as a "party" under RSA 652:11 since the threshold was raised to 4 percent in
1997. 7
Moreover, in April 2014—at around the same time the Senate Public and Municipal
Affairs Committee recommended without any dissent that the Senate approve the burdens
imposed on third parties by HB 1542—that same Committee voted 4-0 to recommend that the
Senate kill HB 1322. HB 1322, which had been passed by the House by voice vote, would have
expanded ballot access to third parties by amending RSA 652:11 to lower the threshold from 4
percent back to 3 percent. 8
On April 17, 2014, by a vote of 13-11, the Senate voted to kill HB
34. To be absolutely clear, this lawsuit does not challenge the 3 percent nomination-
paper requirement with which the Libertarian Party seeks to comply to obtain access to the ballot
in future elections under RSA 655:40-a. This lawsuit only challenges the time frame imposed by
HB 1542 for complying with this nomination-paper requirement which, together with the 3
percent threshold, "work[s] an immediate injustice to [the Libertarian Party's] rights not only to
gain a ballot spot, but to accrue important benefits of official status during, if not prior to, an
election year." Block y. Mollis, 618 F. Supp. 2d 142, 154 (D.R.I. 2009).
7 Even though a Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate, Kenneth E. Blevens, received 4.5% of the vote in 1996, the
1997 amendment to RSA 652:11 was made effective January 1, 1999, thereby preventing the Libertarian Party from
obtaining access to the ballot during the 1998 general election. This change to the effective date is one of many
examples of the New Hampshire legislature's intentional efforts to prevent third parties from gaining access to the
The Secretary of State's Office provided testimony to the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee
concerning FIB 1322. In this testimony, the Office suggested that, if the threshold is reduced from 4 percent to 3
percent, then the legislature should also strip away U.S. Senator as an office in which, if this threshold is met, a
party could obtain ballot access. Such a suggestion would have, of course, watered down the bill in an effort to limit
ballot access to third parties.
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 14 of 18
(First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. §
The Libertarian Party realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the preceding paragraphs.
36. The Libertarian Party and its individual constituents desire to seek recognition in
future general elections, but will now be hindered in doing so because of the artificial
impediment in the statutory scheme against collecting any nomination papers prior to January 1
of the year of the general election. Hence, there exists a ripe and justiciable controversy
concerning the Libertarian Party's ability to qualify for recognition as a political party in light of
the statutory scheme and in light of the Libertarian Party's conflicting constitutional rights to
freedom of association, free speech, due process, and access to the ballot. As a consequence, this
action involves an actual and ripe controversy within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgments
Act, 28 U. S.C. § 2201.
37. The Libertarian Party has standing to sue because it is adversely affected by the
unconstitutional constraints of RSA 655:40-a. Specifically, with respect to future elections, the
Libertarian Party is arbitrarily and unnecessarily impeded in its efforts and desire to form a
recognized political party, and faces unfair and impermissible barriers in the statutory scheme,
all in violation of its constitutional rights.
38. For example, just as it did during the 2000 and 2012 general election cycles, the
Libertarian Party plans to collect the necessary nomination papers for recognition in future
general elections, but now would be forced to wait until the statutory time period commences on
January 1 of the general election year before collecting nomination papers. With respect to these
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 15 of 18
future elections, the Libertarian Party is thereby prejudiced in that it is unjustly forced to
compete in the political arena at a distinct political and financial disadvantage when compared to
The provision of RSA 655:40-a relating to the January 1 commencement date for
collection of nomination papers violates the rights guaranteed to the Libertarian Party by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
40. The Libertarian Party is irreparably harmed by the unjustified burden caused by
the unconstitutional time constraints present in the statutory scheme governing recognition for
political parties, and will continue to be so harmed absent injunctive relief lifting those
constraints. The Libertarian Party enjoys a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of this
a) Declare the sentence in RSA 655:40-a stating that In]omination papers shall be
signed and dated in the year of the election" unconstitutional and in derogation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, insofar as said statute prohibits Plaintiff from
collecting nomination papers to qualify as a political party before January 1 of the general
election year for which it is seeking recognition.
b) Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently restrain and enjoin the State of New
Hampshire from enforcing the provision of RSA 655:40-a relating to the January 1
commencement date for collection of nomination papers, or from otherwise precluding the
recognition of a prospective political party on grounds that the prospective political party obtains
the nomination papers of registered qualified voters before January 1 of the year of the general
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 16 of 18
Award Plaintiff attorneys' fees in this action pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1988(b);
d) Award Plaintiff its costs of suit; and
Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in the
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
By and through its attorneys affiliated with the New
Hampshire Civil Liberties Union Foundation,
Gilles R. Bissormette (N.H. Bar. No. 265393)
Tel.: 603.224.5591
Gilles@nhclu.org
William E. Christie (N.H. Bar. No. 11255)
Tel.: 603.225.7262
wchristie@shaheengordon.com
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 17 of 18
I, Rich Tomasso, as Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, and as a person
with personal knowledge of the facts which form the basis of the above-captioned action, being
duly sworn, hereby state under oath that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and can verify that the facts set forth therein are true and
COUNTY OF i4 On this I day of July 2014, before me, personally appeared Rich Tomasso and
swore that the within instrument is true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.
%I. ...011/421-14.& !,42,fi
ary Public/Justice of the Peat
JA G. MICKELSON, Notary Public
y commission expires: my Commission Expires May II, 2015
Case 1:14-cv-00322 Document 1 Filed 07/22/14 Page 18 of 18
Documents Similar To NHCLU ComplaintSkip carouselElection - Bautista v Castro and Carlos v AngelesAP GOV ESSAY CH 9Uva Elections Results Bottom Line Beginning of the End of Rajapakses’ Politics -Analysis by VisalNew Microsoft Office PowerPoint Presentation.pptxQuestioniarre Lagos State Polytechni1Stable Political System is One in Which Political Power is Widely Distributed Among Different State Holders and Also Effective Mechanism of Power TransferFl Voting ReportUNOHCHR UPR - Fiji - National Report Submitted in Accordance With Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16:21*Membership Form of CDPPart v Reviewer (Sans Cases)UP 2008 Political Law (Election Law)SSWP-MMAFacilitatorAgendaOVS Grievances Radiospot 12-07-11The 7th Election in Post Independent NigeriaPuno's Dissenting Opinion in Tolentino v. Comelec Re Right of SuffrageTolentino vs. Comelec, 420 SCRA 438CONSTI (AY 10-11)indonesian value and ideology presentation2004 Human Rights ReportRussia DumaElectRasul v ComelecQACC - Role of the Management CommitteeStatement by the Supervisor of Elections on the December 9th2015 General ElectionsReginald K...Paper "trail" of the Powers" that "Be" or not !Electoral Institutions, Cleavages...Arroyo v. HRETConsti Law 1 - Arroyo vs HRET138459CDP A New Party:A Bohol ChronicleSecession and Hybrid Regime Politics in TransnistriaDocuments About ElectionsSkip carouselRP 2013 30Democratic Victory Task Force Preliminary FindingsWhy Is It So Hard To Vote In America?topline-1-day to goArkansas Secretary of State Historical Report 2008FEC Inquiry Ted Cruz Sketchy Campaign ContributionsBloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies Trump pollCBS News/New York Times Poll, Nov. 3, 2016CBS-NYT Poll Toplines May The Costs of Voter ID LawsAcceptance Speech by President Elect, Uhuru KenyattaU.S. (November 3, 2016) v1 (1)CBS News Battleground TrackerBarack Obama Candidate Affidavit for PA - He Never Signed It - Other PA Candidates DidOctober 27, 2016 Breitbart/Gravis PollMemo 201218 - Results of 2012 Freshmen and Special ElectionsSCHEDULE OF GENERAL ELECTIONS - 2014 NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking PollDnc Donor Deck Leak2DI USA Poll Release 7 Nov 2016Morris County Voters' GuideTexas v. HolderLutfur Rahman judgment - Spiritual Influence CBS/NYT POLLChris Bryant Shadow Cabinet PitchCaliforniaDemocratic 2016DelegateSelectionPlan Final-01.08.2016Native Hawaiian Nation ConstitutionClout Research Poll - OregonCBS News Battleground TrackerDoe v Reed Amicus Brief before Supreme Court joined by Sunlight FoundationDocuments About Political PartiesSkip carouselReal Estate Developer Resume Sample2016 Democratic Delegate Selection RulesTrade Unions and Party PoliticsRNC Growth Opportunity Book 2013Transcript GsThe Egyptian Muslim BrotherhoodElena Kagan's Senior Thesis on Socialism in New YorkMorris County Voters' GuideAsher Dresner Miliband BlogsChris Bryant Shadow Cabinet PitchSample Ballot, November 2010, Harris County TexasCampaigningAgainst_3138005aLabour Review 2015Craig Ford Letter to AL Dem LeadershipStronger Parties,Stronger DemocracySmit.release.appendix - 1 Feb 16Unity Reform Commission CharterParty Sorting and Democratic PoliticsThe Progressive Tradition in American PoliticsThe African National Congress and the Regeneration of Political PowerPolicy Review - February & March 2013, No. 177Declaration on Political Finance OpennessUtah SB54 Motion for Summary Judgment THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 2016Johnson County Sample BallotSugarman Letter obtained by Crain'sGrovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935)Al Pisano v. Kim Strach, 4th Cir. (2014)Election Spending 2016