Opinion ID: 205443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Exclusive Use of Name

Text: The Libertarian Party's next claim is that it has a right to exclusive use of its name and that the state was at least obligated to remove the affiliation Libertarian from the names of Phillies and Bennett. It contends that the state's failure to do so interfered with its members' rights of association and political speech, and that the use of the Libertarian name by Phillies and Bennett diluted the party's voting strength. States may grant recognized political parties and organizations the right to control the use of their names. See, e.g., Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 290, 112 S.Ct. 698, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992) (To prevent misrepresentation and electoral confusion, [a state] may, of course, prohibit candidates running for office in one subdivision from adopting the name of a party established in another if they are not in any way affiliated with the party.); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 53 § 8 (If a candidate is nominated otherwise than by a political party the name of a political party shall not be used in his political designation....). But the Libertarian Party cites no case holding that a political organization or party not recognized as such by the state has this right under the First Amendment. What the Libertarian Party appears to be arguing is that it had a free speech right to use the ballot to advertise who its nominees were. But the Supreme Court in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997), expressly rejected the argument that a party has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidate. Id. at 363, 117 S.Ct. 1364. In Timmons, the Court upheld a state fusion ban that prohibited a candidate from appearing on the ballot as the candidate of more than one party. Id. at 369, 117 S.Ct. 1364. The plaintiff, a party that wanted to place on the ballot a candidate who was already representing another party, claimed that the ban burdened the party's right to communicate its choice of nominees on the ballot on terms equal to those offered other parties, and the right of the party's supporters and other voters to receive that information. Id. at 362, 117 S.Ct. 1364. The Court rejected this argument, explaining that [b]allots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression. Id. at 363, 117 S.Ct. 1364; see also Dart, 717 F.2d at 1499 (Although the words `Libertarian Party' did not appear under [its candidate's] name, the Libertarian Party was not denied access to the ballot.... It was a candidate, not a party, ballot.... As [the party's candidate] was granted access to the ballot, so was the Libertarian Party.). Timmons built on earlier holdings to similar effect. In Burdick, for example, the Court had explained that [a]ttributing to elections a more generalized expressive function would undermine the ability of States to operate elections fairly and efficiently. Burdick, 504 U.S. at 438, 112 S.Ct. 2059. And the Court has since returned to the theme, stating not only that the First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot, but also that [p]arties do not gain such a right simply because the State affords candidates the opportunity to indicate their party preference on the ballot. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 453 n.7, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008). Even if we assume arguendo that the Libertarian Party has some interest in preventing voter confusion of its nominated candidates with other candidates who also espouse Libertarian ideals, the question of whether it may enlist state officials to prevent such confusion is one we need not reach on the facts before us. Here, the Libertarian Party has made no claim that Phillies and Bennett were not in fact Libertarians or that the ballot was otherwise inaccurate. And it has provided no evidence that the ballot misled voters in any way. [10] On its face, the ballot did not itself indicate that Phillies and Bennett were the nominees of the Libertarian Party. It identified them, as well as Barr and Root, merely as Libertarian. There is simply no basis to presume that a well-informed electorate will interpret a candidate's party-preference designation to mean that the candidate is the party's chosen nominee or representative or that the party associates with or approves of the candidate. Id. at 454, 128 S.Ct. 1184. As to the state interests at stake, New Hampshire has a strong interest in identifying candidates in the Other Candidates column with the political organization or principles that they represent. The inclusion of this information helps prevent uninformed voting by giving voters pertinent information about the politics of all candidates on the ballot, not just those listed in the columns of parties. There can be no question about the legitimacy of the State's interest in fostering informed and educated expressions of the popular will in a general election. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 796,103 S.Ct. 1564. Further, under the New Hampshire Constitution, [e]very inhabitant of the state ... has an equal right to be elected into office. N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. 11. The state's ballot format serves this goal, providing candidates running as individuals with the same opportunities as nominees of recognized parties or political organizations to be identified by their chosen ideology to voters in an effective way. We reject the Libertarian Party's claim that it had a constitutional right to remove the Libertarian label from the names of Phillies and Bennett.