US. judge strikes ballot access rule for new parties

US. judge strikes ballot access rule for new parties
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 30, 2009
By John Hill

Journal Staff Writer PROVIDENCE — A federal judge Friday threw out as
unconstitutional a provision of state law that forced new political
parties to wait until Jan. 1 of an election year to collect the
signatures they need to get on the statewide ballot.
And while he hinted he'd have liked to toss the state requirement that
those new parties collect signatures equal to 5 percent of the turnout
in the previous statewide election, U.S. District Judge William E.
Smith said there was enough precedent to let stand that part of the
state's ballot access law.
"The court concludes that the 5 percent threshold, while onerous, is
constitutional," Smith wrote, "but that the January 1 start date is
not."
Kenneth Block, founder of the Moderate Party of Rhode Island and the
plaintiff in the suit against the secretary of state's office, said he
was pleased with the ruling. Getting more time to collect the
signatures eases some of the burden of meeting the 5 percent
threshold, he said. Given 2008's statewide election turnout, the
Moderate Party will need to get 23,588 valid signatures.
"Being able to start right away is just crucial," he said.
"I'm very pleased," he added. "I would be even beyond ecstatic if he'd
thrown out the 5 percent, but I understand the judge's reasoning for
not lowering the percentage."
Michael J. Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch,
whose office represented Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis in the
suit, declined substantive comment.
"We'll talk to our client and see what they want to do," he said.
Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the
American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Block, said Smith's
decision was good for Rhode Island democracy.
"The court's ruling recognizes the enormous and unconstitutional
barrier that the statutory start date imposed on fledgling groups like
the Moderate Party," Brown said. "We are pleased that this decision
helps make the political playing field a little fairer for third
parties."
Smith agreed with the ACLU's argument that forcing new parties to wait
until Jan. 1 of the election year in which they want to contend
created such problems that it violated federal rights to associate and
advance political beliefs and the rights of voters to cast their votes
effectively.
He noted that a new party would have to spend months of an election
year gathering signatures, while the larger, established parties would
be able to solicit contributions and recruit and campaign on behalf of
their candidates.
"This court can surmise perhaps that one of the reasons for the high
hurdles is to keep potential challenges to comfortable incumbents to a
minimum," Smith said.
Even if they don't win, Smith said, new parties like Block's serve an
important role in a democracy.
"Historically so much of the value of a minor party lies in what it
can do before an election," he wrote, "spark debate, introduce new
ideas, educate voters, and challenge the status quo. The bedrock First
Amendment principles implicated here are especially vital in a state
such as Rhode Island, where two major parties operate but where only
one, the Democratic Party, increasingly dominates the legislative
political landscape."