news-record.com

Voters deserve choices at the polls, but not too many, the N.C. Supreme Court said in a disappointing ruling last week.

The 5-1 decision denied the state Libertarian Party’s challenge to North Carolina’s strict ballot-access law.

Oh, but the law isn’t really so strict, the court said. After all, the Libertarian Party has surmounted the obstacles and earned a place on the ballot, the opinion, authored by Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, noted. Its 2008 candidate for governor, Michael Munger, won close to 3 percent of the vote. “This success indicates the party may have turned a corner in popular support, effectively graduating it from the recognition requirements of section 163-96(a)(2).”

That statute sets a 2 percent standard for political parties. If a party submits petitions signed by 2 percent of the number of people who voted in the preceding election for governor, it can earn a place on the ballot for the next election. Then, if its candidate for president or governor wins at least 2 percent of the statewide vote, the party can remain on the ballot for another four years.

The Libertarian Party is the only third party to achieve that goal under the law’s current standard.

Some unfair quirks exist within the law. For example, a third-party candidate running for a county or state legislative office could win election, but if his or her party did not make the 2 percent mark statewide, then that candidate would not be guaranteed a place on the ballot four years later. If an incumbent can be kept off the ballot, then the state’s ballot-access law is too tough.

The court sees good reason for that, however. While acknowledging that “ballot-access rights, though distinct from voting rights, are central to the administration of our democracy,” the court said such rights are not absolute.

“Here, the avoidance of ‘voter confusion, ballot overcrowding,’ and ‘frivolous candidacies’ is an important regulatory interest,” Timmons-Goodson wrote, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was not binding on North Carolina.

The idea that the court should protect voters from the “confusion” of too many choices at the ballot box is condescending, especially when so many uncontested races leave them with too few choices.

Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the court’s dissenting justice, Paul Newby, was elected from a field of eight candidates in a special election in 2004. Judicial elections are nonpartisan, which means the ballot is accessible to any registered voter (as long as he or she is a licensed attorney).

“While the state has an interest in the orderly administration of elections,” Newby wrote, “my fear is that North Carolina’s signature requirement ... may unduly limit election ballot access.”

He pointed out that State Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett testified there was nothing special about the 2 percent threshold and “admitted that he believed 1 percent would accomplish the state’s objective.”

The court’s ruling is final, but it doesn’t have to be the last word. The legislature should loosen ballot access so voters can have more choices. Democracy can be confusing, but it shouldn’t be unduly limited.