Press Releases


Entries in Federal Courts (4)


BAFC response to Federal Court ruling in LPNH v Gardner 

In 2014 the New Hampshire General Court passed a new restriction on minor party access to the general election ballot by prohibiting a political organization from collecting petitions before the election year. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit challenging this new law. A similar law in Rhode Island was struck down in 2009 because the sole claim by the Rhode Island government was “reducing the number of 'false positives'.” In New Hampshire, that was the initial reason given for passage of the new law, however William Gardner changed the reasoning the rationale to prevent ballot clutter and to ensure that political parties have a current modicum of support.

On August 27, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro upheld a 2014 New Hampshire law claiming “[the new law] imposes only a reasonable burden on ballot access that is outweighed by the State’s interest in avoiding ballot clutter.”
This is absurd! Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reports, “The New Hampshire party petition has existed since 1996 and only twice has any group ever managed to use it. It is one of the most difficult petition requirements in the nation, 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. Both times it was used, the party that used it, the Libertarian Party, took approximately a full year to get the job done. Now the circulation period has been cut in half.”
Here are some of the lowlights of NH ballot access over the past decade:
In November 2014, New Hampshire was one of only five states with a Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly for all the statewide offices (the others were California, Alabama, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania).
 In 2006, New Hampshire was one of only four states with a Democratic-Republican monopoly for all the statewide offices.
 And in 2004, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Michael Badnarik was on the ballot in every state except New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The only non-Democratic-Republican statewide candidate on the ballot in 2004 was Ralph Nader. New Hampshire is also one of only ten states in which the Green Party has not been able to place its presidential nominee on the ballot in any of the last three presidential elections.
The ruling also seems to completely ignore the fact that Republican and Democratic Party Presidential candidates are filing candidacy forms in the year before the election; however the Libertarian Party and other parties seeking ballot access are barred from circulating nominating petitions during that same time period.
One thing is clear, New Hampshire voters are being harmed when alternative candidates and the ideas they represent are kept off the ballot!

Darryl W. Perry
Founder, Ballot Access Fairness Coalition

The Ballot Access Fairness Coalition seeks to reform the ballot access laws in the State of New Hampshire so that all candidates are treated equally for ballot access purposes.

CEI - 10am Monday - Obamacare in Federal Court Over Illegitimate IRS Penalties

IRS Attempts to Impose Employer Mandate in States Outside Obamacare Exchanges

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 –  A federal judge will hear motions Monday on a lawsuit that challenges how the IRS will enforce the Affordable Care Act.

The hearing in Halbig v. Sebelius is to consider a preliminary injunction being sought on behalf of one of the plaintiffs, David Klemensic, who runs a retail flooring business in West Virginia, and a motion by the government to dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in which Competitive Enterprise Institute attorneys are assisting in coordinating, include a group of individuals and small business owners in six states who have sued over an IRS regulation imposed under the auspices of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that will subject them to a series of penalties and force them to cut back employees’ hours, even though they are located in states that have refused to set up their own insurance exchanges.  The complaint and preliminary injunction filings can be viewed at

The ACA authorizes health insurance subsidies to qualifying individuals in states that created their own healthcare exchanges. These subsidies trigger the employer mandate – a $2,000-per-employee penalty – and expose more people to the individual mandate. But without authorization from Congress, the IRS vastly expanded those subsidies to cover the 34 “refusenik” states that have decided not to set up such exchanges. The ACA plainly says businesses in these nonparticipating states should be free of the employer mandate, and the scope of the individual mandate should be reduced as well. The IRS rule expands both mandates and deprives states of the power given to them by Congress to exempt their residents and businesses from these requirements.

“The Obamacare statute is vast enough as it is,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel for CEI. “The IRS has no right to expand that statute even more to encompass states that have chosen to opt out of the insurance exchange program.”

Mike Carvin, a partner at Jones Day who co-argued NFIB v. Sebelius at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, will argue on behalf of plaintiffs in Halbig v. Sebelius this Monday.


CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website,, and blogs, and  Follow CEI on Twitter!


ALG's Daily Grind - The Fed can't print growth 

Jan. 31, 2013

The Fed can't print growth

A printing press is no replacement for real productivity, a lowered cost of doing business, and regulations that welcome company creation.

Preserving the Middle Class:  Who Cares?

A Center for American Progress 35-point plan to "strengthen" the middle class suggests not a thriving, independent linchpin of American prosperity but an homogenized, stagnant and, yes, dependent voting bloc. 

WSJ:Courts? Who Listens to Courts?

"[W]hen a federal court rules the recess appointments [to it] illegal, the NLRB declares that it will keep doing business as if nothing happened."


Pawlenty Statement on Federal Court Ruling on Obamacare

"Today's court ruling correctly affirms that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress's health care takeover violates the U.S. Constitution. An individual health-care mandate is an unconstitutional power grab by the Federal government and drags our health care system in the wrong direction. This ruling is a big victory for states' rights, the U.S. Constitution and market-based health care reform. I was proud to join this federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare's individual mandate and am optimistic that higher courts will uphold the ruling."