It "is basically an equal protection clause in that it implies that all litigants similarly situated may appeal to the courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination."Follansbee v. Plymouth Dist. Ct., 151 N.H. 365, 367 (2004) (quotingBasinow, 117 N.H. at 177). Our prior decisions have generally affirmed the validity of administrative or filing fees in the absence of the appearance of impropriety or the deprivation of a fundamental right.
It "is basically an equal protection clause in that it implies that all litigants similarly situated may appeal to the courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination." Follansbee v. Plymouth Dist. Ct., 151 N.H. 365, 367 (2004) (quoting Basinow, 117 N.H. at 177). Our prior decisions have generally affirmed the validity of administrative or filing fees in the absence of the appearance of impropriety or the deprivation of a fundamental right.
To comply with strict judicial scrutiny, the governmental restriction must "be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be necessary to the accomplishment of its legitimate purpose." Follansbee v. Plymouth Dist. Ct., 151 N.H. 365, 367, 856 A.2d 740 (2004). The State argues that its interest is to promote a logical and easily understood ballot by arranging it so that the party receiving the most votes in the previous election receives first place on the ballot and so that candidates of the same party running for multi-seat offices are arranged in alphabetical order by surname.