From Eric Dondero:

A recent court ruling out of North Carolina, suggests that ballot access restrictions for third parties in the Tarheel State are not too restrictive. The reasoning behind the ruling? The Libertarian Party managed to meet the requirements one year, so they can't possibly be too restrictive.

From the Greensboro News-Record "Editorial: Ballot access is too strict":

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.

Of course, the Libertarian Party is the Nation's third largest political party, and are experts on petitioning and ballot access. The ruling does not take into account, smaller parties outside of the Libertarians.

Note - Judge Timmons-Goodson is one of the longest serving judges in the NC courts. She was an appointee of former Democrat Gov. Mike Easley.