If your party label is of another stripe -- say, Libertarian, or Green -- chances are you won't be on the ballot, because minor parties' ballot access is severely restricted here. Our state was one of only three where Ralph Nader's presidential campaign didn't make the ballot in both 2000 and 2004. The Libertarian Party has managed to gain ballot spots on occasion, but this year is still thousands of petition signatures short as it tries to get a candidate for governor on the ballot in November.

All this makes little sense. The two-party system won't be unhinged by competitors on the ballot, and if a Ralph Nader were to siphon votes from an Al Gore, as in Florida 2000, well, don't voters have the right to be "wrong"?

After an effort to liberalize the rules failed in the legislature in 2005, Libertarians and Greens sued the state, claiming that it's illegal, under the state constitution, to restrict political parties so much. A Superior Court judge recently declined to grant summary judgment to the parties or to the state. That makes a trial more likely.

But there's no need for the judicial system to reach the constitutional question. It's obvious that North Carolina is way out of the mainstream. It has, according to the plaintiffs, the third most restrictive signature requirements for political parties in the nation.

So in the interest of fairness the legislature should simply loosen the rules. Find a spot comfortably in the middle of the states, and position our law there.

Such a move looked like the solution three years ago, but after a bill that would have reduced the signature requirement by three-fourths showed strength in committee, the then co-speakers of the House, Republican Richard Morgan and Democrat Jim Black, refused to bring it to a vote. Morgan said the barriers keep "illegitimate" political parties "at bay."

With all we've learned since the days of the corruptly fashioned co-speakership, isn't that ample reason to change the rules now?