This was a surprise to me, so I thought I’d pass it on. In reading the Slashdot interview with Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, I learned that the US requirements for appearing on the ballot vary from state to state.
Today, the Libertarian Party — and other third parties, of course — have to fight to get on the ballot. In some states, we have to gather enormous numbers of signatures. In others, we have to drag the state to court. We’ve been very active on this front. In 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2000, the Libertarian Party’s candidates appeared on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This year, it’s 48 states and DC — we missed the signature requirement in New Hampshire and are in court in Oklahoma.
This strikes me as a profoundly stupid way to run a federal election. Shouldn’t you have to meet the same requirements to stand for election, regardless of what part of the country you’re in? Of course, I’m deeply puzzled by the whole electoral college approach to begin with, so this by-state requirement should come as no surprise.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
Ballot access is made difficult by design. The 2 major parties don’t want any serious competetion and consider uniform requirements and easy access as against their interests.
http://www.ballot-access.org/
It basically comes down to the fact that each state handles its own elections, so they can make their own rules for ballot access. As long as the rules are applied equally to all candidates, they can survive court challenges.
The main problem right now is that the courts have upheld what is essentially preferential treatment for two particular parties…
Badnarik‘s campaign and the Libertarian Party have essentially had to run 20 miles to get to the starting line for the race.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
…let Badnarik debate…