PROVIDENCE — A federal judge Friday threw out as unconstitutional a provision of state law that forced new political parties to wait until Jan. 1 of an election year to collect the signatures they need to get on the statewide ballot.

And while he hinted he’d have liked to toss the state requirement that those new parties collect signatures equal to 5 percent of the turnout in the previous statewide election, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith said there was enough precedent to let stand that part of the state’s ballot access law.

“The court concludes that the 5 percent threshold, while onerous, is constitutional,” Smith wrote, “but that the January 1 start date is not.”

Kenneth Block, founder of the Moderate Party of Rhode Island and the plaintiff in the suit against the secretary of state’s office, said he was pleased with the ruling. Getting more time to collect the signatures eases some of the burden of meeting the 5 percent threshold, he said. Given 2008’s statewide election turnout, the Moderate Party will need to get 23,588 valid signatures.

“Being able to start right away is just crucial,” he said.

“I’m very pleased,” he added. “I would be even beyond ecstatic if he’d thrown out the 5 percent, but I understand the judge’s reasoning for not lowering the percentage.”

Michael J. Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, whose office represented Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis in the suit, declined substantive comment.

“We’ll talk to our client and see what they want to do,” he said.

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Block, said Smith’s decision was good for Rhode Island democracy.

“The court’s ruling recognizes the enormous and unconstitutional barrier that the statutory start date imposed on fledgling groups like the Moderate Party,” Brown said. “We are pleased that this decision helps make the political playing field a little fairer for third parties.”

Smith agreed with the ACLU’s argument that forcing new parties to wait until Jan. 1 of the election year in which they want to contend created such problems that it violated federal rights to associate and advance political beliefs and the rights of voters to cast their votes effectively.

He noted that a new party would have to spend months of an election year gathering signatures, while the larger, established parties would be able to solicit contributions and recruit and campaign on behalf of their candidates.

“This court can surmise perhaps that one of the reasons for the high hurdles is to keep potential challenges to comfortable incumbents to a minimum,” Smith said.

Even if they don’t win, Smith said, new parties like Block’s serve an important role in a democracy.

“Historically so much of the value of a minor party lies in what it can do before an election,” he wrote, “spark debate, introduce new ideas, educate voters, and challenge the status quo. The bedrock First Amendment principles implicated here are especially vital in a state such as Rhode Island, where two major parties operate but where only one, the Democratic Party, increasingly dominates the legislative political landscape.”

jhill@projo.com