PROVIDENCE — A lawyer representing the Moderate Party of Rhode Island has urged a federal judge to hear its lawsuit challenging the state law governing how new political parties win a spot on the election ballot.

Mark W. Freel, a lawyer with the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the arguments last week with U.S. District Judge William C. Smith on behalf of the Moderate Party and its leader, Kenneth Block of Barrington.

It was a response to a dismissal motion submitted by the attorney general’s office on behalf of the Board of Elections and Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis.

The Moderate Party is challenging the state law that says new parties that want to be on the statewide ballot must either run a statewide candidate who got at least 5 percent of the vote in a previous election or gather petition signatures equal to at least 5 percent of those who voted in the previous election. And that petition signing effort cannot begin until Jan. 1 of the election year in question.

Because of the high turnout in the 2008 election, the Moderate Party would need about 23,500 signatures to get on next year’s ballot.

The state contends its law is no more onerous than other states’ and does not serve to bar the Moderate Party from the ballot.

Most of Freel’s response focused on procedural issues rather than the constitutional questions he raised in the suit. Throwing out a suit before it gets a hearing is an extreme step that is only taken if the suit has virtually no chance of success, Freel argued. The standard requires the judge to assume every fact in dispute in the suing party’s favor, he said, and in that case the Moderate Party’s claims are amply justified.

“At this stage, the plaintiffs need only allege a burden resulting from the statutory requirements, not an impossibility,” he wrote.

Freel characterized the state’s dismissal motion as a “panoply of clichés” and “paternalistic characterizations.” It zeroed in on an assertion that the Moderate Party should learn to “walk before it runs.”

“Though this quip confuses the relevant legal standard,” Freel said, “… the plaintiffs nonetheless note that their prior political activities amply demonstrate their ambulatory capacities.”

jhill@projo.com