It took a lot of running by gubernatorial candidate Pat LaMarche to get Maine Greens back to where they were four years ago. Now, as they did after Jonathan Carter’s 1994 campaign, they can celebrate a good showing at the polls. They can plan the creation of a new party. They can expect it all to be yanked away two years hence.

If a state wanted to craft a ballot-access law designed to keep new parties from gaining a foothold, Maine’s would be the model. The 5 percent requirement in gubernatorial elections seems reasonable, a bar of modest height that a candidate who runs an energetic, issues-oriented campaign should be able to clear with ease. The 5 percent requirement in presidential elections is not reasonable, it virtually guarantees start-up parties will be in a constant state of starting over.

After they lost official status following the 1996 presidential election, Maine Greens challenged the state’s ballot-access law, saying, correctly from the common-sense point of view, that a national election for president should have no bearing upon a state party. The Greens have lost in a succession of state and federal courts and now pin their hopes on a federal appeal.

A decision is expected next month, but Greens should not hold their breath. Lawsuits regarding ballot access are common throughout the country. The courts consistently rule that the issue is not whether states make it easy or even practical for new parties to form, just so it’s remotely possible and equally difficult for all. The problem is not with the courts that review ballot-access laws, it’s with the legislatures that write them.

Third parties have tried to get Maine’s law changed before, with no success. Unless the federal appeals judge pulls a pleasant surprise, the Greens, allied with the Taxpayers, the Reforms and other third-party hopefuls, should make another run at the Maine Legislature. Perhaps a compromise could be worked out; swapping a slight raising of the gubernatorial vote requirement for the elimination of the presidential one, or maybe another in-state measure of voter support in non-gubernatorial years could be adopted.

Or perhaps those who want a political alternative should stand their ground, knowing that the low turnout Nov. 3 makes the citizen-initiated referendum easier then ever. While such petition drives may be in danger of becoming overdone, this case — one in which the Republicans and Democrats who hold the key to change have a vested interest in not turning it — seems to be precisely why the citizen referendum was devised in the first place.

Lawmakers who wonder why they should help would-be competitors might consider the history of ballot-access laws. For more than a century, this country existed quite happily without such laws, without even printed ballots. And voter turnouts regularly exceeded 80 percent.

States began enacting restrictive ballot laws in the 1920s. They were tightened in the ’30s and tightened even more in the ’60s. These periods coincide with the vote being extended to women, with the labor turmoil during the Great Depression and with the voter registration drives of the Civil Rights Era. Thus, tough ballot-access laws are rooted in a desire to prevent the oppressed from banding together. Maine lawmakers who support the status quo should be aware that they are defending the indefensible.

Maine does not have the strictest ballot-access law in the country, but with its give-and-take mechanism, it certainly is one of the most devious. Southern states are more straightforward in their opposition to third parties. In Florida, for example, as many as 100,000 voters would have to renounce their Republican or Democrat membership and actually enroll in a new party before it can get on the ballot. Filing fees are high. Florida ballots have not listed a third-party gubernatorial candidate for nearly 50 years.

Several Western states — California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska — have very liberal ballot-access laws. Requirements for petitions, voter support and filing fees are low. Minor parties abound and, for the major parties, the sky has not fallen. Oregon, for instance, had five official minor parties on the ballot for governor this year, from Socialist Workers to Natural Law. None got even 3 percent of the vote. In none of those states has a minor-party candidate won a governorship or a seat in Congress.

Oregon’s experience demonstrates the two major knocks against minor parties: that they encourage digruntled activists to break into ever-smaller, ineffective factions; and that votes are wasted on candidates with no chance of winning. Republicans and Democrats should let minor parties and their supporters work those things out by themselves. Let the Green Party see if it has the consensus-building skill to avoid becoming the Green, Greener and Greenest parties. Let the choice between idealism and pragmatism be made in the privacy of the voting booth.

And before the Maine Legislature elevates its beloved two-party system to the level of motherhood and apple pie, it might consider that voter turnout is falling, an increasing number of legislative seats are uncontested, Maine voters enacted a term-limits law and have elected independents for governor in three of the last seven elections. Otherwise, the two-party system is in great shape.