It was the rule in Pennsylvania until a court order in June (http://www.ydr.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/01/minor-parties-get-easier-ballot-access-pa/86605528/).
To summarize, because the statute is a wall of text, the rubric is complicated. The nominee of a political "Party" (which ends up being just the Republican and Democratic Parties) has to get just 2,000 petition signatures across the entire state to get on the primary ballot for president and senator. But if you are a minor party, your president or senator candidate has to get a number of signatures equal to 2% of the number of votes won by the candidate for at-large office at the last general election. Compare Section 912 to Section 951 in the statute as it's currently written (PDF) (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1937/0/0320..PDF). The definitions of "party" and "political body" are in Section 102 and cross-referenced at Section 801.
EDITED to add and clarify: your "political body" doesn't qualify for political "party" status until your candidate gets 2% of the total vote cast in the state, and 2% in at least 10 counties, in the general election immediately preceding the primary or general election you're trying to get signatures for. (See Section 801.) That is to say, if you don't get that 2% plus 2% in one general election, you're stuck having to get 21,000 versus 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot for the next general election. Your question was, Can you give me an example of a state in which the party's votes in the last election determine the onerousness of that party's campaign in the next election? and that's the answer.
The stated public policy for this scheme is to keep frivolous candidates off the ballot. The counter statement is that there's no such thing as a frivolous candidate in a democracy. The way the law plays out on the ground here is that the Constitution and Libertarian parties can usually get their candidates on the ballot, while the U.S. Taxpayer and Green parties tend to be more hit-and-miss, especially in non-presidential election years. For the 2016 election, without the June court order, the signature threshold for non-major parties would have been over 21,000 -- more than 10 times the requirement for the established (more like "establishment," amirite) parties.
So there's a court order in place now, and I'm not sure what will be happening with the state's ballot access law. There's an HB 342 (PDF) (http://bit.ly/2aSlHif) in the House Rules Committee, (full status page in case the bit.ly link goes away) (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2015&sInd=0&body=h&type=b&bn=342), that would codify the 2,000 signature threshold for all "parties" and "political bodies." At least one minor party, though, isn't happy with HB 342 (PDF) (http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/our-objections-to-HB342.pdf), because it requires a county-by-county strategy that isn't feasible for parties with regional, rather than state-wide, support and resources. They present some caselaw in the letter that translates their feasibility issues into constitutional ones; I wish them luck. IIRC Democratic Governor Wolf has indicated he'll sign it; but he and the General Assembly don't often get along too well, so he may not actually have it delivered to him any time soon.
no subject
To summarize, because the statute is a wall of text, the rubric is complicated. The nominee of a political "Party" (which ends up being just the Republican and Democratic Parties) has to get just 2,000 petition signatures across the entire state to get on the primary ballot for president and senator. But if you are a minor party, your president or senator candidate has to get a number of signatures equal to 2% of the number of votes won by the candidate for at-large office at the last general election. Compare Section 912 to Section 951 in the statute as it's currently written (PDF) (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1937/0/0320..PDF). The definitions of "party" and "political body" are in Section 102 and cross-referenced at Section 801.
EDITED to add and clarify: your "political body" doesn't qualify for political "party" status until your candidate gets 2% of the total vote cast in the state, and 2% in at least 10 counties, in the general election immediately preceding the primary or general election you're trying to get signatures for. (See Section 801.) That is to say, if you don't get that 2% plus 2% in one general election, you're stuck having to get 21,000 versus 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot for the next general election. Your question was, Can you give me an example of a state in which the party's votes in the last election determine the onerousness of that party's campaign in the next election? and that's the answer.
The stated public policy for this scheme is to keep frivolous candidates off the ballot. The counter statement is that there's no such thing as a frivolous candidate in a democracy. The way the law plays out on the ground here is that the Constitution and Libertarian parties can usually get their candidates on the ballot, while the U.S. Taxpayer and Green parties tend to be more hit-and-miss, especially in non-presidential election years. For the 2016 election, without the June court order, the signature threshold for non-major parties would have been over 21,000 -- more than 10 times the requirement for the established (more like "establishment," amirite) parties.
So there's a court order in place now, and I'm not sure what will be happening with the state's ballot access law. There's an HB 342 (PDF) (http://bit.ly/2aSlHif) in the House Rules Committee, (full status page in case the bit.ly link goes away) (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2015&sInd=0&body=h&type=b&bn=342), that would codify the 2,000 signature threshold for all "parties" and "political bodies." At least one minor party, though, isn't happy with HB 342 (PDF) (http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/our-objections-to-HB342.pdf), because it requires a county-by-county strategy that isn't feasible for parties with regional, rather than state-wide, support and resources. They present some caselaw in the letter that translates their feasibility issues into constitutional ones; I wish them luck. IIRC Democratic Governor Wolf has indicated he'll sign it; but he and the General Assembly don't often get along too well, so he may not actually have it delivered to him any time soon.