Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Can't gather signatures at social distance, Massachusetts candidates say in suit

Signature
rolfo eclaire/Getty Images

Coronavirus risks have made collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot, once a mundane task, nearly impossible for candidates.

Under normal circumstances, campaigns accomplish the task easily, by hosting events or posting up in high-traffic places like grocery stores. None of those options are viable now, with almost every state issuing stay-at-home orders lasting at least another three weeks.

Now candidates are going to court in search of help. On Wednesday, candidates running for three different offices in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit asking a judge to give them some kind of break from the state's requirements.


The claim may be their only shot at keeping their candidacies alive, because the Democratic Legislature has so far spurned calls from politicians in both parties for a special measure shrinking or altogether dropping the signature rules this year.

The plaintiffs face three different sets of rules. Two running for Congress have until May 5 to qualify for the ballot, just a day after the planned expiration of statewide public gatherings limits and non-essential business closures. But a state legislative candidate is supposed to finish her paperwork by April 28.

Democrat Melissa Bower Smith needs just 150 signatures by then to get on the ballot as a primary challenger to 10-term state Rep. James Murphy. She says she was planning to get twice that many in case some were deemed invalid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Democrat Robbie Goldstein, an infectious disease doctor, needs at least 2,000 signatures to mount a longshot primary bid for Congress against veteran Rep. Stephen Lynch. Republican attorney Kevin O'Connor faces the biggest hurdle: at least 10,000 signatures to be a potential GOP candidate for the Senate.

The Democratic incumbent, Edward J. Markey, is also struggling to gather enough signatures for the Senate race.. With four weeks left, he's at least 3,000 short of the requirement to qualify for the Sept. 1 primary. His challenger, Rep. Joe Kennedy III, has already acquired 50 percent more than the minimum required.

The lawsuit says the coronavirus has "transformed Massachusetts' ballot access laws — which are reasonable, in ordinary times — into unconstitutional barriers standing between candidates and the ballot." It asks the court to either cancel the signature requirements or relax them by reducing the thresholds, extending the deadlines or allowing electronic collection.

Since Massachusetts doesn't accept e-signatures, candidates have had to mail signature request forms, with prepaid postage, to supporters and hope to receive enough back in time.

State lawmakers came to an impasse on the signature issue when writing a coronavirus response bill last month, although that did allow communities to postpone spring elections and expand vote-by-mail options.

For one plaintiff, the outbreak has affected more than the campaign: O'Connor's 86-year-old father was hospitalized after testing positive for Covid-19 and showing severe symptoms.

"It is entirely possible that the virus was introduced into my family through the petition-gathering process, and it is possible that volunteers for campaigns across the state could unwittingly spread the infection if the legislature does not take action," said O'Connor, whose campaign ceased signature gathering efforts a month ago.

The coronavirus has also halted signature gathering efforts nationwide for ballot measures. At least 18 campaigns across 10 states have suspended their in-person signature gathering efforts due to the virus. Six groups in Arizona have filed two separate lawsuits to have the requirements waived temporarily.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less