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.

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less