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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
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