Why you should care
The Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition in seeking more choices for all of us on Election Day. Current Pennsylvania law makes it difficult for independent and minor party candidates to appear on the ballot — much more difficult than in most other states. The result is less political competition, less political dialog, and fewer choices to vote for in November. The current system is simply not fair and does a great disservice to the ideal of democracy and to the voters. What you can do about it.
The trainwreck of 2006
In 2006, independent and minor party candidates were required to collect over 67,000 valid signatures simply to get on the state-wide ballot in Pennsylvania on Election Day. Legally, Democratic and Republican candidates require no signatures to get on the state-wide ballot, and even the 2,000 signatures required for the Primary Day ballot are ridiculously smaller than the virtually impossible hurdle of 67,000.
The solution
Pennsylvania law needs to be changed by the State Legislature to lower the outrageous signature requirements. The Coalition has drafted a Voters' Choice Act and is seeking sponsorship of it in the General Assembly.
Pennsy shouldn't make third-party runs so tough
The Hagerstown Herald-Mail, October 18, 2005
It's no surprise that America's two main political parties don't want to make it easy for a third or even a fourth party to muscle in on their turf.
But should it be impossible for third-party candidates to get on the ballot?
We say no, especially in the state of Pennsylvania, which some would argue was the cradle of the American political system.
Well, unless you're a Republican or a Democrat, the Keystone State's laws make it mighty difficult for any political movement in its infancy to survive.
The Associated Press reported that when Ken Krawchuk ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 2002, he needed to collect about 32,000 signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
About 21,000 of those were required by law, but the Krawchuk campaign obtained 11,000 more to ensure that the campaign wouldn't go bust if a significant number of signatures were challenged.
There is a good reason to be careful. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review this week reported that Pennsylvania's 1995 motor-voter law, which allows people to register when they renew a driver's license, has caused problems. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice election officials say it makes it difficult to purge from the rolls voters who have left the state.
But the state's difficulties in keeping track of who is registered and who isn't shouldn't have any bearing on how difficult it is to for third-party candidates to get on the ballot.
For example, the aforementioned Krawchuk, who said he might try a U.S. Senate bid in 2006, would need to gather 100,000 signatures to ensure himself a spot on the ballot.
The required number of signatures is 67,000. The rest would cover the campaign in case many signatures are successfully challenged.
How was the 67,000 figure arrived at? Pennsylvania law says that candidates need 2 percent of the number of votes cast for the highepst vote getter in the last statewide election.
It's Krawchuk's bad luck that in the 2004 election, Robert P. Casey Jr. amassed a total of 3.4 million votes in his race for state treasurer.
Does it make sense that circumstances beyond a candidate's control should dictate the number of signatures, or that Krawchuk be required to obtain four times as many names as third-party candidates in 2004?
No, this law does not make any sense. It should be changed so that prospective candidates would need to gather signatures from a certain fixed percentage of the state's registered voters.
If that total is difficult to ascertain, election officials have to go with their best estimates, remembering that it is they - and not the candidates - who are charged with keeping track of such things.
Site last updated » March 4, 2008 «