On April 17, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cut the number of signatures needed for candidates to get on a partisan primary ballot by 50%. They also extended the deadline for legislative and local candidates so that it matches the deadline for statewide and congressional candidates, from April 28 to May 5. Here is the opinion.
The U.S. Senate primary petition drops from 10,000 to 5,000. The U.S. House primary petition drops from 2,000 to 1,000. State Senate goes from 300 to 150, and State Representative from 150 to 75. Also, candidates can now e-mail petition blanks to people who want such a form. The voter can then either print the petition and sign it in the traditional way, and return it to the candidate by postal mail; or the voter can use modern technology to “sign” the electronic petition and e-mail it back to the candidate. However, in that case, the candidate must then print the petition signature and transport pieces of paper to the town clerk for verifying the signatures.
The case is Goldstein v Secretary of the Commonwealth, SJC-12931. Justice Scott Kafker wrote separately to say he is uncomfortable cutting the number of signatures, and that he would have ordered the state to accept fully electronic signatures. In other words, the candidate should be able to e-mail signed petitions to the town clerk. But, since the majority did not agree with that idea, Kafker agreed cutting the number of signatures was necessary. The court arrived at the 50% figure because half the normal petitioning period is within the time period since the health crisis has existed.
The opinion says there is nothing wrong with the primary petition requirement in normal times. It is unfortunate that no one was in a position to tell the justices that they are wrong. The Massachusetts petition requirement for primary candidates for U.S. House is the toughest in the nation. It is so tough that Massachusetts sometimes holds general elections in which over half the U.S. House districts have only one candidate on the November ballot. That happened in 2008 and 2014. Massachusetts is the only state in the period starting in 2000 that ever had a majority of its U.S. House races with only one candidate on the November ballot.
Any idea if this decision will be used as precedent for parties that are petitioning for the general election?
Gerrymanders continue — case is de facto worthless for any future election.
———-
DWP— pdf op- down about 6 inches
We emphasize that the
declaration we make and the equitable relief we provide is
limited to the primary election in these extraordinary
circumstances, which is the sole subject of the case before us,
and does not affect the minimum signature requirements for the
general election this year or for the primary elections in any
other year.3
Nov 2018 FEC, Federal elections 2018
USA gerrymander Reps —
10 Donkeys – lowest D win 59.3 PCT
0 Elephants
—–
Elephants almost DEAD in Mass —
only left/more left RED Donkey communist gangs.
I think the decision will be used to help independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to get on the Massachusetts November ballot. The decision today could not get into the issue of general election petitions because none of the plaintiffs were petitioning for the general election.
A lot depends on whether the court’s allowing partial electronic signature gathering turns out to be practical or useful.
All ballot access quotas whether monetary or forced labor petitioning are voter censorship and those laws should be abolished – totally. The open all write-in ballot is a free ballot giving every voter an equal right to choose. The right to vote entails the right to seek elective office if constitutionally qualified. Partisan controlled legislatures do not have the authority to invent added qualifications on candidates to prevent voters from choosing among all who are constitutionally qualified.
Reject fascism in elections because it has led to fascism in government. Fix the ballot.
In general, state secretaries ought to post all petition blanks on their web sites so that petitioners can print them out without having to go pick them up.
“The court arrived at the 50% figure because half the normal petitioning period is within the time period since the health crisis has existed.”
Sounds pretty specious. They would know as well as anyone that the effort typically ramps up towards the end as the weather gets better and deadlines get closer.
It seems like they were trying to make it look like they are being fair instead of actually being fair.