On August 2, Massachusetts Republican state chair Amy Carnevale, appearing on a TV interview program, said Massachusetts election law requires too many signatures for candidates to get on ballots. See this story, especially the fifth paragraph.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation in which it is normal for only one candidate to be on the general election ballot for U.S. House. In 2024, out of nine U.S. House districts, only two of them had a Republican on the ballot. The problem is that the law requires 2,000 signatures per district. No other state requires such a high number of signatures for U.S. House to get on a primary ballot.
It is unheard in the other five New England states to have one-candidate U.S. House general elections.
mass – USA east coast version of RED CHINA ???
olde GOP folks in Mass moved out many decades ago – west over Hudson River
Perhaps parties in Massachusetts should be given the power to nominate candidates directly to the primary ballot by convention or caucus. Or, maybe, parties themselves should be able to determine how many signatures are needed to get on their own primary ballots.
And, of course, fees could be allowed in lieu of signatures.
I think it would also be interesting if legislative party caucuses could make direct nominations of US Senate candidates to the respective primary ballots. It would be about the closest you could get to returning to the system of Senatorial elections before the 17th amendment, without a constitutional amendment, and still retaining a popular vote.
Did you know that before the 17th amendment, legislative elections were virtually like voting for Presidential electors? Each party would name their nominees for US Senate, and their election would depend upon how their party’s legislative candidates ran. If you recall, the first Lincoln-Douglas debate was when they were running for US Senator in Illinois. The debates were staged as part of the state legislative election.