Federal courts have ruled in the past that if ballot access is impossible, or virtually impossible, and a party or a candidate who wants to be on the ballot sues, and shows evidence of a modicum of support, then the court should put that party or candidate on the ballot even if it submits few if any signatures or does no other substantial work to qualify.

U.S. Supreme Court examples:   (1) Eugene McCarthy was put on the Texas ballot as an independent presidential candidate in 1976 even though he did not submit any signatures.  McCarthy v Briscoe, 429 US 1317 (1976); (2) the National Democratic Party of Alabama (an African-American Party not affiliated with the Democratic Party) was put on the ballot for county office in Hadnott v Amos, 394 US 358 (1969); (3) an independent US Senate candidate, Clifton Whitley, was put on the ballot by a 3-judge US District Court Judge in Mississippi in 1966, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision with a full opinion, Allan v State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969); (4) several minor parties were put on the Michigan ballot in 1976 by a 3-judge U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision, 430 US 924 (1977).  The lower court decision cite is 419 F.Supp.1002 (e.d. 1976).

US Court of Appeals examples:  (1) the Fifth Circuit put McCarthy on in Florida in 1976 even though he didn’t petition.  McCarthy v Askew, 540 F 2d 1254 (back then, Florida was in the Fifth Circuit because the Eleventh Circuit didn’t exist); (2) the Sixth Circuit put a Communist Party candidate on the Michigan ballot for State Board of Education.  Goldman-Frankie v Austin, 727 F.2d 603 (1984); (3) the Ninth Circuit put the Populist Party on the Idaho ballot in 1984 even though it only collected fewer than 300 signatures.  Populist Party v Evans, not reported, 84-4108.

US District Court examples:  (1) Tennessee 2012, the Green and Constitution Parties were put on the ballot, Green Party of Tn. v Hargett, 882 F.Supp.2d 959 (m.d.); (2) Kansas 1982, the Libertarian Party was put on, Reagan v State of Kansas, unreported, 82-4083; (3) Michigan 1980, Communist Party presidential nominee Gus Hall was put in the ballot, Hall v Austin, 495 F.Supp.782 (e.d.); (4) Ohio 2014, four minor parties were put on the ballot, Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, order of January 7, 2014 not reported, s.d., 2:13cv-953; (5) Ohio 1970, Socialist Labor Party put on ballot, Socialist Labor Party v Rhodes, 318 F.Supp. 1262 (s.d.); (6) Michigan 1988, Lenora Fulani put on the ballot as an independent for president, not reported, e.d., 88cv-72331; (7) Delaware 1976, Eugene McCarthy put on ballot, 421 F.Supp.1193.

Bill Scher has this long and detailed article about ballot access in 2020 for the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties.

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.