Thirds are heard
Lebanon Daily News

Members of Pennsylvania’s third political parties — you Constitutionalists, you Greens, you Libertarians, you independents of all stripes — it appears the state has another name for you: Ballot clutter.

In a proceeding Monday in which third-party candidates are fighting for fairness in Pennsylvania’s balloting process, attorney Howard Hopkirk of the state attorney general’s office argued that current signature requirements are needed to keep the ballot streamlined and avoid voter confusion.

“The primary reason … is to prevent ballot clutter.”

If you are not a Republican or a Democrat, you are clutter. And, as clutter, you must work far harder and spend far more — with far fewer people and far less in the way of resources — just to put a name on the ballot to represent your voice.

The voices of Republicans and Democrats are easily heard in this state. In fact, many have chosen not to continue the uphill struggle of a third-party fight and instead joined one of the two behemoths to try to gain at least some attention for their views.

These third parties need 2 percent support of a statewide race in order to retain their official minor-party status for the next election cycle. It’s made that much harder by slanted requirements for gathering signatures in support of a candidacy that tilt the playing field toward the two big parties to all-but-perpendicular.

Eric Wolfe, a local Green Party member who recently announced his run for the House seat occupied by Mauree Gingrich, noted in a recent letter that third parties now require up to 33 times as many signatures as the two major parties just to get a place at the table. It’s his view that the third parties may not survive as officially recognized because of these wildly skewed requirements, and we agree.

He offered a couple of significant bits of irony in his letter: If Pennsylvania’s ballot-access laws were applied to Utah, the Democratic Party would cease to be a political party there; if they were put into effect in Massachusetts, the Republican Party would not qualify as a party.

We believe in free and open elections. We believe in the right of candidates to present their platforms for judgment at the ballot box. We believe that the right to make this presentation ought not to make a two-party battle a predestination. There are other views; there are other platforms; there are other candidates, and they deserve the right to be heard.

Of the 8 million or so registered voters in Pennsylvania, more than 7 million are aligned with one of the two major parties. But that leaves something less than a million — but still a significant number — without a political voice that cleaves close to their own personal beliefs, and a disenfranchisement of that level cannot be viewed in any way as fair.

In everything that we do as Americans — and as American consumers — we are offered a multiplicity of choices. We are offered menus and palettes of finely differentiated shades. So, why, in making our most essential choice, the choice of whom we choose to represent our views in government, are we provided with such limited options?

We are hoping that the court sees its way clear to provide greater ballot accessibility to those with alternative views of our politics. As we saw in May, Pennsylvania voters will react and seek to make changes when properly galvanized. Nothing says it can’t happen again.

A little clutter might be good for us.