CT’s ballot access laws are very wrong

Sunscreen, time, money, volunteers, voter data, clipboards, shoe leather. These were the key ingredients that allowed Ruth Fortune to collect 3,734 signatures over 42 days to appear on the Democratic primary ballot  for Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District.

As her husband, I got a front-row seat to watch the only person ever to qualify for a congressional race via signatures in Connecticut’s long electoral history.

But as proud as I am of Ruth and her achievements, I can’t help but recognize that something is very wrong with Connecticut’s ballot access laws, which are some of the most restrictive in the country.

Until the recent upheaval in the 1st District, not one of Connecticut’s five Congressmembers had ever faced a primary challenger at the polls, even though they’ve served collectively for over 107 years. It should not be historic, or even extraordinary, when a challenger qualifies to appear on the ballot.

Don’t worry, stodgy Connecticut! I’m going to stay away from revolutionary ideas like online signature collection and similar wholesale reforms. Instead, I will suggest incremental but important adjustments to our existing process that would improve our democracy. 

Lower the number of signatures needed

While Ruth is the first person to qualify via signatures for the congressional ballot, a handful of other historical examples exist if we broaden our scope to examine statewide races.

In 2006, Joe Lieberman rebounded from a defeat in the Democratic primary, appeared as an independent on the general election ballot after collecting signatures and ultimately won reelection to the U.S. Senate. In 2018, Bob Stefanowski mounted a predominantly self-financed primary challenge for governor, winning a place on the ballot and even the Republican nomination before a final defeat in the general election.

The prior examples of successful signature collection include a sitting U.S. senator and a businessman who contributed several million dollars to his own election campaign – hardly guys off the street. As voters, we should be outraged that we are being robbed of choice at the ballot box.

Ballot access is not just a problem for the two major political parties. In a recent email, the Libertarian party lamented that $1.25 million – nearly half of its $3 million annual budget  – will be expended on ballot access. 

We should lower the threshold for signature collection from its current 2% of registered major party voters to 1%. For independent or minor party candidates, the requirement should be halved from its current 1% to 0.5%.

As an alternative to reducing the number of signatures needed, we could also consider extending the window for signature collection beyond the current arbitrary 42 days. Perhaps candidates could begin on January 1 of an election year, giving them almost six months to accomplish what Ruth achieved in a much shorter period. More time would have a similar effect to reducing the number of signatures needed: signature collection would no longer feel like a Hail Mary for aspiring candidates.

Extending the window earlier in the year might even have a secondary effect of influencing the party conventions, the more traditional route for those who would like to run for office.

Under current law, the conventions occur at the beginning of the signature window. But if the window were opened earlier, a candidate could demonstrate that she could make the ballot via signatures long before the convention occurs. That might even sway the convention delegates in favor of candidates like Ruth, who enjoy support at the individual voter level but not from the so-called party “establishment” that controls the conventions. 

Remove the technical restrictions on who can collect signatures

For Ruth, only registered Connecticut Democrats were eligible to collect signatures on her behalf. One volunteer on her campaign had traditionally maintained an unaffiliated voter registration, feeling that her professional standing might be affected by registering with either major political party. (Reminder: your voter registration is public information and anyone can Google it). That same volunteer donated money, phone banked, door knocked and even babysat our kids while Ruth and I worked on the campaign. But she was barred by Connecticut law from collecting signatures on Ruth’s behalf.

Other aspects of campaigning face no such restrictions. Money and support can come from anywhere in the country, via individual donors, volunteers and even (for some of Ruth’s more well-heeled competition) via PACs and super PACS. Who is served by restricting the gathering of signatures to registered, in-state party members only? Not the electorate.

Eliminate the requirement to drop off signatures in individual towns

Ruth was lucky to have run in Connecticut’s 1st district with “only” 27 municipalities. Completed signature petitions, once signed, notarized and properly attested, had to be hand delivered to the Registrar of Voters in each of those 27 towns. Pity Kyle Gauck, who abandoned a signature push this year in Connecticut’s rural 2nd District. His territory has 62 separate towns!

What’s more, Connecticut law only requires town officials in each location to accept submissions from 1-4 p.m. on the day they’re due. Some town officials were willing to work with Ruth’s campaign and accept the material in advance; others refused to accommodate anything beyond their three hours of statutory responsibility. Muad Herzi, who tried and failed to win a spot on the 1st District’s congressional ballot back in 2022, had 92 signatures disqualified when his campaign was nine minutes late to drop off petitions in South Windsor. This is getting silly.

A better solution would be for the Connecticut Secretary of State to accept signatures for each campaign in one location. Pages from the completed packet could still be distributed to the individual town registrars for validation. And while I promised no radical ideas earlier, mightn’t an email with a scan of the completed signature packet suffice rather than requiring hand delivery?

Why this matters

Connecticut’s restrictive ballot access laws do not produce better candidates; they produce fewer challengers. By piling on unnecessary procedural hurdles, these laws shield incumbents from competition and discourage qualified people from ever entering the race. 

Until some of these reforms are enacted, only the well-connected and wealthy are likely to run for federal and state-wide office. It’s possible we might catch lightning in a bottle again with a candidate like Ruth, who proved it isn’t impossible for an ordinary citizen to make the ballot via signatures.

Until then, all I can do is restock our supply of sunscreen.

David Reynolds lives in Hartford.