No Labels, the centrist group looking to field a 2024 presidential ticket, just announced that they’ve earned ballot access in 10 states. As someone who has twice had to use the signature process to gain ballot access in a single state, I can tell you that this is no small feat. No Labels achieved this milestone despite significant active opposition from the Democratic Party.

The No Labels ballot access milestone is yet another reminder of how desperate the American electorate is to have any alternative to the projected Trump/Biden rematch.

The difficulty in gaining ballot access has severely limited the choices Americans have when it comes to our leaders. The resulting lack of innovation and accountability is one of the reasons we have lost ground against much of the rest of the world in key areas such as social mobility, median income growth, health outcomes, and educational attainment.

In many ways, this lack of competition in our government, and more broadly in the marketplace of ideas, can be traced back to a “good government” reform with unanticipated consequences.

In the mid-to-late 19th century, America adopted the secret ballot for elections. This election reform was intended to end widespread voter intimidation. Prior to the secret ballot, voters cast ballots that were printed by the parties and often distinguishable by their color. Gangs of ruffians would bully citizens who carried the “wrong” color ballot to the ballot box – “vote green and see red,” so to speak.

Like so many changes to our electoral system, the duopoly used this well-intended reform to reinforce their position in American politics. Prior to the secret ballot, despite the bullying, minor parties thrived. Ballot access wasn’t an issue. It just required a willing printer. With the government in control of the ballot access process, however, the duopoly could use its control to erect barriers to competition. Not surprisingly, they did just that.

A couple of current examples show how difficult ballot access is today.

In New York, prospective parties need to collect 45,000 signatures with at least 500 in each of the 13 congressional districts, and do it over a five-week period.

In California, a new party needs to either register over 75,000 new party members or collect over a million signatures.

In Texas, a new party needs to collect 80,000 signatures over an 11-week period during presidential years, and any person who voted in the presidential primaries cannot sign the petition.

The rules are now so complicated that it takes teams of lawyers to decipher them. Assuming everything goes well, the cost of gathering the signatures required to gain ballot access as a presidential candidate is now estimated to be between $50-75 million. Is it any wonder that the only credible presidential challenge to the duopoly in the last hundred years was billionaire Ross Perot?

As if these barriers aren’t high enough, the Democratic Party is looking to add to them in its efforts to derail No Labels. The Democrats’ concern is that the No Labels ticket will siphon away enough votes from Joe Biden in individual states to “spoil” the race.

This may be a valid concern given the broad dislike that the electorate has for the major parties’ leading candidates. In fact, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are only two points away from being the most disliked duo in the history of presidential polling. Does anyone really believe that either of their unfavorable ratings is going to get better after another several billion dollars of negative ad spending?

The Democrats fear No Labels will deliver victory to Trump or a Trump-like candidate in states that Biden would have won. In the Democrats’ worst-case scenario, given the mood of the electorate, the No Labels candidate might actually win states that they believe are entitled to Biden.

Their approach to this electoral challenge was predictable – filing lawsuits to challenge No Labels’ signature-gathering efforts, conspiring with local officials to erect obstacles to No Labels’ efforts, and hiring a creature of the Washington swamp to obstruct No Labels at every turn.

Dick Gephardt, the modern-day political ruffian tasked with this effort, may not be using a club to carry out his party’s wishes, but his actions are intended to have the same chilling effect on voters. A former working-class Democrat, Gephardt has spent the past two decades as a lobbyist, working the former corridors that he controlled and dining regularly at the “power” hot spots in Washington.

The problem with the Democrats’ efforts to shut down No Labels’ nascent ballot-access campaign is that they run contrary to the organization’s desire to be the party of democracy. What could be more democratic than giving voters another choice? Attempting to limit voter choice might just give more ammunition to critics who contend Democrats care about democracy only to the extent they can use their embrace of it to win elections. After spending much of the 2022 campaign cycle elevating election deniers in Republican primaries, the party is already on shaky ground in that regard.

The frantic approach by Democrats also points to the seriousness of the No Labels effort.

For the first time in three decades, there is a chance of an independent candidacy gaining real traction. In a nation where 60% of voters consistently say they wish they had a credible alternative to our two major parties, Democrats would be wise to conclude that the No Labels effort is not going to be a one-time thing.

Rather, No Labels likely represents the beginning of a continuous challenge to a two-party system that voters overwhelmingly believe is dysfunctional and corrupt.

The Democrats’ approach to No Labels is, therefore, not only adverse to their espoused democratic values but likely one they’ll have to repeat in subsequent elections.    

What if instead of filing lawsuits and backchanneling with state partisan bureaucrats to obfuscate the process of ballot certification, the Democrats took a novel approach? What if they embraced competition and told us why their candidate was the best choice among a broader group of contenders? This approach would require Democrats to set aside their argument that anti-Trump voters are captive to Joe Biden. If the Democrats want to prove that they want empowered voters and not electoral hostages, they need to embrace competition instead of fighting democracy itself.