This summer saw a slew of court cases over the issue of ballot access. Now the litigation is threatening to undermine voters’ confidence in this fall’s election.
The ability to reflect on and elect our own leaders is the core of our democracy. Democrats should have been thrilled to see third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Cornel West stepping up to provide voters with an alternative choice to the two-party monopoly.
They were not.
The Democratic Party has filed multiple lawsuits in key swing states to restrict third parties’ ballot access. This lawfare will undermine voter confidence in the 2024 election by limiting voters’ ability to exercise choice.
Jill Stein, the Green party nominee, launched her White House campaign in November of 2023. Since then, Democrats have filed multiple lawsuits across the country to keep her off the ballot in swing states such as Wisconsin and Georgia. She survived the challenge in Wisconsin after Democrats claimed that the Green Party’s candidates should be barred from the ballot because the party lacked officeholders to nominate them. Unfortunately for Stein, Democrats’ efforts have been successful in Georgia after the court held that the Georgia Green Party cannot prove they will have ballot access in twenty states by Georgia’s ballot printing deadline – mainly because the documentation used to prove ballot access is not provided to the Green Party until after the deadline. According to her website, Jill Stein or the Green Party have ballot access in thirty states.
Cornel West has faced similar technical challenges to his ballot access. Just last weekend it was confirmed that he survived a challenge to his ballot appearance in Michigan after Democrats argued technical errors with signatures and his affidavit of identity precluded his inclusion. West has fared worse in other swing states. A Pennsylvania judge sided with the Democratic secretary of the commonwealth to bar West from the ballot on a technicality. In Georgia, an administrative law judge sided with the Georgia Democratic Party and barred him from access to the ballot on a technicality despite finding his petitions met Georgia’s minimum signature threshold.
These actions by the Democratic Party are self-serving. In Michigan, a recent poll shows Trump leading Harris by 1 point, with Jill Stein and Cornel West each earning 1% in the state. The CBS estimates tracker shows similar results in Wisconsin, where Harris is barely edging Trump and with third-party candidate Jill Stein sitting at 1%. Finally, a recent poll conducted by Cook Political Report composed of voters in the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Nevada shows Harris with a meager 3-pont lead over Trump, with third-party candidates garnering 10% of the vote. Democrats must prevent third parties from appearing on the ballot so they can bolster Kamala Harris’ fledgling campaign.
This use of lawfare to limit voters’ choice is a far cry from the democracy messaging Democrats have been utilizing. On the contrary – it is the exact opposite of what democracy looks like. A robust democracy is one where multiple parties compete for votes in free and fair elections. Democrats are attempting to limit free elections by using lawfare to bar from the ballot candidates who inconvenience their grasp on power. In effect, this use of lawfare subverts our democracy. Consequently, this tactic will undermine voters’ faith in our election system and republic.
Voters are already wary of the U.S. electoral system. A recent poll found that 40% of Republicans and 26% of independents are not confident that their votes will be accurately counted. Moreover, a separate poll found over 50% of voters are concerned that ballots are not counted accurately and that mail-in ballots or drop boxes are illegally used or misused.
Democrats must cease the lawfare and enable all candidates who meet the thresholds for ballot access to appear on the ballot. The continued use of lawfare to restrict voter choice will exasperate voters’ wavering faith in the electoral process.
