"Defending Democracy: Why New Jersey Must Reject Higher Ballot Access Barriers"
"Defending Democracy: Why New Jersey Must Reject Higher Ballot Access Barriers"
The recent push to increase the number of nominating petition signatures required for candidates in New Jersey, as proposed in Senate Bill No. 3994, is a misguided attempt to address ballot management issues by restricting access to democracy. While proponents of this bill argue that the increase is necessary to streamline the voting process and avoid overwhelming voters with too many candidates, this rationale fails to hold up under scrutiny. Instead, the proposed changes represent a significant barrier to political participation and a step backward for inclusivity and democratic engagement.
Misguided Comparison to Neighboring States
The argument that New Jersey’s signature requirements are unusually low compared to neighboring states such as Pennsylvania and New York is misleading when contextualized. While it is true that New Jersey has a smaller population than both Pennsylvania (71.6% of PA’s population) and New York (47.5% of NY’s population), the proposed changes fail to account for the unique dynamics of New Jersey’s political system. For example:
Population Proportionality: Pennsylvania requires 300 signatures for State Assembly and 500 for State Senate candidates. New York requires higher thresholds, but these are proportional to its significantly larger population. Any adjustments to New Jersey’s requirements should similarly account for its smaller population size and electoral structure.
Political Diversity: Maintaining reasonable signature thresholds supports grassroots campaigns and independent candidates, empowering them to overcome challenges and contribute to a vibrant and inclusive democratic process.
Barriers to Political Participation
Increasing signature requirements would place undue burdens on candidates, particularly those who lack the financial and organizational resources of established political parties. This move would:
Highlight Resource Challenges: Collecting thousands of signatures requires time, money, and volunteers. While major political parties are often well-equipped to meet these demands, maintaining reasonable thresholds can ensure that grassroots and independent candidates have a fair opportunity to participate and bring diverse perspectives to the political process.
Suppress Political Diversity: By raising barriers to entry, the state risks stifling political competition and diversity, limiting voters’ choices and suppressing alternative voices in the political process.
Contradicting Democratic Principles
Democracy thrives on inclusivity and competition. Raising signature requirements undermines these principles by:
Restricting Voter Choice: Voters deserve access to a broad spectrum of candidates, reflecting the diverse perspectives within their communities. Limiting ballot access narrows these choices and undermines the democratic process.
Perpetuating Voter Disengagement: When voters perceive that their choices are restricted to establishment candidates, they may become disillusioned and disengaged from the electoral process, further eroding public trust in the system. This lack of choice often leads to apathy among the electorate, as voters feel their voices are not represented or that the outcomes are predetermined by entrenched political powers. The absence of diverse candidates who can connect with the varied interests and concerns of New Jersey’s population diminishes the sense of ownership and engagement that voters have in the democratic process. Over time, this disengagement contributes to a cycle of low voter turnout, where citizens opt out of elections entirely, believing their participation will not bring meaningful change. Without a wide range of candidates reflecting the state’s diversity, many voters may feel alienated, further weakening the foundation of democracy.
The Flawed Argument of Ballot Manageability
The claim that too many candidates make the ballot unmanageable oversimplifies the issue. In reality, the design and organization of ballots—not the number of candidates—determine their usability. New Jersey’s infamous “county line” ballot design already creates confusion by prioritizing party-endorsed candidates. Rather than addressing this flawed design, the proposed legislation shifts the focus to restricting access, further entrenching systemic inequities.
Dispelling the Myth of Voter Confusion
Proponents of Senate Bill No. 3994 argue that increasing signature requirements will reduce confusion caused by an overcrowded ballot, but this claim lacks evidence. Testimony provided to the Select Committee fails to document widespread voter confusion over the number of candidates on New Jersey ballots. According to election expert Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, “The US Supreme Court said in 1968 in Williams v. Rhodes, in the concurrence by Justice Harlan, that 8 candidates on the ballot for a single office would not confuse anybody.”
New Jersey’s own electoral history supports this view. In the 2024 presidential election, there were only 9 candidates on the ballot. The U.S. Senate race featured 6 candidates, and no U.S. House race had more than 6 candidates, with an average of just four candidates per congressional district. These numbers are far from overwhelming and demonstrate that voters are fully capable of making informed decisions even with a modestly diverse ballot. Artificially narrowing the field of candidates underestimates voters’ intelligence and their ability to navigate the electoral process effectively.
Preserving the Political Status Quo
This push to raise signature thresholds aligns with broader efforts to maintain the dominance of established political parties. By increasing the barriers to entry, the legislation:
Protects Incumbents: Higher thresholds disproportionately benefit incumbents and party-endorsed candidates, who can leverage existing networks and resources to meet the requirements.
Marginalizes Outsiders: Independent and unaffiliated candidates, often the voices of innovation and reform, are sidelined, reducing competition and accountability.
Celebrating New Jersey’s Diversity
New Jersey is a state defined by its diversity—a melting pot of cultures, ideas, and voices that make it vibrant and dynamic. Its electoral system should reflect this richness, encouraging candidates from all walks of life to participate in shaping the state’s future. By raising signature requirements, the legislation risks silencing the voices of individuals who represent real change and innovative solutions for the public. Independent candidates often bring fresh perspectives, unburdened by the constraints of party politics. These are the voices that challenge the status quo, address pressing issues, and connect with everyday people who feel left behind by traditional political structures.
New Jersey voters deserve the right to choose from a diverse pool of candidates who reflect their values and aspirations. Restricting ballot access denies them this fundamental democratic freedom, placing arbitrary barriers between the people and their ability to enact meaningful change through their vote.
Let the People Decide
By artificially narrowing the field of candidates, Senate Bill No. 3994 underestimates the intelligence, engagement, and discernment of New Jersey voters. The electorate is fully capable of navigating a diverse ballot and making informed decisions about who will best represent their interests. Voters in New Jersey are not overwhelmed by choice; rather, they are empowered by it. A broad field of candidates fosters a vibrant democratic process, allowing individuals to feel truly represented. This legislation’s implicit suggestion that voters are incapable of making thoughtful decisions is not only dismissive but also undermines the very foundation of democratic governance. Voters thrive when presented with a full spectrum of options that reflect the state’s rich diversity. They deserve the opportunity to evaluate candidates on their merits, ideas, and vision for the future, rather than being confined to a pre-screened shortlist dictated by systemic barriers. Trusting the electorate’s capacity to engage with diverse candidates strengthens democracy and enhances public trust in the electoral system.
The Broader Implications
Raising signature requirements and maintaining systems like the county line ballot design contribute to a political climate where:
Grassroots movements struggle to gain traction.
Voter choice is artificially narrowed.
Political competition and accountability are reduced.
This fosters disillusionment among voters, many of whom may feel that their voices and preferred candidates are systematically excluded from the political process.
New Jersey’s leaders must prioritize inclusivity and empower all voices to participate fully in the democratic process. Instead of erecting barriers, they should focus on reforms that enhance voter engagement, encourage diverse candidacies, and ensure a fair, transparent electoral system. Democracy is strengthened not by narrowing the field of candidates but by fostering an environment where every individual’s voice has the opportunity to be heard. The people of New Jersey deserve no less.
Stephen N Zielinski Sr for Governor
