Ballot controversy in PA

This year Steven Porter attempted to run as a third party candidate in the 3rd District of Pennsylvania. He obtained 3,000 signatures, more than the necessary 2,171. Unfortunately for Porter, these signatures were challenged by a few supporters of the Democratic challenger because Porter had filled out some of the date and location information for the signers, but never a signature. All parties agreed that each signature was authentic and that there was no forgery of signatures, but nonetheless Pennsylvania courts ruled that he could not appear on the ballot since he had written some of the information in himself. This morning the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld that decision, despite Porter's appeal that the law (this and the fact that third parties need twice the number of signatures as the major party candidates) made it unreasonably difficult for third party candidates and goes against the concept of free and equal elections. The court agreed the state legislature should revisit the laws and the impact they have on candidates, but that nothing was unconstitutional about the laws and as such under the law he was off the ballot. So, based on a technical detail, with signatures of 3000 people that no one thinks are forged, Porter is out.

How do events such as these affect the democratic process? Perhaps the worst is the de-legitimizing of the the process to those 3rd district Pennsylvanians. Many perceive any limit on who the people can choose to represent them as inherently undemocratic, and seeing this sort of technicality get in the way of it causes people to start to think that something is wrong with the process established. And if the process is flawed, then that weakens the claims that anyone elected by that process is legitimate. Our government's ability to govern is based on the fact that the people believe it should be. Undermining that belief undermines the government itself.

In general this controversy seems to tie to a theme of conflict throughout the United States - how do we prevent corruption without making it unreasonably difficult for third parties to participate? The same problem arises with campaign finance reform - how do you prevent corruption from campaign finance without hindering the third party's ability to express their views? Corruption is also damaging to the legitimacy of the government. These two forces seem at tension, and it will be up to the American people to decide the relative importance of preventing corruption and choice.