Legal Tactics as Political Tools Threaten Voters' Trust in Elections

This summer, a series of court cases revolving around ballot access has emerged, posing a threat to voters' confidence in the upcoming fall elections. The essence of our democracy lies in our ability to select our leaders. The rise of third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Cornel West should have been a welcome development for Democrats, offering voters an alternative to the two-party system. However, this was not the case. The Democratic Party has initiated multiple lawsuits in crucial swing states to limit the ballot access of third parties. This legal maneuvering could potentially undermine voter confidence in the 2024 elections by restricting voters' freedom of choice. Jill Stein, the Green Party's nominee, began her presidential campaign in November 2023. Since then, Democrats have filed numerous lawsuits nationwide to prevent her from appearing on the ballot in swing states such as Wisconsin and Georgia. Despite surviving a challenge in Wisconsin, where Democrats argued that Green Party candidates should be excluded from the ballot due to a lack of party officeholders, Stein has not been as fortunate in Georgia. The court ruled that the Georgia Green Party could not demonstrate that they would have ballot access in twenty states by Georgia's ballot printing deadline, primarily because the documentation proving ballot access is not provided to the Green Party until after this deadline. According to Stein's website, she or the Green Party have ballot access in thirty states. Cornel West has encountered similar technical obstacles to his ballot access. Recently, it was confirmed that he survived a challenge to his ballot appearance in Michigan, where Democrats claimed that technical errors with signatures and his affidavit of identity disqualified him. However, West has not been as successful in other swing states. In Pennsylvania, a judge agreed with the Democratic secretary of the commonwealth to exclude West from the ballot on a technicality. Similarly, in Georgia, an administrative law judge sided with the Georgia Democratic Party and denied him ballot access on a technicality, despite finding that his petitions met Georgia's minimum signature requirement. The Democratic Party's actions appear to be 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%. 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 slim 3-point lead over Trump, with third-party candidates garnering 10% of the vote. To bolster Kamala Harris’ struggling campaign, Democrats must prevent third parties from appearing on the ballot. The use of legal tactics to limit voters' choice contradicts the democratic principles Democrats have been promoting. In fact, it is the antithesis of democracy. A vibrant democracy is one where multiple parties compete for votes in free and fair elections. Democrats are attempting to limit free elections by using legal tactics to exclude candidates who threaten their hold on power. This use of legal tactics subverts our democracy and will likely undermine voters' faith in our election system and republic. Voters are already skeptical of the U.S. electoral system. A recent poll found that 40% of Republicans and 26% of independents lack confidence that their votes will be accurately counted. Furthermore, another poll found that over 50% of voters are concerned about the accurate counting of ballots and the potential illegal use or misuse of mail-in ballots or drop boxes. Democrats must stop using legal tactics and allow all candidates who meet the thresholds for ballot access to appear on the ballot. The continued use of legal tactics to restrict voter choice will only exacerbate voters' waning faith in the electoral process.

Bottom Line

The use of legal tactics as a political tool is a dangerous precedent that threatens the very fabric of our democracy. It not only undermines the democratic process but also erodes public trust in our electoral system. What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think it's fair for political parties to use legal tactics to limit ballot access? Share this article with your friends and let's get the conversation started. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.