SJC halves candidate signature requirements

THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT on Friday ordered the state to halve the signature requirements for all candidates running for office in the September 1, 2020, primary in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

The court also gave candidates for district and county office an extra week to turn in their signatures and ordered Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin to accept nomination papers with electronic signatures, under certain circumstances.

“The minimum signature requirements, which may only impose a modest burden on candidates in ordinary times, now impose a severe burden on, or significant interference with, a candidate’s right to gain access to the September 1 primary ballot, and the government has not advanced a compelling interest for why those same requirements should still apply under the present circumstances,” Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote in the 41-page decision.

The court had been reluctant to act, given that the Legislature was trying to deal with the issue. But all indications were that the Legislature, acting in informal sessions where a lone member can block action on a bill, was not going to be able to get the job done before the signature filing deadlines. “We have little choice but to provide equitable relief,” Gants said.

Republican US Senate candidate Kevin O’Connor, one of three candidates who asked the SJC to reduce or eliminate the signature requirement, called the ruling “a win for public health and constitutional principles.” He said it was “unfortunate” that the Legislature failed to act, but was grateful the court did.

Under the ruling, the signature requirements will be: 5,000 signatures for candidates for US Senate; 1,000 signatures for US House; 500 signatures for governor’s council and county-level offices; 150 signatures for state Senate; and 75 signatures for state representative. Each number is half of what it would have been under current state law.

District and county candidates will have to turn their signatures into local election officials by May 5, the same deadline as statewide and federal candidates, rather than an earlier deadline of April 28. A deadline for those candidates to submit the papers to Galvin’s office will also be postponed by a week.

Galvin will be required to accept signatures that are done electronically, but only in a particular format. The candidate will have to scan an image of a filled-out nomination paper, which voters can sign using a mouse or stylus or can print and sign by hand. That document can then be submitted to the candidate either electronically or in paper form. The candidate will still have to submit a hard copy to election officials. Until now, only an original nomination paper signed by hand could be submitted.

The emergency petition was filed with the SJC by three candidates – O’Connor, Democratic US House candidate Robbie Goldstein, and Democratic state representative candidate Melissa Bower.

O’Connor became outspoken on the issue after his 86-year-old father was hospitalized with COVID-19. The three candidates argued that the coronavirus outbreak, which makes the social interaction required to collect signatures on nomination papers dangerous, makes meeting the signature requirements an “unconstitutionally severe burden” on their right to seek elective office.

Galvin’s office, in a court brief, agreed that the current signature requirements should be adjusted but also raised logistical concerns – for example, that municipalities may have trouble accepting and processing electronic signatures submitted online.

Gants wrote in the decision that the right to seek elected office in Massachusetts is a fundamental constitutional right. In normal times, he wrote, the signature requirement imposes only a “modest” burden, justified by the state’s interest in safeguarding election integrity by avoiding overloaded ballots.

Today, Gants wrote, traditional methods of signature gathering are impossible: few people are walking the streets, malls and businesses are closed, and public meetings are being held virtually. Every interaction with a stranger carries the potential for infection, and people are reluctant to pick up a pen or paper that has been held by someone else.

“If a candidate seeks to obtain signatures on nomination papers in the traditional ways, he or she reasonably may fear that doing so might risk the health and safety not only of the person requesting the signature but also of the persons who are signing, of the families with whom they live, and potentially of their entire community,” Gants wrote.

While there are still ways to obtain signatures – some candidates left nomination papers on tables outside their house while others asked voters to print and mail signed nomination papers – Gants noted that the pandemic made it significantly harder to gather signatures safely.

Among the high-profile candidates who had not yet obtained enough requisite signatures were US Sen. Ed Markey, who is in a tough race to keep his seat against US Rep. Joe Kennedy.

The Legislature was considering a bill that would have halved the signature requirements only for those offices that had requirements of at least 1,000 signatures – US Senate, US House and Governor’s Council. The bill, which passed the state Senate, would not have touched the lower requirements for state senators and representatives. But the bill just narrowly passed the Senate, after Republican attempts to hold it up failed, and its fate was uncertain in the House.

Gants wrote that the court considered the approach taken by the Senate of only altering the requirement for offices with larger signature requirements, but he said the signature requirements were crafted to reflect a balance between the number of people represented by the elected office and the burden involved in obtaining the signatures, and the court did not want to alter those ratios.

Justice Scott Kafker wrote a concurring opinion expressing concern that state election officials said they are unable to come up with a way technologically to let voters sign forms electronically, then submit them to election officials for verification electronically. Kafker wrote that if the Legislature and Galvin agreed to accept electronic signatures, the court would not have had to rewrite state election laws.

He called it “inexplicable” that, in the modern era, election officials could not accept and verify electronic signatures. “In this ‘high tech’ era, and in the midst of a global pandemic that severely restricts close personal contact, the failure to be able to solve manageable technological problems on the eve of an election is confounding and distressing,” Kafker wrote.

State Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, a Newton Democrat who has been advocating for lawmakers to reduce the signature requirement, said she thinks it is “very unfortunate” that the Legislature did not act in time. “I’m disappointed in that respect that the SJC would act on something that was in the domain of the Legislature,” she said. But Creem said the policy change itself is something that should have been done “weeks ago.”

Pam Wilmot, executive director of the good government group Common Cause, said she thinks the SJC decision was appropriate. “This is a unique moment and it does cause for unique responses,” Wilmot said. “We cannot ignore that we’re in the middle of a pandemic and that people are supposed to be sheltering in place.”