To the Editor;
The recent decision by the State Supreme Court to allow independent candidate Kellin Rowlands to remain on the ballot as a candidate for Bethlehem Town Board was a win for democracy and I was so disappointed to see the decision appealed by our County Board of Elections. New York’s ballot access and petitioning laws are notoriously difficult, some of the most difficult in the nation, and they serve as an impediment to running for office. In order to qualify for the ballot, independent candidates must collect signatures from a certain percentage of registered voters in the district. This can be a daunting task, especially for candidates who are not well-known or who do not have a lot of money, especially for attorney’s fees. This has a chilling effect for anyone other than an endorsed major party candidate to run for office.
We need more choices in our local elections. The local Republican Party is only running one candidate in this election cycle for town offices. Why do we even bother to have an election when the elected offices are decided whenever the Bethlehem Democratic Committee chooses its roster? Rowlands is an independent candidate who has a different vision for Bethlehem. By allowing him to remain on the ballot, voters are given the opportunity to choose the candidate who best represents their
interests. More choices and more voices make a better democracy.
New York’s ballot access and petitioning laws should be reformed to make it easier for independent candidates to run for office. Our laws on petitioning for office are archaic, excessive, and no longer serve a valid purpose. They are primarily used to protect the duopoly candidates. Winning an election shouldn’t be about political parties keeping other candidates from the ballot with gamesmanship. Let the voters decide whether Kellin Rowlands is the best choice for Bethlehem, not the courts based on a technicality.
Barbara Collura,
Delmar
