On February 25, the Democracy Exchange Network (DEN) convened to discuss an issue that seldom gets attention even among reformers. Specifically, what voters should see on the ballot when they cast their votes.

The topic may sound technical. But it isn’t. At its foundation, it addresses the question: Should political parties and civic organizations be allowed to place endorsements directly on the ballot in local and primary elections?

This may initially seem like common sense. Voters walk into low-turnout municipal races and crowded primaries with almost no information. Beyond a party label, they are handed a list of names and told to decide. 

Reformers have spent decades talking about “voter education.” So, what if the ballot itself carried more information?

The Case for On-Ballot Endorsements

John Ketcham of the Manhattan Institute opened the discussion with a proposal to allow vetted political parties and civic institutions to display endorsements directly on municipal ballots. This would potentially extend to primaries as well.

The argument is straightforward:

Local elections are information deserts. When voters lack meaningful cues, they default to name recognition, ballot position, or skip the race entirely. Endorsements, Ketcham argued, would help voters differentiate candidates in crowded fields.

He pointed to a 2025 Manhattan Institute poll of New York City voters to show the public's appetite for the proposal. The poll found 58% support for the idea, compared to 31% opposed. 

The proposal included guardrails:

• Limits on the number of endorsements displayed
• Signature requirements for endorsing entities
• Candidate control over which endorsements appear
• Clear deadlines to prevent chaos

The promise? Clearer lines of accountability between candidates and the organizations backing them. Stronger local party institutions. Better-informed decisions at the ballot box.

The Administrative Reality Check

Amber McReynolds, drawing from her extensive experience administering elections in Denver, Colorado, offered a contrasting view. She pointed out the logistic hurdles that the proposal will immediately face before implementation.

Election administrators already operate under tight timelines, constrained budgets, and increasingly complex ballots. Adding endorsements would mean verifying them, managing disputes, redesigning ballots (which will be longer), and potentially defending legal challenges.

McReynolds also raised a sharper concern: if endorsements are placed on ballots, what prevents “pay-to-play” dynamics? 

What stops dark money entities from manufacturing influence through endorsement labels? What impact would adding official endorsement cues have on local nonpartisan elections – like school boards?

Daniel Anderson of Ballotpedia offered his own perspective. Ballotpedia already aggregates endorsements, publishes sample ballots, and builds digital voter guides. He understands how important this information is for voters.

However, like McReynolds, he raised an issue with ballot modification. Essentially, his position was: Why redesign ballots when digital voter guides and online voter portals can provide the same information more flexibly and at lower cost?

This would also allow for greater transparency, since more information can be made available to the public. If voters are going to see endorsements, Anderson argued, they should also see who funds the endorsing entity.

The Bigger Question: Where Should Information Live?

The discussion moved beyond mechanics into equity and power.

Would on-ballot endorsements help underrepresented candidates (e.g. women, candidates of color, political newcomers) by giving them credible signals of support?

Or would they reinforce existing networks of power, privileging well-connected organizations and incumbents?

There isn’t strong empirical evidence either way, which several attendees noted should give reformers pause.

Participants also explored alternatives. For example, Alan Durning of Sightline highlighted Oregon’s “aggregated fusion” model, where candidates can list multiple party or organizational affiliations.

He argued this is a structured way to surface meaningful endorsements without cluttering ballots beyond recognition. 

Others pointed to expanded official voter guides, hybrid digital-print systems, and clearer occupational or affiliation labels – something that California does on its ballots.

Post-meeting survey data from 23 attendees shows how divided reformers are on the topic.

Rob Richie of Expand Democracy framed the meeting around DEN’s mission: examining the “rules of the game,” not the policy outcomes of any particular race. That’s exactly what this conversation was about.

If voters are walking into low-information elections, reformers are faced with three options:

1. Accept it.
2. Improve the information ecosystem around elections.
3. Change the ballot itself.

Reformers largely reject Option One. Meanwhile, Option Three is the most direct – and the most divisive.

While the February 25 DEN meeting did not settle the debate, it exposed fault lines within the reform community. There is a growing appetite to reach voters where they make decisions, but structural and logistical hurdles cannot be ignored.

Regardless of where reformers stand, improving voter information is a shared goal. Whether the ballot itself should become a billboard for endorsements remains an open – and deeply contested – question.