James Madison -- the founding father renowned for his support of rights for the minority -- would be proud of the recent legal actions taken by the Green and Constitution parties in Pennsylvania.

In a laudable attempt to expand the political choices that face the commonwealth's electorate, minor political parties are seeking an injunction against a law that requires minor-party nominees for statewide office to garner as many voters' signatures as 2 percent of the ballots cast for the largest vote-getters in the last statewide race.

Their political big brothers, the Democratic and Republican parties, have a fixed number of signatures to accumulate to get on the ballot. For governor, they have to capture 2,000 signatures, and for lieutenant governor, the threshold is 1,000.

Because there was no statewide race last year, the minor parties are encumbered with amassing around 67,000 John Hancocks. Why? Because Bob Casey Jr. won the last statewide election with 3.4 million votes -- more than any candidate in Pennsylvania's history. As lopsided as that statistic is, it does not paint the broader political picture in which minor parties find themselves.

In 2002 and 2004, the requisite number of signatures was just fewer than 30,000.

To right this disproportion, there should be an equal number of signatures required for whichever political party is seeking a place on the ballot.

A change in this law, while beneficial for democracy, would not necessarily propel third and fourth parties to the pinnacle of political power; this much is clear.

Changing the required number of signatures for minor parities does not go hand in hand with the hope that a harmonious political class will evolve.

It is only that such a change will more handily provide the public with different electoral choices. The decision to move parties into and out of office would rest upon the shoulders of the people of Pennsylvania.

It is of grave importance that there be ample choices in elections, especially statewide elections, because these elections are among the ones most closely tied to the people.

The state government is not some far away bureaucracy like the United Nations, which seems to occupy only the international news columns of The New York Times. It is the government that sticks its hand in your wallet. It is the government that determines the cost of the turnpike. And it is the government saddled with protecting residents' interests. Rightly, there should not be barriers in place that obstruct political openness.

For the American people, third parties have played a crucial role in the advancement of minority rights.

It was the Socialist and Populist parties who first supported a standard 40-hour work week. The support of these parties in the 1890s evntually led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Socialist party continued its support for workers in the late 1920s when it advocated temporary compensation for the unemployed and Social Security compensation for retired workers. Without the party's efforts, there may very well be no such monetary reward for a lifetime of service in the workforce.

And women owe a debt of gratitude to the the Prohibition and Socialist parties for promoting women's suffrage in the early 20th century. Without their help, the 19th amendment, which gave women the vote, may have never been passed.

We need to make it easier for minor parties to participate in the state's political discourse.