The Democrats of northwestern Pennsylvania certainly are rejoicing that the name of Dr. Steven Porter won’t be on the ballot in November in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives seat from Pennsylvania’s 3rd District, which includes most of Mercer County.

Porter, who as an independent could not run in the Pennsylvania primary, was denied the chance to run as an independent in November when a judge ruled that many of the names on a petition filed by the Erie-area candidate were improper.

Apparently Porter, a former Democrat who had lost to seated Rep. Phil English in the last two elections, had supplied a petition with 3,200 signatures, well over the required number of 2,171. However, Porter admitted that he had helped fill in some of the information on the petition, although all the signatures were valid.

But under state law — make that archaic state law — the petitions must be completely filled out by the person signing.

Therefore, three Mercer County Democrats, fearing that Porter would take away some of their candidate Kathy Dahlkemper’s votes, challenged the petition.

Senior Commonwealth Court Judge James Kelley, in ruling that Porter did not have enough legitimate signatures to be on the independent ballot, seemed almost apologetic.

In ruling against Porter, the judge commented: “The outcome is unfair and actually prohibits the well-established principle that the Election Code is to be liberally construed.”

He’s right, of course. Filling out these petitions is a very stringent exercise. Not only must the signature be identical to that on the voter’s registration, it also must contain no mistakes as to address, hometown and dates.

In following the letter of the law and rejecting Porter, the judge also took a slap at the state Legislature when he pointed out that it continues to throw up hurdles for “potential candidates without the resources and advantages of major party affiliation.”

That is no surprise. The two-party system in this country works hard to perpetuate itself and strives to make it difficult for third-party candidates to ever get elected.

But then again, Porter ran before and should have known the rules concerning filing of petitions. Sources told The Herald that the English camp had felt many of Porter’s petition signings to run as a Democrat had been improper, but chose to ignore them rather than bring attention to his candidacy.

However, this case brings to light that our Legislature needs to take a serious look at the rules of candidacy. They should make it easier for candidates, rather than more difficult.

What is the harm of a candidate filling in the proper addresses for petition signers, as long as the people properly sign their name themselves? This is especially true when it comes to recruiting elderly voters, who may have difficulty seeing or even writing because of health issues.

Porter is somewhat a maverick who ran without the true backing of the Democratic Party in the past. Still he pulled in about 40 percent of the vote. The Herald begrudgingly endorsed Porter the last time he ran, even though the chances were slim, simply because we felt a change was needed.

The Democratic Party, which is firmly behind Dahlkemper, feels it has a legitimate shot at unseating English this time around. So having Porter off the ballot is a huge relief.