Every election cycle, political observers try to read the tea leaves of nomination papers.
For statewide candidates in Wisconsin, the requirement is relatively straightforward: collect at least 2,000 valid signatures from eligible voters to earn a place on the ballot. Most serious candidates turn in significantly more than the minimum to provide a cushion against challenges and invalid signatures, with the maximum being 4000.
But while campaigns often tout their nomination paper totals as evidence of strength, the reality is more complicated. The number of signatures a candidate collects is not a reliable predictor of who will ultimately win an election–after all, it isn’t always easy going to a stranger’s door step or cornering them outside of a grocery store and asking them to give you their name and address. Plenty of candidates have turned in mountains of nomination papers only to fall short on Election Day, while others have won races despite filing comparatively modest totals.
What nomination signatures can reveal, however, is something else: the strength of a campaign’s organization.
Collecting thousands of signatures across a state as large as Wisconsin requires volunteers, local coordinators, event planning, voter contact, and a campaign infrastructure capable of mobilizing supporters. In that sense, nomination papers can offer an early glimpse into which campaigns have built genuine grassroots networks.
That’s what makes this year’s Democratic gubernatorial primary filings noteworthy.
Assemblywoman Francesca Hong, once viewed as a longshot candidate, submitted the maximum number of signatures accepted by election officials—4,000. By comparison, former Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes submitted 2,245 signatures, while Lt. Governor Sara Rodriguez turned in just over 3200.
Standing alone, those numbers do not tell us who Democratic primary voters will ultimately support. But they do align with a broader trend that political observers have been noticing for months: Hong appears to be the only candidate in the field with a substantial grassroots operation on the ground.
According to recent reporting, Hong’s campaign says it has roughly 3,000 active volunteers, has already organized more than 250 events across Wisconsin, and has hundreds more planned in the months ahead. Those efforts not only helped produce the largest signature haul in the Democratic field, but have also helped propel Hong from underdog status to the front of the pack.
That reality has created a dilemma for Democratic insiders. While Hong’s grassroots strength is undeniable, some party operatives have expressed concerns about her general election viability, pointing to past statements on policing and criminal justice that Republicans would almost certainly highlight in a statewide race. Recent stories revisiting Hong’s past calls to abolish police departments and leaked audio discussing a world without prisons reflect those concerns.
Yet Democratic leaders face a difficult balancing act. The very activists and volunteers who built Hong’s campaign are also among the party’s most enthusiastic grassroots supporters.
Wisconsin Democrats have seen this dynamic before. A decade ago, Bernie Sanders energized progressive activists and younger voters with an insurgent campaign that challenged the party establishment. Many of his supporters felt alienated when party leaders ultimately rallied around Hillary Clinton, creating divisions that lingered well beyond the primary.
Four years ago, in the four-way primary for Senate, Mandela Barnes was seen as the grassroots progressive candidate going up against the more corporate, establishment Democrat picks in then-State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski and billionaire Alex Lasry. Four years later, much of that progressive grassroots base appears to have shifted to Hong.
Nomination papers may not predict election outcomes. But they can offer clues about where a campaign’s momentum is coming from—and right now, much of the grassroots energy in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary appears to be flowing in Francesca Hong’s direction.
