A federal judge in eastern Pennsylvania ruled late last month that the barriers third-party candidates face getting on the ballot in this state are unconstitutional.

This ruling should lead to fairer Pennsylvania elections and end what has been a clear attempt by Republicans and Democrats to keep the game — and power — to themselves.

It’s always been absurd that third-party candidates had to gather from 10,000 to 50,000 voter signatures to get on the ballot while Democrats and Republican candidates only need 2,000 signatures. The long-standing hurdle to keep out minor-party candidates was evidence of not so much a two-party system, but a one party system — the incumbent party.

While they engage in bitter partisan battles, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are ultimately united in protecting incumbents, meaning themselves.

The lawsuit that brought the issue of barriers to third-party candidates to the federal court was filed by the Green Party, the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party.

The 2004 case involving Ralph Nader brought public attention to the issue. At that time, Democrats were concerned that Nader, an independent party candidate for president, would drain votes away from John Kerry, the Democratic Party nominee.

The rules in Pennsylvania require minor-party candidates for statewide races to get 2 percent of the previous statewide election’s voter turnout. In Nader’s case, he had to secure 25,697 signatures. His campaign workers recorded about 51,000 signatures, but Democratic Party officials challenged the signatures, alleging that only 19,000 were valid. In many cases, the signatures were challenged on technicalities, such as a William Smith signing as Bill Smith or because the address written on the petition did not precisely match the person’s official address. In other cases, the signatures were clearly bogus.

The state Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision to support the Democrats’ challenge to the signatures and take Nader off the ballot. He did apear on the ballot in 34 states and the District of Columbia.

Adding insult to injury, Pennsylvania law required that Nader pay the costs of the challenge to his ballot signatures, and a Commonwealth Court ordered Nader to pay $80,000 to the Democratic challengers who forced him off the ballot.

But the main point of the Nader case is that he had to get more than 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot, while the Democrat and Republican candidate had to get only 2,000 signatures.

Nader’s experience led him to say this state’s treatment of third-party candidates was “completely the worst: the worst laws, the worst partisan judges.”

Another case illustrating the third-party unfairness involved Carl Romanelli, who ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006. State law required him to collect 67,000 signatures to get on the ballot while the Republican and Democratic candidates needed only 2,000 signatures. Democratic party officials, wanting to boost U.S. Sen. Bob Casey’s run, challenged his signatures, which got Romianelli knocked off the ballot — and had him sent a bill for $90,000.

Why should Pennsylvania voters be denied more choice in elections? Because Republicans and Democrats want it that way.

The judge’s ruling should force lawmakers to rewrite the rules for minor-party candidates so that signature requirements are equal for anyone seeking a place on the ballot.