Fusion voting
 |
|
Fusion voting allows more than one political party to nominate the same candidate. Under this process, if a candidate receives multiple nominations, the candidate will either appear on the general election ballot multiple times or once with all affiliations listed, depending on their state.
Proponents of fusion voting argue that it increases the influence of minor parties by enabling voters to voice their support for minor party platforms while also giving candidates a greater chance of winning the election through multiple endorsements. Opponents argue that fusion voting gives disproportionate power to minor parties because major party candidates must vie for their endorsements.[1][2][3]
As of May 2023, five states allow for some form of fusion voting: Connecticut, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.[4][5]
Usage and history
According to the Harvard Law Review and Ballot Access News", two distinct forms of fusion voting exist. The first form, known as disaggregated or full fusion voting, is used in Connecticut and New York. (It is allowed in Mississippi as well, but it is not used as of May 2023.) In full fusion voting, a candidate can be listed on the ballot multiple times, once per party, if the candidate receives multiple nominations. Votes for the same candidate on each party line are added to produce the final vote tally for that candidate.[6][4][7][8]
Oregon and Vermont use a different form of fusion voting known as aggregated or partial fusion voting. In these states, candidates who are nominated by multiple parties appear on the ballot once with a list of every party that nominated them.[6][4]
In the 19th century, fusion voting was common throughout the United States. According to MSNBC, fusion voting contributed to the rise of the Populist Party, whose members threw their support to candidates from both major parties, thereby bolstering Populist influence. In the 1892 election cycle, Populists supported the Democratic Party. Subsequently, Republican lawmakers scaled back fusion voting provisions in the states. The practice then fell out of favor in the 20th century.[6][4][9]
Supporting and opposing arguments
Supporting arguments
Suporters of fusion voting argue that it increases the influence of minor parties, enabling voters to voice their support for minor party platforms while also giving candidates a greater chance of winning the election by allowing endorsements from multiple parties.
Supporters of disaggregated or full fusion voting argue that it provides voters with multiple scenarios to support the candidate they prefer most. They also maintain that it provides voters with a unique way to communicate their priorities, and offers minor parties more opportunity to demonstrate their influence, because if a candidate wins an election with a significant portion of votes coming from the minor party listed, then voters will have sent a clear message about their priorities and the minor party will have demonstrated its influence on the election.[1][6][4][8]
Supporters of aggregated or partial fusion voting argue that even though it provides voters with only one scenario to support the candidate they prefer most, minor party voters can still choose their own standard bearer while avoiding accusations of supporting an unrealistic candidate.[6][4]
Opposing arguments
Opponents of fusion voting argue that it gives disproportionate power to minor parties because major party candidates must vie for their endorsements.
Opponents of disaggregated or full fusion voting argue that it is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of one person, one vote. Opponents also maintain that partial fusion decreases the level of competition among political parties by allowing smaller parties to benefit from the popularity of larger ones.[6][4]
Opponents of aggregated or partial fusion voting argue that it does not allow minor party voters the same opportunity to communicate their priorities as disaggregated or full fusion voting. Opponents also argue that minor political parties do not have the right to associate with the candidates of other parties.[6][4]
Noteworthy events
Moderate Party sued New Jersey to overturn ban on fusion voting (2022)
The Moderate Party of New Jersey sued the state in November of 2022 in an effort to overturn a century-old ban on fusion voting. According to the New Jersey Monitor, the Moderate Party is a minor New Jersey political party that supported Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski in the 2022 general election.[10] The Moderate Party's lawsuit asked a state appellate court to allow Malinowski's name to appear on the ballot twice in a practice called fusion voting, which has been banned in the state since 1922. According to legal filings, the Moderate Party alleged that a ban on fusion voting "violates numerous provisions of the state’s constitution, including those guaranteeing rights to free speech, assembly, and equal protection."[10] The congressman’s critics allege that the lawsuit effort is "a transparent bid to help him win re-election during a challenging year for his party."[10]
South Carolina banned fusion voting (2022)
On May 13, 2022, South Carolina's governor signed House Bill 4919 into law, resulting in a number of changes to election laws in the state. Among these changes was a ban on candidates being nominated by multiple political parties, which is a requirement for fusion voting.[11]
Delaware banned fusion voting (2011)
On May 11, 2011, Governor Jack Markell (D) signed House Bill 11 into law, banning fusion voting. The bill passed with the support every legislator except for two members of the state house and two members of the state senate. According to H.B. 11, "a candidate for office nominated by a party under this Section must be a registered member of the party nominating such candidate at the time of such nomination, as shown on the voter rolls of the Department of Elections (except in the case of presidential and vice- presidential nominees, who need not be registered voters in the State of Delaware).”[12][13]
Twin Cities Area New Party sued Minnesota to overturn ban on fusion voting (1994)
In 1994, the Twin Cities Area New Party attempted to nominate Andy Dawkins for the Minnesota House of Representatives. Dawkins, however, had already been nominated for that office by the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Minnesota does not permit fusion voting; consequently, state officials refused the nomination of the Twin Cities Area New Party. The party filed suit, alleging that state law violated the party's free association rights, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of the state, but the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed that decision, finding in favor of the Twin Cities Area New Party. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[14][15]
On April 28, 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the state, finding that the prohibition on fusion voting did not unduly burden the associational rights of citizens. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist penned the majority opinion.[14][15]
| “ | We conclude that the burdens Minnesota's fusion ban imposes on the New Party's associational rights are justified by 'correspondingly weighty' valid state interests in ballot integrity and political stability. In deciding that Minnesota's fusion ban does not unconstitutionally burden the New Party's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, we express no views on the New Party's policy based arguments concerning the wisdom of fusion. It may well be that, as support for new political parties increases, these arguments will carry the day in some States' legislatures. But the Constitution does not require Minnesota, and the approximately 40 other States that do not permit fusion, to allow it.[16] | ” |
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 "Fusion and the Associational Rights of Minor Political Parties.” ‘'Columbia Law Review’’ 95, no. 3 (April 1995): 683-723.
- ↑ New America Foundation, "The Case for Fusion Voting and a Multiparty Democracy in America," September 29, 2022
- ↑ The Clarence Bee, "State Senate candidate calls for an end to fusion voting," June 23, 2010
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Brennan Center for Justice, "Testimony on Fusion Voting before the Oregon Legislative Assembly," April 6, 2023
- ↑ Justia, "2022 Idaho Code § 34-704. Declaration of candidacy," accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 "Fusion Candidacies, Disaggregation, and Freedom of Association.” Harvard Law Review’’ 109, no. 6 (April 1996): 1302-37.
- ↑ Idaho Law Review 56, 2(1), "The Misguided Rejection of Fusion Voting by State Legislatures and the Supreme Court," accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Ballot Access News, "More Than Semantics: Distinguishing Dual Labeling from Traditional Fusion Voting," September 16, 2023
- ↑ MSNBC, "How fusion voting played a role in American politics," April 14, 2014
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 New Jersey Monitor, "What is fusion voting and why do some want to revive it in New Jersey?" August 1, 2022
- ↑ WISTV 10, "What changes to SC’s voting law will mean for June primary, future elections," May 16, 2022
- ↑ Justia, "2022 Delaware Code § 41-4108. Candidates for election," accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ Delaware General Assembly, "House Bill 11 - 146th General Assembly (2011-2012)," accessed May 4, 2023
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Legal Information Institute, "Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party (95-1608), 520 U.S. 351 (1997)," accessed March 4, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Oyez.org, "Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party," accessed March 4, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||