AHC/WI: Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party goes the other way

[Æsir]

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party goes the other way; electoral fusion everywhere

Between 1992 until it folded in 1998 with key staff forming the Working Families Party in New York, the New Party was a progressive/social democratic third party which built a base among community organization groups and labor unions and campaigned in favor of electoral fusion. The party's organizers believed that conventional third party strategies were implausible within the American system but that electoral fusion could give them a voice. Their hopes rested on the Supreme Court case Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, challenging Minnesota's electoral fusion ban as being an impingement on freedom of association.

While Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens voted that banning electoral fusion was indeed unconstitutional, the decision in the end was 6-3 against the party, and it soon collapsed. So, the question is, could, say, Breyer and either Justice Kennedy or Justice O'Connor be convinced to that electoral fusion bans were unconstitutional, securing a 5-4 decision in favor of the party? And if they did, what happens? In New York, where fusion is widespread, third parties have some level of influence, and although they rarely manage to elect their own candidates they have done so on occasion; James L. Buckley, younger brother of William F. Buckley Jr, defeated an incumbent Republican for US Senate in 1970 and Doug Hoffman almost won the open 23rd congressional district in the 2009 special election. How angry do the two main parties get? Angry enough to, say, try to pass a constitutional ammendment against electoral fusion? Who benefits?

 

[Æsir]

No takers? This would probably give third party politics a shot in the arm, plus this is around the same time Ralph Nader and the Reform Party were getting some traction.

 

[serbrcq]

Thanks for the idea, I used it to help fulfill another AHC - but that's in conjunction with another PoD.

 

[Plumber]

I'd say you want President Dukakis.

 

[Æsir]

I'd say you want President Dukakis.

That's a good point that slipped my mind, changing the makeup of the court more towards the left. Brennan and Marshall presumably still retire, given that their replacements will be nominated by a more ideologically sympathetic President than Bush Sr, meaning no Clarence Thomas on the court. If we get Dukakis a second term, not impossible if he handles the Gulf War similarly and manages the economy slightly better, he also gets to appoint White and Blackun's replacements, so we likely get a 5-4 liberal court rather than a 5-4 conservative one, and just have to handwave the New Party not being butterflied. Dukakis, I believe, was, despite his reputation and his social liberalism, a DLC Democrat and a bit of fiscally conservative technocrat, not much more liberal than Clinton during whose administration the New Party operated, so it doesn't seem like too much of a handwave.

Of course, who exactly would Dukakis appoint and would they be sympathetic to electoral fusion? Breyer, one of the liberals on the court, voted with the majority IOTL and against the other three more liberal justices.

 

[SonOfFreedom]

Or what about getting a couple of the conservatives to back fusion.

 

[Æsir]

Or what about getting a couple of the conservatives to back fusion.

I don't think that's very likely, given the conservative wing of the court monolithically opposed it IOTL.

 

[Simreeve]

Perhaps if you explained what the term 'electoral fusion' actually means...

 

[Æsir]

Perhaps if you explained what the term 'electoral fusion' actually means...

Electoral fusion is multiple parties nominating the same candidate on their own distinct lines on the ballot with votes for each party nominating that candidate pooling. I e, John Smith is running against Mary Johnson for Alderman; Smith runs as a Progressive-Conservative and is also endorsed by the Radical-Centrist Party, while Johnson runs as a Revolutionary-Reformist. Ten votes are cast, four for the Revolutionary-Reformist Party line and three each for the other two party's lines, but as both the other parties endorsed Smith and the votes are pooled, Smith is elected.

The practice gives influence to third parties as they can nominate more viable candidates that are aligned with them on some issues, make their nomination contingent on concessions from a major party candidate, or refuse to support an official running for reelection who hasn't been responsive to their concerns. It was used effectively by parties such as the Populists in the late 19th century, which prompted the major parties in state legislatures to ban it, and remains legal only in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont. It has been used to the greatest effect in New York and has allowed the Progressive Party in Vermont to win several State Senate and House seats.

 

[Simreeve]

Electoral fusion is multiple parties nominating the same candidate on their own distinct lines on the ballot with votes for each party nominating that candidate pooling. I e, John Smith is running against Mary Johnson for Alderman; Smith runs as a Progressive-Conservative and is also endorsed by the Radical-Centrist Party, while Johnson runs as a Revolutionary-Reformist. Ten votes are cast, four for the Revolutionary-Reformist Party line and three each for the other two party's lines, but as both the other parties endorsed Smith and the votes are pooled, Smith is elected.

The practice gives influence to third parties as they can nominate more viable candidates that are aligned with them on some issues, make their nomination contingent on concessions from a major party candidate, or refuse to support an official running for reelection who hasn't been responsive to their concerns. It was used effectively by parties such as the Populists in the late 19th century, which prompted the major parties in state legislatures to ban it, and remains legal only in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont. It has been used to the greatest effect in New York and has allowed the Progressive Party in Vermont to win several State Senate and House seats.

Ah, I see. That wouldn't work in the main British FPTTP electoral system, either in parliamentary elections or local ones, but might be viable in elections for our members of the European parliament because multi-member constituencies and a party-list system are used in that case.

 

[Æsir]

Ah, I see. That wouldn't work in the main British FPTTP electoral system, either in parliamentary elections or local ones, but might be viable in elections for our members of the European parliament because multi-member constituencies and a party-list system are used in that case.

Electoral fusion just has to do with ballot access and nominations, it isn't an electoral system; apart from the Vermont State Senate, which has multi-member districts coterminous with the counties, I believe electoral fusion exists in single-member, first past the post districts in all US states it is legal in.

 

[Simreeve]

Electoral fusion just has to do with ballot access and nominations, it isn't an electoral system; apart from the Vermont State Senate, which has multi-member districts coterminous with the counties, I believe electoral fusion exists in single-member, first past the post districts in all US states it is legal in.

But apparently we handle ballot access and nominations in a different manner from you.

 

[Wendell]

I don't think that's very likely, given the conservative wing of the court monolithically opposed it IOTL.

What reasons were given for opposition? That could be key in cracking this nut, so to speak.