alternatehistory.com

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?
Top