Fusion voting, a practice where candidates can appear on the ballot under multiple party lines, may soon make a reappearance in Wisconsin. A lawsuit was filed to reinstate this practice, arguing that it would strengthen the voice of independent voters and minor political parties amidst the mounting tensions between Democrats and Republicans. This move follows hot on the heels of a costly Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which saw unprecedented investments from both major parties and their affiliates.
Historically popular in the 1800s, fusion voting allows a candidate to be listed as a nominee by both major parties, like the Republicans or Democrats, and smaller political parties. Critics argue this could complicate the voting process, potentially confusing voters while also endowing minor parties with undue influence as major-party candidates seek their endorsement.
Presently, fusion voting is legally practiced only in Connecticut and New York, although there are movements in states like Michigan, Kansas, and New Jersey to revive it. The advocacy group United Wisconsin has initiated a lawsuit to gain affirmation that minor parties can nominate candidates already nominated by major parties. With fusion voting, a candidate could appear as “John Doe, Democrat” and “John Doe, Green Party,” combining all votes into a total sum.
Dale Schultz, co-chair of United Wisconsin and a former Republican Senate majority leader, expressed the group’s desire to legally associate with major party candidates. Schultz, who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, argues that Wisconsin’s ban on a candidate’s name appearing multiple times for the same office, which dates back 130 years, infringes on constitutional rights. The lawsuit challenges the Wisconsin Elections Commission in Dane County Circuit Court.
Joel DeSpain, spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, refrained from commenting on the lawsuit. Jeff Mandell, the attorney representing United Wisconsin, asserted that Wisconsin voters seek broader options, criticizing the entrenched two-party system. However, Anika Rickard from the Wisconsin Republican Party opposed the potential revival of fusion voting. She claimed it could mislead voters and compromise election integrity.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party refrained from taking a formal stance on the matter. Nonetheless, last year, they attempted to remove Green Party and independent presidential candidates from the ballot, fearing a potential split in their voter base that might benefit the opposition.
In the 1800s, fusion voting was prevalent in the U.S., allowing political groups to back candidates jointly. This approach played a key role in the establishment of the Republican Party in 1854, when anti-slavery factions coalesced in Wisconsin to form the GOP. However, by 1897, the Republican Party moved to ban fusion voting to limit the Democrats and restrict the rise of other parties. The recent lawsuit contends this ban violates Wisconsin’s constitution, which guarantees equal protection, a principle they argue should permit fusion voting.
Throughout the early 1900s, similar prohibitive measures on fusion voting were adopted nationwide as major political parties sought to curtail the growing influence of minor parties.