Delaware Representative Earl Jaques (D-Newark) has introduced HB 11, to make it illegal for two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. See this story. Similar bills have been introduced in recent past sessions of the Delaware legislature, but have not passed. Thanks to Eric Dondero for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The Republicans just stunningly won the New Castle County Exec’s office, formerly held by Chris Coons. I wonder if this is an effort to head off any future GOP victories in Deep Blue Delaware. Note the Reps party affiliation is ‘D’.
Richard Winger
Did not something happen like this in California circa 1959? I remember there was talk about “Fusion” when I joined TAMS (Teenage Members of United Republicans of
California) in the early 1960’s. I was a member of TARS
in the early 1960’s, then when UROC was formed during
the Goldwater era, I joined TAMS.
Speaking of FUSION, I understand that Secrtary of State (CA) Lewis H. Brown (GOP) had to deal with a FUSION case
also, viz., in the late 19th Century. Same party as in
Craig v. Brown, you cited on another post.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
California made fusion much more difficult in 1959, but it was still legal after 1959. Before 1959, anyone running in a partisan primary could “cross-file” in as many party primaries as he or she wished, and would appear on multiple primary ballots. After 1959 a candidate could still get the nomination of a party that he or she wasn’t a member of, but had to do it the difficult way, by winning that party’s primary by write-in votes. That continued to be the law until Prop. 14 went into effect early this year. Now parties don’t have nominees any longer, except for President.
Gee – ALL of the People [Electors-Voters] will be doing the nominations in CA — and NOT subfactions of robot party hacks.
Has WA State managed to survive with its top 2 primary system into 2011 ???
P.R. and App.V.
NO primaries are needed.
Richard: When you say, referring to Prop. 14, “Now parties don’t have nominees any longer, except for President” are you saying in the Top Two Primary, candidates (for Governor, for example) will be listed on the ballot without their political party affiliation?
Richard,
Could one theoretically be a fusion Presidential candidate in California?
#5, no, I’m not saying that. Candidates who are members of qualified parties will have next to their names on the ballot, “My party preference is the (whatever) Party.” The whole system is unconstitutional if that leads voters to think that the party chose them, or approves of them. That is what the 9th circuit will be deciding in the Washington state case, now that the Washington case has gone to the 9th circuit.
#6, yes, California and half the states permit fusion for president. Presidential electors in all states are chosen by party conventions or party committee meetings (not primaries), so the normal anti-fusion laws are sometimes worded not to cover presidential elector candidates. The last fusion presidential candidate in California was Wendell Willkie, who was on the ballot in 1940 as “Republican, Townsend”. The Townsend Party was a ballot-qualified in California at the time.
Richard. I think that in Alabama presidential fusion candidates would not be allowed – unfortunately.
Alabama Statues Section 17-6-21 (a)reads in part:
Contents;
(a) “…The name of each candidate shall appear but one time on the ballot and under only one emblem.”
Am I overlooking something?
#8, you’re right, Alabama is not a state that permits fusion for president.
Richard,
Do you have the list of States that allow Presidential fusion?
I know New York does.
Richard Winger,
My concern with the Carol Winkler intervention was she wanted
to get seats on the State and County Central Committee of the
American Independent Party, since the Imperial County Registrar of Voters has ruled that “Independent Party” on the
HAVA form was the “The American Independent Party” for registration purposes.
That is why I still believe the venue of your lawsuit needs
to be in Sacramento County and not San Francisco County, because all 6 of the quilifed political parties need to be
parties to that lawsuit. The American Independent Party,
additional needs to be a party, because of the taking of
the use of INDEPENDENT away from the control of the American
Independent Party and how using INDEPENDENT would mislead the voters.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman
American Independent Party