On March 31, the Maryland legislature passed Senate Bill 129 on an emergency basis. Since it is an emergency bill, it takes effect immediately and does not need approval by the Governor. It outlaws fusion in federal elections. It also codifies the court decision Maryland Green Party v Bd. of Elections. That decision, issued in 2003, struck down the need for qualified minor parties to submit petitions for their nominees, and was a great ballot access victory.
Although Maryland has outlawed fusion in state elections for decades, a loophole in the law seemed to permit fusion for congressional and presidential elections. That loophole is now closed.
Although it is disappointing that federal fusion no longer exists in Maryland, the other part of the bill is beneficial. When a court strikes down a ballot access restriction, it is always useful to have the legislature then amend the law to reflect the court decision, to avoid confusion. In Pennsylvania, during the last 21 years, six different ballot access restrictions have been struck down by federal courts, and yet the Pennsylvania legislature has not amended the election code to reflect any of these decisions.
Indeed, it would be nice if Pennsylvania would take Maryland’s example and codify federal court decisions that have struck down state election laws, considering that PA state court judges — despite the fact that they must have passed Civil Procedure at some point — have an annoying habit of ignoring the federal courts, leaving candidates and voters in a state of limbo.
Could you give a definition of what you mean by fusion? Thanks.
In New York, It is allowed for one candidate to be on the ballot more than once for the same office. If the candidate is nominated to be on the ballot for more than one party, then he is on the ballot for each party.
For example, a candiate can run for office on the Republican and Conservative party for the same office at the same time.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion for a real definition.