Montana State Senator Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman) has introduced SB 257, to make it possible for two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. If a candidate is the nominee of two parties, his or her name would be on the November ballot twice, once for each party label. This makes it possible for voters to choose which party to support, when they vote for that candidate.
The bill has a hearing in the Senate State Administration Committee on Wednesday, February 16. The bill seems to have been introduced because of interest among some members of the Constitution Party to be able to cross-endorse some Republican nominees. The Constitution Party nationally is unusually active this year in lobbying for ballot access reform. The party is also active lobbying for better election laws in Alabama, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Also the party is actively opposing the Nevada bill to drastically increase filing fees. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the news about the Montana bill.
Perhaps the NY Legislature party hacks can detect the MT bill ???
We should consider this in Alaska as well.
Smart thinking on the part of the CP there in Montana. I just wish they would also wise up and change their name to Montana Independence Party as I honestly believe their membership would grow. “Independence Party” as a name attracts independents – many of whom in a state like Montana would agree philosophically with the CP there. “Constitution Party as a name does not.
And to Alaska Constitution Party, I say “yes, you should consider this for Alaska. But since you refuse to work with the already established “Alaskan Independence Party,” you’ll have to stick with the less-appealing “Constitution Party” name.
This legislation has been heard in several legislative sessions over the years and we didn’t see the CP at those hearings. I think the lack of 3rd party candidates is the problem. The Republican led legislature will never support this concept.
How many gerrymander States have de facto ONE party regimes — with all the NUTCASE extremists as a result ???
What just happened in Egypt ???
RJ says: You hit upon a problem that is germane among 3rd parties. Too many of them – leaders and membership – have this simplistic mentality of what it takes to make a 3rd party successful. 3rd parties have got to get this nonsense out of their head that they are going to become a major party and win outright. With very, very, few exceptions, 3rd party candidates do not win and none of them are not going to become a major party within my lifetime. All 3rd parties can ever expect to accomplish for the foreseeable future is to become the “balance of power” in an election.
First, 3rd parties need to approach the major party which most closely agrees with them philosophically. If they cannot persuade the major party to nominate candidate that shares some of their philosophical doctrines, then they need to run a candidate against the major party candidate – solely for the objective of defeating him/her – and then hopefully the 3rd party will get the attention of the major party leadership. It may take 3 or 4 or more major elections to accomplish this.
Second, once that attention and respect has been won, then 3rd parties need to approach the major party and say, “in the future if you want our support, then change the election laws where we can fuse with those nominees of your party that we do agree with.”
Once major parties realize they face defeat if they do not accomodate the 3rd parties philosophically and work for fusion, then they will work for such. And there is always the “punishment” feature of fusion. If a major party wins with 3rd party co-nomination – but then reneges on pledges made to the 3rd party, then in the next election the 3rd party nominates it own candidate with the sole objective of defeating and punishing the “reneging” major party candidate. The major parties want to win -regardless of what it takes. Sooner or later, they will learn their lesson.
In New York State, 3rd parties learned this lesson and successfully used fusion for decades. Beginning with the American Labor Party in the early 1930’s and carried on with the Liberal Party through the 1940’s, 1950,s and 1960’s, they forced the Democratic Party to “tow the line.” To a lesser extend, the Conservative Party has forced the Republican Party in NYS to fuse with the Conservative Party in the last several decades.
Again, this is the answer. It is sad so many 3rd parties and their leaders still refuse to learn it. Yes, many “liberal” states seem to be tinkering with “top two” which would render fusion useless. But most states will remain with the traditional General Election Ballot with all parties qualifying having ballot position. So we should not let this “top two” problem in California intimidate us. I hope some 3rd parties will wise up and start using the clout they do have, and stop day dreaming about something that is not coming true any time soon.
New York has been using fusion since the 19th century. It didn’t all start in 1936.
Don’t do it, Montana! Fusion kills dissent.
Are the party hacks in the NY Legislature any more or less EVIL crazy because of fusion votes — esp. the party hacks elected with the marginal 3rd party votes ???
Richard Winger,
What was the first election in New York that had Fusion
in New York.
As I recall Fusion ended in California in 1959. The GOP
rejected it again circa 1963 in California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Fusion didn’t entirely end in California in 1959. It continued to be legal, but it was tough to do, because the candidate had to win the primary of the “other” party via write-ins at the primary.
Fusion was legal in all states before government-printed ballots were created in the 1890’s, because when there were no government-printed ballots, government had no ability to tell two parties that they couldn’t jointly nominate the same candidate.