On November 12, a New York state trial court in Niagara County will hear the cases filed by the Working Families Party, and the Conservative Party, over whether a state commission has the authority to ban fusion. The legislature created a commission earlier this year that was given the authority to write laws on public funding of campaigns, and also on whether fusion should continue to exist. The WFP and the Conservative Party argue the state constitution does not permit the legislature to delegate its law-making powers on this matter to an unelected commission.
The Working Families case is Hurley v Public Campaign Finance & Election Commission, E169547/2019.
As I read the creation of the Commission, they can only suggest a ban. It will take two consecutive Legislatures and a Ballot Measure to remove Fusion from the State’s constitution.
They could suggest that a candidate can only appear on one line and that other endorsements would be mentioned there. This would do away with the parasite parties (WFP, Conservative, etc) from just nominating the major party candidate for governor and get their 50,000 votes to maintain ballot access. This wouldn’t change fusion only how the ballot is organized like how California does it.
The commission’s ideas would become law unless the legislature vetoed them. So if the legislature takes no action, the commission’s recommendations would become law automatically.
Richard, what do you think the courts will do when that is challenged, as an constitutional change?
The Supreme Court upheld a ban of fusion — via the Federal Constitution — back in 1997.
I think that the New York court decisions on fusion are being misrepresented.
What they have ruled is that you can not prevent two parties from nominating the same person. But New York does not have to have partisan nominations, nor party lines, nor psrty qualification based on the gubernatorial vote. You also don’t need to permit the machinations that happen under New York con-fusion.
The key ruling was prior to the institution of the primary. The main mechanism for nomination was a party convention, but a convention could designate a committee to fill vacancies, but the law was somewhat ambigious, about whether a committee could make original nominations. A lower court had ruled that it had been the practice to make such nominees for the prior 25 years, and since this had gone unchallenged, that was the correct interpretation.
But the Court of Appeals (NY top court) went further and ruled that a party could nominate who they want.
But New York could eliminate designation by convention, and require a modicum of support for a primary nominee to appear on the general ballot, and switch to an office block ballot format.
A candidate needs the approval of the party, then the party submits a Wilson Pakula to the state, for the candidate to run on a party’s line. The state could change how a party gets a ballot line. But I support fusion, for the reason it can be used to encourage a candidate to support your issues. We used this three times with Bloomberg, who added some of the Independence Party’s issues to his platform. I was the County, State, and Executive Board Member, representing the 73rd Assembly District, Eastside of Manhattan.
Fusion = one more distraction from the EVIL rotted ANTI-democracy gerrymander systems in NY.
1/2 [or less] [plurality] votes x 1/2 [bare majority] rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 [or less] CONTROL.
Much, much, much worse primary math – communist/fascist gangster nominations.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP.
After months of litigation, the nine justices will hear arguments from both sides Tuesday to ultimately decide whether it will allow the administration to dismantle DACA. The legal team representing DACA recipients is betting on one argument to convince the conservative-leaning court during the 80-minute hearing to rule against the administration.