Vermont permits aggregated fusion. It is possible for two parties to nominate the same person, but in order to get the nomination of a second party, the candidate must win that party’s nod by write-ins at the primary. When someone is the nominee of two parties, both party labels are printed on the November ballot next to the candidate’s name, but there is only one square on the ballot to vote for that person, so the voter can’t demonstrate which party is preferred.
Vermont Representative Michael McCarthy (D-St. Albans) has introduced Draft Bill 23-0705. Because it is just a draft bill, not an introduced bill, the text is not available on the Vermont legislature’s website. But according to this article, it would ban fusion. The article says that Representative McCarthy wants to ban fusion because of the 2022 election for Sheriff in Franklin County. That is puzzling, because in that race, only one candidate’s name was printed on the ballot. He was John Grismore, and he had the nomination of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. But he was found to have kicked a prisoner in August 2022, and two individuals then declared write-in candidacies against him. However, Grismore was elected, although he is still facing charges.
It’s not clear why Representative McCarthy wants to ban fusion. His bill also alters the filing deadline for independent candidates, but the article doesn’t say whether he wants to make that deadline earlier, or later. Perhaps he wants to make it later, so that in the Franklin County sheriff’s race, it would have been possible for an independent to have qualified. The current deadline is in early August, which was a little bit too early to allow a new candidate into the race. The article says the draft also would require write-in candidates to file a declaration of candidacy in order for the write-ins to be counted.
IMO, altho Eu v San Francisco doesn’t mention the question of fusion, the principle of regarding political parties as private associations implies that they have the right to nominate whomever they want, even if that nominee might be the nominee of another party, as well.
Walter — Precisely right. I wrote about this a bit last year regarding the NJ lawsuit.
https://www.cato.org/blog/first-amendment-fusion-voting
Ignore Andy Craig. He’s a commie who along with Nick Sarwark attempted to overthrow the LPNH.
Does Andy believe in forced collectivisation?
Anyway, it seems to me that fusion would be a great way for different factions of the Libertarian Party to come together from time to rime in support of common candidates.
There could be no fusion under my proposed system. A voter can physically only stand in one party’s corner on election day.