On July 10, proponents of fusion filed the final brief in In Re Malinowski, N.J. Superior Court, App. Div., A-3542-21T2. This is the first court to hear the case. Plaintiffs argue that the ban on letting two parties nominate the same person violates the New Jersey Constitution. The case was filed two years ago and has proceeded slowly. One of the plaintiffs is the Moderate Party of New Jersey. It wanted to jointly nominate Tom Malinowski, who was the Democratic nominee for U.S. House in the Seventh District in 2022.
IMO, the ban on fusion also violates the principle of Eu v San Francisco. If political parties are private associations, there is no valid reason for the state to tell them who they may or may nor nominate any qualified candidate, including whether or not to nominate a member of another party.
The write-in only ballot makes such issues as “fusion” candidates irrelevant. The state could NOT prohibit voters from voting for a person regardless of how many parties “nominated” that person. By having the first word and the last word on the ballot only the voter “nominates” and votes for a candidate simultaneously.
WZ–
EU PARTIES-
1. FACTION OF PUBLIC ELECTORS IN PUBLIC NOMINATIONS OF PUBLIC CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES
2. CLUBBY PRIVATE GROUP FOR JUNK PRIVATE CLUBBY STUFF
—
P-A-T
I like the standing vote by party idea I’ve been reading about here
There is no valid reason for teh state to tell a political party whom it may or may not nominate.
I agree with Libertarians for Tuberville.