This CATO article by Andy Craig says the First Amendment freedom of association clause protects the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate if they wish. It says the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to uphold a ban on fusion in Timmons v Twin City Area New Party.
UPDATE: a slight error in the he article has been corrected. The story originally said Earl Warren was the nominee of three parties in California in 1946. He was the nominee of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but not the Progressive Party. There was no Progressive Party on the ballot in California in 1946. The Prohibition Party was the only third party in California that year, but it had its own nominee.
Who cares what the commie Sarwark puppet thinks?
@Ben… awww, butt hurt that some one has different opinion than you? So then you have to engage in ad hominems to further prove your lack of intelligence?
The garbage comment on September 27, 2022 at 8:39 am is from Robert K Stock.
Hey Richard, Cato corrected their article to remove the error you indicated and in a note acknowledging the change, credited you and BAN for the correction.
thanks, Jeff.
“As the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, political parties are engaged in core First Amendment activity: political speech and organizing. The Court has also held that parties have a First Amendment right to handle their internal affairs as they see fit and to nominate the candidate of their choice.”
This is the basis of Eu v San Francisco Democratic Committee, as well.