On September 27, the three candidates on the ballot for Governor of Maine debated each other. See this story. The candidates were the nominees of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and independent candidate Sam Hunkler.
Reply
On September 27, the Connecticut gubernatorial nominees of the Democratic, Republican, and Independent Party debated each other. See this story. The debate did not include the Green and Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidates.
On September 27, the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for Indiana Secretary of State debated each other. The Republican nominee declined to appear. The debate was sponsored by the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Indiana, and was broadcast on zoom.
On September 26, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, a Bush Jr. appointee, enjoined a new Arizona law that seems to make it a felony for anyone to give a voter registration application to someone who is already registered in a state outside Arizona. Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v Hobbs, 2:22cv-1374.
The law says it is a crime for anyone to give a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered already outside of Arizona. The state tried to defend the law by saying a “mechanism for voting” does not include a voter registration form. The state says a “mechanism for voting” is a ballot. However, the law also banned giving a “ballot” to a voter registered outside Arizona, so it is obvious that a “mechanism for voting” must mean something beyond just a ballot.
This is an example of a legislature passing a poorly-written law. It is a bedrock principle that when legislature pass laws making certain activities crimes, those laws must be specific. Here is the opinion.
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.