Repealing Anti-Fusion Laws: A Path to Electoral Reform?

Many people are sick of the two-party system. In fact, 44% of the U.S. population identifies as independent. It should not be terribly surprising, however, that a good majority of these voters still lean heavily toward one of the major parties. 

It’s the pragmatic thing to do, right? Even if a person is dissatisfied with the state of politics or party leadership in general, they usually have a few issues they feel strongly about that keep them attached to a particular party. 

The result, however, is that Democrats who are pro-life and Republicans who support gun control are effectively disenfranchised. The primary system, as well as party leadership, caters to ideologically extreme voters and does what it can to ensure party nominees are aligned on these issues. 

All this despite 42% of Democratic voters favoring some kinds of restrictions on abortion and at least 20% of Republican voters supporting stricter gun regulation, and about 50% favoring current restrictions (despite these restrictions being removed in many states passing Constitutional Carry laws). 

The question stands, then, how could the people get party leadership to listen? Or vote in a way that does not compromise their values?

Many people have heard of proposals like ranked choice voting which seeks to do just that. It seems clear that such a proposal won’t upend the two-party system, at least immediately; nevertheless, there is some reluctance to embrace this system by partisans. Even if it were passed, it is not immediately clear how that would impact third parties without a sufficient local presence in the municipal areas most likely to pass such reforms. 

There is, however, a state-level backdoor approach to electoral reform that could yield a great deal of influence over the two major parties to common-sense, people-focused third parties like American Solidarity. 

Before politicians during the Gilded Age used anti-fusion laws to cement political control over their state governments, fusion tickets were common. Fusion tickets involved a political candidate accepting the nomination or endorsement of more than one political party. Third parties like the Populist Party were then able to exert a much broader influence on the government, largely by endorsing the weaker of the major party candidates (mostly Democrats) in exchange for some policy concessions. 

Now, of course, that is not possible. Anti-fusion laws are in effect in a majority of states, so political candidates are only allowed to accept the endorsement or nomination of one party. 

It has been this way in Indiana, for example, since the 1980s, via Indiana Code 3-8-7-21. 

“(a) If a person has been nominated by two (2) or more political parties, or as an independent candidate and as the nominee of at least one (1) political party, the person must elect which of the nominations the person will accept.”

That seems like a clear violation of freedom of association, but an Indiana federal court strangely found it to be a constitutionally-allowable restraint. Of course, that does not mean that third parties cannot lobby their state governments to overturn these laws. 

Almost half of all states have a supermajority in their state legislature (16 held by Republicans and 8 held by Democrats). It would be greatly in the interest of the minor party to lobby to overturn these laws. At the same time, it may be in the interest of more radical partisans disaffected by the often centrist nature of state politics to endorse a more politically extreme party to influence the larger party.

It may also be in the interest of voters desiring more consistency in the government, many of whom are involved in the pro-life movement and who are seeking a party that represents the whole life ethic. 

The major parties are plagued by internal inconsistencies because they have to appeal to often conflicting special interest groups. If anti-fusion laws were overturned, it would help minor parties like American Solidarity to exert pressure on the major parties to adopt a more consistent pro-life and pro-family ethic. 

This would also be beneficial to people of faith who struggle with the more libertarian wing of the Republican Party and the more socially liberal wing of the Democratic Party. 

This pressure could also look like endorsing candidates that broadly favor further electoral reform such as star voting and mixed-member proportional representation.

Because it seems pretty clear that supermajorities don’t always have the best effects, above and beyond the complacency they often produce.  

It would be one thing if representatives were able to speak their minds, but party leadership often uses executive control to keep bills off the table that they don’t like, and otherwise control party members. If representatives had the security of an endorsement by two parties, they could handle taking greater risks. 

While repealing anti-fusion laws will probably not cure the political malaise that has infected the nation, it could certainly help make people feel better about how they vote, and put a check on the two-party system from straying further and further from the interests of the American people.