Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party - Significance, Arguing Fusion, Impact

court aclu petitioner respondent

Petitioner

Michele L. Timmons, Acting Director, Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue

Respondent

Twin Cities Area New Party

Petitioner's Claim

A candidate running for office could not participate in elections as a nominee representing more then one political party. Minnesota's statute imposing prohibition of "fusion appearance" on a ballot, therefore, did not jeopardize associational rights.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Richard S. Slowes

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Laurence H. Tribe

Justices for the Court

Stephen Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter

Place

Washington D.C.

Date of Decision

28 April 1997

Decision

Respondent's (New Party's) constitutional rights under First and Fourteenth Amendment were not violated by provisions of Minnesota's statute prohibiting "fusion" candidates. Statutory restrictions were held permissible.

Related Cases

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974).
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983).
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986).
Tashijan v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986).
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989).
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992).
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party - Significance

The fusion ban imposed under Minnesota statute was challenged by respondents (New Party), because it imposed severe burdens that restrained associational rights of minor political parties. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the "anti-fusion law" was not a burden that infringed on the respondent's rights (i.e., prohibiting New Party's nomination of a candidate already running for office as a candi…

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party - Arguing Fusion

The First Amendment enables political parties to associate and freely express their political platform. Parties are absolutely free to determine who will represent party ideas and send the party message to voters. As pointed out in FindLaw Annotated Constitution, the political association between parties is considered an "integral part of basic constitutional freedom." However, in order to achieve…

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party - Impact

The Court's decision was opposed bitterly by third parties who felt robbed of a strategy that, once viable, served to enlarge their influence in the political process. Among dissenters, the American Civil Liberties Union was the loudest in criticizing the ruling of the Court, calling its decision a "strike down of anti-fusion law." The crux of their objection reasoned that if the two party system …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.