Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party

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 candidate of another political party). Conversely, respondent believed that the right to associate and create their electoral strategy should be protected by the Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendment.

Electoral procedures evolved through American history in order to reduce possibilities of electoral abuse. After 1888, balloting protocols changed to the "Australian ballot system" (ballots contained either names of candidates and the parties by which they were nominated). It was considered an important departure from the then, widely-accepted balloting custom when voters did not know which party a candidate belonged to (ballots contained only the names of candidates).

Since 1888, when balloting adapted to the new system, states have dealt with many reforms, bans, multiple party nominations, and other changes and exceptions to the electoral process but the basic format of American balloting is still the Australian ballot system. One of the outcomes of such procedural change meant that fusion candidacies were not supported by many states. In fact, many states responded to multiple nominations by barring and prohibiting them.

In April of 1994, a minor political party, Twin Cities Area New Party, chose Andy Dawkins as their candidate running for state office as a nominee of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party. He did not oppose the dual nomination and, in effect, thus established double candidacy for the 1994 general elections. Dawkins did not actually become a New Party member, he just signed the "required affidavit of candidacy" needed for nomination by New Party. Under Minnesota statute, the state banned his candidacy as nominee of two parties. Because that statute prohibited a second "appearance" on the ballot of a candidate already nominated by one party, New Party's nominating petition was denied under Minnesota law.

Believing that their associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated, New Party challenged Minnesota's statute and its "anti-fusion laws." Fusion is defined as nomination of one candidate by more than one political party. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the petitioner finding that "Minnesota's fusion ban was valid and [a] nondiscriminatory regulation of the election process." However, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the decision because of "restrictive and burdening" provisions under Minnesota's law that jeopardized the constitutional rights of New Party. They found no merit in the reasons which the state felt justified excluding "fusion candidacies for elected office."

The U.S. Court of Appeals decided in favor of the respondent, New Party. They held that provisions under Minnesota's law burdened New Party's freedom to participate in elections with nominees which the respondent believed to be the best representatives of their "ideologies and preferences." The court found no compelling state concern which justified anti-fusion laws banning multiple party nominations. The decision posited that because minor parties usually broaden their chances to win elections by using the benefits of fusion and political association, the preclusive regulations of Minnesota law lessened New Party's chances of winning and, therefore, intruded on constitutionally-guaranteed associational rights.