Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party

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 was permanently privileged in the courts, minor political parties would never get an opportunity to achieve political parity.

Regardless of opposition by minority parties and independent organizations, the U.S. Supreme Court justified the existence of the state of Minnesota's anti-fusion statute and found it only restrictive on a party's right to choose and select candidates already nominated by another party--burdens imposed were, therefore, justifiable and minor. The Court held that Minnesota's law served to avoid ballot manipulation and factionalism and justifiably maintained a two-party system as well. In essence, the decision of the Court did not recognize multiple nominations as a significant, legitimate means by which minor parties might achieve their political interests. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court supported an American tendency to preserve and privilege a two-party system by limiting association rights of minority parties.