1 minute read

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party

Significance, Arguing Fusion, Impact


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


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


Washington D.C.

Date of Decision

28 April 1997


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).

Further Readings

  • American Civil Liberties Union ACLU in the Courts: ACLU Summary of the 1996 Supreme Court Term Major Civil Liberties http://www.aclu.org
  • Hansen, Richard L. "Entrenching the Duopoly." Supreme Court Review, Annual 1997, pp. 331.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present