Multiple Party Nominations Go To Court Legislator Fights Law Keeping Him From Running For More Than 1 Party

When state legislator Andy Dawkins sought re-election in 1994, he wanted to boost voter interest and combat traditionally low turnout in his poor, inner-city district. So he sought the nominations of two parties.

The procedure is legal in 10 states, but Minnesota isn’t one of them. The Supreme Court takes up the case Wednesday, with the outcome likely to determine whether states may prohibit candidates from running under multiple party banners.

Dawkins was nominated by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, the state’s version of the Democratic Party. Trouble arose when the New Party, which Dawkins called a left-wing version of Ross Perot’s Reform Party, also tried to nominate him.

Election officials rejected the third-party candidacy, invoking state law forbidding the appearance of any candidate’s name more than once on the same ballot. Dawkins ran and won under the DFL label.

The New Party sued on First Amendment grounds, claiming the law infringed on its right to associate. A federal judge upheld the state law, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and struck down the state prohibition on multiple nominations.

Supporters of the ban say it helps avoid ballot confusion. Its opponents believe the two major parties keep it in place to suppress grassroots activism and hold onto power.

“If the Supreme Court decision goes our way,” Dawkins said, “I really think you’ll see an explosion of third parties and an increase in voter participation.”

Voters in Dawkins’ district are among St. Paul’s poorest. About one in three residents lives in poverty, compared to 10 percent statewide, and more than half the voters are minorities, compared to 6 percent in the state.

Dawkins believes his constituents feel disenfranchised by two-party politics and would prefer to vote for third-party candidates who better reflect their goals and beliefs.

He thinks, too, that voters would become more involved if they realized they could provide a margin of victory and affect a candidate’s views by voting as part of a coalition.

Dawkins tried to run under both party banners again this year but the state Democrats objected, so he again ran and won under their banner alone.

The state Legislature passed a law allowing minor parties to cross-nominate candidates, but it will stayon the books only if the Supreme Court refuses to uphold the ban.

Until the late 1800s, candidates frequently ran under multiple party nominations, commonly called fusion. Most states now prohibit them, but some, including New York, have allowed them for years.

Lawyers Sarah Siskind and Joel Rogers of Madison, Wis., have spent six years pushing fusion cases through courts in Minnesota and Wisconsin, working for the Center for New Democracy Project, an electoral reform group based in Washington, D.C.

Although they won the Minnesota case, they have lost at the federal level in Wisconsin and wanted a ruling from the Supreme Court that would affect all states. A decision is not expected until 1997.

xxxx