The Push to Revive Fusion Voting in Wisconsin
Picture a Wisconsin ballot where a single candidate appears twice—or even three times—each instance representing support from a different political party. It sounds novel, but more than a century ago, such “fusion voting” was standard practice across much of the country, and in Wisconsin, it was integral to hard-fought battles for justice and reform. Now, as the state reels from record polarization and bare-knuckle campaigns, a new bipartisan lawsuit aims to bring this old mechanism back to life.
This legal effort arrives on the heels of a bruising Wisconsin Supreme Court election, where outside spending shattered records, and partisanship seemed to infect every debate. In that context, United Wisconsin—a cross-partisan coalition anchored by progressives and former Republican leaders alike—filed suit with the help of the advocacy group Law Forward. The target: a Wisconsin statute enacted nearly 130 years ago that bans candidates from being nominated by more than one party for the same office.
What’s at stake isn’t just ballot design. Plaintiffs like Dale Schultz, a former Republican majority leader in the state Senate, argue that restoring fusion voting is a constitutional imperative. “We have a constitutional right to associate with whomever we want,” Schultz declares, framing the case as a high-stakes test of freedom of political association. In Wisconsin, this argument resonates beyond legal circles—many feel locked out of power by the two major parties, forced to pick the “lesser of two evils” every November.
Roots of Reform and the Promise for Today
A closer look reveals that fusion voting isn’t just some quirky relic; it was a tool that fueled progressive breakthroughs and even the rise of the Republican Party itself. In the 19th century, minor parties—most famously abolitionists—leveraged fusion to punch above their weight, merging forces with major parties to elect anti-slavery candidates. That tradition helped fuse together activists and practical politicians, building big-tent coalitions that remade the country’s moral and political landscape.
By the late 1800s, though, major party elites, threatened by the growing power of minor parties, orchestrated a crackdown. Most states—including Wisconsin—enacted laws explicitly banning fusion nominations. According to historian Alexander Keyssar of Harvard, “The point was to lock up control and shut down insurgent ideas.” Only New York and Connecticut have fully preserved fusion, and the effects there are telling: smaller parties on the ballot, broader campaigns, and, according to Columbia Law professor Richard Briffault, “real negotiation between political movements, not just bland centrism or polarized warfare.”
The Wisconsin lawsuit asks the courts to re-interpret these ancient restrictions. The plaintiffs say denying minor parties the right to cross-nominate is not just old-fashioned, but unconstitutional—a violation of both free speech and freedom of association. For voters exasperated by “red versus blue” trench warfare, fusion voting holds out hope for something better: coalition-building, consensus, and real choice.
“For every single person in the state of Wisconsin who’s ever looked at a ballot or at an election and thought, ‘I don’t love either of these candidates, or I wish things were a little bit different,’ this is a way to try to advance that.”
— Jeff Mandell, Law Forward’s executive director
It’s not just progressive activists longing for more voices in the process: a recent Pew Research study showed over 40% of Americans see both parties as inadequate representatives of their values. In an era when third-party runs usually act as spoilers, fusion could allow meaningful dissent without the threat of “wasted” votes. Would the Green Party, the Libertarians, or groups centered on rural or working-class interests show up more for a major candidate, if that person was also their nominee? Fusion voting suggests the answer is yes.
Polarization, Partisanship, and the Road Ahead
The case for fusion is about more than reviving history. Advocates argue it could be a bulwark against the runaway partisanship that has paralyzed Madison and Washington alike. The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, awash in out-of-state cash and negative ads, offered a vivid display of what can happen when political energy gets locked into a zero-sum fight between two monolithic machines.
Supporters claim fusion voting would force candidates to build bridges—not just stick to their party’s talking points. Unlike ranked-choice voting, which can confuse and overwhelm some voters (as was seen in New York City’s initial foray), fusion adds options without creating complex tallies. Every party, large or small, has the right to nominate whomever best reflects their values, and voters can express nuanced preferences without helping elect the opponent they fear most.
Conservatives push back, warning that fusion voting could produce unwieldy ballots or inflate the impact of fringe groups. Their worries haven’t held up under scrutiny in Connecticut and New York, where coalition-building is a feature, not a bug, and where minor parties, far from hijacking politics, spark essential debates on issues like affordable housing, environmental protection, and voting rights. As Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker notes, minority parties under fusion rarely win outright, but “they do push major parties to listen.”
Beyond that, the legal arguments striking at Wisconsin’s ban go straight to fundamental rights. If parties in a democracy cannot freely decide whom to nominate—and if citizens cannot organize around candidates they actually like—is that democracy truly functioning? This is the question before the Wisconsin courts, and, by extension, voters everywhere longing for an end to bitter polarization.
The stakes aren’t just parochial. Across the country, other states like Michigan, Kansas, and New Jersey are seeing movements to revive or introduce fusion voting. These efforts reflect a broader hunger for a political system that values consensus and diversity over party discipline and polarization.
A New Era of Possibility?
Imagine a world where your ballot represents your full political identity—not just a reluctant compromise. Fusion voting could make that a reality for Wisconsin, and perhaps, set a precedent that ripples outward to the entire nation. The lawsuit brought by United Wisconsin and Law Forward is about much more than arcane technicalities; it’s about breaking down the barriers that keep political outsiders out and bring policy debates back to the people who care most.
Whether judges will see it the same way remains to be seen. But as the national mood sours on hyper-partisan “us versus them” politics, the clamor for innovation will only grow. Once, fusion voting helped birth new parties, causes, and energies that propelled the country forward. The time may be ripe for Wisconsin to reclaim this legacy—and offer the rest of America a new path out of division.
