High Court Limits Third-Party Rights

In a defeat for third parties, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that states by law can prevent candidates from appearing more than once on a ballot, even if they are nominated by a minor party and a major one.

Upholding current laws in California and most other states, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that the states can promote “a stable two-party system” by limiting the rights of third parties.

“This is a sad day for democracy. It maintains the stranglehold of the two-party system,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the New Party, which challenged a Minnesota law barring so-called cross-nominations.

The 6-3 ruling will thwart recent efforts--largely by left-leaning political parties--to expand their clout through the cross-nomination technique. Some political scholars supported such efforts as a way to revive third parties in general.

Last year, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the third parties, declaring that all parties have a right to nominate the candidates of their choice, even when a candidate already is the standard-bearer for a major party.

This approach, also known as “fusion,” is the rule in New York state. A single candidate can be the nominee of both the Conservative and Republican parties, for example, as was Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election.

In the 19th century, such progressive parties as Grangers, Greenbackers and Populists gained strength by nominating candidates who were also the favorite of the major parties.

But this approach went out of fashion and was outlawed in most states early in the 20th century.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe represented the New Party of Minnesota in the Supreme Court and urged the justices to rule that third parties had a constitutional right to use the fusion technique.

But Rehnquist, ruling in Timmons vs. Twin Cities New Party, 95-1608, said states can prevent “ballot confusion” by demanding that candidates run on only one party label.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying that the party’s “right to choose” its candidate on the ballot should prevail over the state’s interest.