The New Jersey Appellate Division held that the state’s ban on fusion candidacies does not violate the State Constitution. New Jersey, like other states, prohibits a candidate for public office from appearing on a ballot as the nominee for multiple parties. As elsewhere, New Jersey’s anti-fusion law was passed in the early twentieth century to entrench the major parties’ political power–although the N.J. appellate court appears to have dismissed this history, emphasizing instead its adoption as part of a “broader effort to reform the electoral system” during the Progressive Era. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court proceeded to uphold the law.

Emphasizing that there was no reason to interpret the N.J. Constitution differently from the U.S. Constitution in this regard, the decision follows the analysis of the widely criticized decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld such laws against a First Amendment challenge, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, (1997).

The case is part of a larger state court litigation strategy, supported by many scholars, including myself. An appeal is expected.