Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party (1997):

States certainly have an interest in protecting the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of their ballots and election processes as means for electing public officials…. Petitioners contend that a candidate or party could easily exploit fusion as a way of associating his or its name with popular slogans and catchphrases. For example, members of a major party could decide that a powerful way of “sending a message” via the ballot would be for various factions of that party to nominate the major party’s candidate as the candidate for the newly formed “No New Taxes,” “Conserve Our Environment,” and “Stop Crime Now” parties. In response, an opposing major party would likely instruct its factions to nominate that party’s candidate as the “Fiscal Responsibility,” “Healthy Planet,” and “Safe Streets” parties’ candidate.

AP (today):

Fed up with the established political parties? In Washington state, so are some of the candidates. Encouraged by the state’s unconventional primary system, around 30 candidates on the Aug. 17 ballot have shunned mainstream politics to instead identify with very small or apparently invented parties. Among them: the “Lower Taxes Party,” the “‘Bull Moose Part”‘ — or even “Neither Party.”

(Yes, I know the Washington state system is not a fusion system—still, the new AP story reminded me of the earlier quote from the Chief Justice.)