A new legal salvo out of Dane County is taking direct aim at Wisconsin’s 1897 ban on fusion voting, arguing the 19th century law illegally sidelines minor parties and the voters who back them.
In an April 10 brief, attorneys asked a judge to strike down the 127-year-old statute and clear the way for minor parties to cross-endorse major-party candidates on separate ballot lines. The motion builds on a lawsuit United Wisconsin first filed last year and, if successful, could reshape tight state and federal races where a few percentage points routinely decide winners.
The filing, submitted as a motion for summary judgment in Dane County Circuit Court, comes from voting-rights group Law Forward, which represents United Wisconsin and several named plaintiffs. United Wisconsin, a cross-partisan coalition led by former state Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz and others, has outlined the lawsuit and its goals on its website. The plaintiffs want the court to declare the fusion ban unconstitutional and to order relief that would allow cross-endorsements without waiting for new legislation from the Capitol.
The brief argues the ban was born out of raw power politics, calling it “a form of invidious political discrimination” that violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantees of a “free government,” equal protection, and free speech and association, according to Law Forward. The motion urges the judge to apply heightened review to the law and to reject what the filing casts as a partisan relic of 19th century maneuvering, backed by a mix of historical records, expert reports, and legal analysis.
How fusion voting would work
Under fusion voting, more than one party can nominate the same candidate, and each party’s endorsement shows up on its own ballot line. Voters can pick the candidate under whichever party label they prefer, and all those votes roll up into a single total for that candidate.
The brief walks through a hypothetical race: a Democrat named “Olson” takes 45.9 percent of the vote on the Democratic Party line and then picks up another 4.9 percent on a United Wisconsin line, for a combined 50.8 percent that edges out a Republican at 48.2 percent, according to Urban Milwaukee. Supporters say that kind of setup lets smaller parties flex real muscle without playing spoiler and throwing races to their least-favored major-party candidate. Critics warn it could clutter ballots, scramble campaign strategy, and confuse voters who are already sorting through long lists of candidates and referendums.
Political reaction and what is next
Republicans are not exactly cheering the effort on. One party spokesperson blasted fusion voting as “an election integrity nightmare,” according to AP.
Backers, including the Law Forward legal team, counter that fusion voting would give Wisconsin voters a clearer way to signal their priorities while still backing a viable candidate. In their view, it could nudge major-party hopefuls to build broader coalitions instead of just locking down their base and hoping low turnout carries the day.
State political outlets that dug into the latest filing and its historical record note that the plaintiffs are asking the Dane County judge for a relatively quick ruling that could set up a fast trip to the appellate courts, according to WisPolitics.
Legal roadmap
The case has to navigate around a big U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In the 1997 decision Cornell Law School, the Court upheld a state’s ban on fusion candidacies and backed states’ interest in maintaining a stable, orderly ballot.
The Wisconsin plaintiffs are betting on a different route. Instead of asking federal courts to revisit that precedent, they want a state judge to lean on the Wisconsin Constitution’s “free government” and equal protection clauses and to subject the 1897 fusion ban to strict scrutiny, the toughest standard of judicial review.
If the Dane County court grants summary judgment in their favor, the ruling could clear a path for fusion candidacies in upcoming Wisconsin elections. No matter what the judge decides, though, no one expects the fight to end there. Any decision is likely to trigger rapid appeals and a broader statewide battle over how much power minor parties should really have on the Wisconsin ballot.
.jpg){kind=link}