Adam Glickman
interviewed by Anthony Qaiyum on August 9, 1996
Contact the New Party
Web: http://www.newparty.org
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (800) 200-1294
Relevant Resources
"The New York Times" on Fusion
An article in the May 29th "NYT" covering the Supreme Court fusion case.
Eighth Circuit Decision
The text of the U.S. Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit) decision to uphold fusion. The case is now being appealed to the Supreme Court by the State of Minnesota.
Fusion Information
An independent site about fusion and the two party system.
Adam Glickman, 24, is the Communications Director of the New Party. He first became active in politics as an undergraduate at Wesleyan University, where he fought battles for need-blind admissions, workers' rights, affirmative action, and benefits for same-sex partners.
Tripod: One of the hopes for the New Party or any third party for that matter is revival of fusion. Can you explain this tactic?
Adam Glickman: Fusion is multi-party nomination of the same candidates. So, you can have one candidate on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party -- on separate ballot lines. In New York, this is widely used in virtually every election. In 1994, for example, you had Mario Cuomo on the ballot as a Democratic Party candidate and as a Liberal Party candidate. You had George Pataki on the ballot as a Republican Party candidate, a Conservative Party candidate and, I think, a Right to Life Party candidate as well. All those votes are added together for that candidate. So you could vote for Pataki either as a Conservative Party candidate or as a Republican Party candidate, and the votes all counted toward Pataki. What happened in 1994 was that Mario Cuomo actually beat George Pataki Democrat to Republican; it was Pataki's 300,000 votes on the Conservative Party line that gave him the victory.
This tactic was widely used nationally at the turn of the century by the Populists parties. It was made illegal in most states at the turn of the century, and has been widely used only in New York since then. John F. Kennedy, FDR, and Reagan all won New York because of fusion votes. Obviously it's an important tool for minor parties.
It's an American adaptation of proportional representation. It's not as good as proportional representation, which we certainly support, but it's an important tactic for minor parties to be able to get on the ballot in a serious way, at the top of the ticket, without spoiling races and without running candidates who have no chance of winning. Forming coalitions with the major parties and putting our values out there on the ballot allows our supporters to show their support for those values and for our party without wasting their votes.
Tripod: That obviously helps the candidate, and it helps the party build name recognition, and it opens another option for the voter. But do you see yourself eventually becoming large enough that you would be able to support your own candidates most of the time.
AG: Fusion is an important tactic, particularly in the early years of growing and developing a party from the grass roots. We certainly envision developing statewide progressive political organizations which would cross-nominate the progressive Democrats and run against the conservative Democrats. If that ends up having the impact of really moving the Democratic party in a progressive, social democratic direction, then that's good. And if it ends up that it really forms a major third party in America that's also good. American politics are always so fluid that we generally don't try to predict what the end form of this is going to be. But fusion is definitely an important tactic in the short term.
Tripod: Can you explain your upcoming fusion-based case before the Supreme Court?
AG: Back in 1994, we filed a case: Twin Cities New Party vs. McKenna. We had a Democratic party state legislative candidate who wanted our nomination. We collected the signatures and filed them, but the elections bureau rejected the signatures. They claimed it was illegal in Minnesota, because the candidate was already the nominee of the Democratic Party. We filed suit and it went up to the highest court in Minnesota, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Minnesota's ban on fusion as being unconstitutional. Minnesota appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, so they will hear it in the fall.
We're basically arguing that state bans on fusion are a violation of a party's First Amendment rights of association. We believe that a minor party has the right to nominate the candidate of its choice, assuming that the candidate wants the nomination -- banning fusion is a first amendment violation. The state will argue that fusion will confuse voters by having too many lines on the ballot; that it will create discord and division within the major parties, which, in their view, is bad for democracy.
So the Supreme Court will hear the case this fall. Actually, the hearings may actually begin on Election Day. Laurence Tribe, who is recognized as the top constitution lawyer in the country, will be arguing the case for us, and we expect a decision in the spring. A decision in our favor would probably knock down all state bans on fusion. It would be pretty exciting.
Tripod: What should people do if they want to help out the New Party but there is no local affiliate?
AG: They should call or email us. We had 30 interns this summer working on exciting ballot initiatives, on campaign finance, living wage, and education funding in about 10 states. We're always looking for interns all year, summer, winter interns, whatever. They should call and they should join the party. They should help us forge something at their school or in their community.
