WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to rule on the constitutionality of laws that forbid minor parties to profit politically by adopting major party candidates as their own.
At issue are laws, in effect in 40 states including Maryland, that bar "fusion" candidates -- laws that forbid anyone running for an office to do so under the banners of two different parties.
In some of the 10 states where such joint candidacies are still allowed, they can make a difference in the election.
In one example frequently cited, Jimmy Carter as a presidential candidate received more Democratic votes in New York state in 1980 than Ronald Reagan received in Republican votes, but Reagan carried the state because he also was the Conservative Party's candidate.
Earlier in the nation's history, multiple party nominations were quite common. But after the 1892 presidential election, the two major parties feared the rise of third parties, so they began moving to end fusion candidacies by persuading state legislatures to ban them.
Minnesota was one of the states to enact such a ban. It was struck down, however, by a federal appeals court in January. The law had been attacked by a small party, the Twin Cities Area New Party, after it was denied a chance to put a Democratic-Farmer-Labor party candidate for state legislature on the New Party's own line on the ballot.
The appeals court ruled that the restriction interfered with the ability of small parties and their followers to establish themselves by getting onto the bandwagons of winning politicians.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of Minnesota officials, who noted that the appeals court ruling against fusion candidates conflicted with a ruling by another federal appeals court five years ago. A ruling is expected next year.
In another action, the court agreed to give states guidance on the legal effect of a new technique to ease prison overcrowding: allowing inmates to live and work outside prisons, though remaining under official supervision.
A federal appeals court ruled in August that once an inmate has been let out on conditional release, that inmate gains a right to remain out, and that the right can be taken away only if prison officials first give the person a chance to answer charges that he violated the conditions of release.
That conflicts with a ruling by another appeals court that states need not observe any particular procedures before ending an inmate's conditional release.
A ruling is expected next year.
The court also refused yesterday, for the second time in three years, to interfere with Utah's policy of suspending the liquor licenses of private clubs that refuse to admit women as members. Pub Date: 5/29/96
