By Bradley Abelow and Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff
One of us served in New Jersey government as state treasurer under Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine. The other served as state treasurer a few years later under Republican Gov. Chris Christie.
But despite belonging to different parties, and presumably disagreeing about various aspects of fiscal policy, we do agree on two big things. First, that we need a functional, effective government that is good at solving the problems facing the people of our state; and second, that we won’t get better government without reforming the party system in America to make it less polarized and more dynamic.
Let’s face it: politics in America has gotten pretty degraded and nasty. Republicans aren’t fascists. Democrats aren’t communists. But social media and dark money would have you think otherwise. This kind of hyper-partisan polarization makes it almost impossible for politicians on either side of the aisle to cooperate or compromise. Common-sense-oriented elected officials pay the price.
Both of us are old enough to remember that politics wasn’t always this divisive. Until about a generation ago, both major parties were big tents. There were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in office, and it was easier to form stable working coalitions across party lines because of those internal variations.
But officeholders who cut against their own party’s grain are almost extinct these days. Elections now are an existential fight to the death, since the only way for one party to get anything done is to denigrate, demonize, and demolish the other side.
For many voters, this kind of hyper-partisan tribalism is a huge turn-off. There are more registered independents in New Jersey than Republicans, and they are close to surpassing the number of Democrats as well. Indeed, New Jersey has one of the highest percentages of independents of any of the fifty states. And 70% of Garden State voters say they wish they had more choices on the ballot.
This is why we’re watching with great interest as a lawsuit brought by the fledgling New Jersey Moderate Party makes its way toward the New Jersey Supreme Court. The party was founded two years ago by a group of local Republican, Democratic, and unaffiliated voters who were tired of all the polarization and dysfunction and who wanted to support candidates committed to cross-partisan collaboration and problem-solving.
But unlike the third parties that sometimes pop up in American life, the Moderates announced from the start that they were not interested in getting stuck in the wasted-vote or spoiler box that makes most third parties a pretty big waste of time. Instead, they wanted to revive “fusion voting” and, in doing so, encourage inter-party coalitions.
What is fusion voting and why do some want to revive it in New Jersey?
Under fusion voting, a minor party can run a stand-alone candidate if it pleases, but more commonly such parties cross-nominate (or “fuse”) with a major party candidate who shares their values and interests. With a second, fusion nomination, a candidate appears on the ballot under two separate labels. This allows voters to show their support for both a candidate and a party. The Moderates’ political rationale is that there are a lot of voters dismayed by the two-party bluster that passes for politics today and that some chunk of them would be eager to vote under a Moderate Party label as a way to say, “Enough!”
Fusion voting was legal in New Jersey prior to 1921, when major party lawmakers in Trenton joined together to outlaw the practice by statute. Thus, it came as no surprise that the current New Jersey secretary of state, Tahesha Way, rejected the Moderate Party’s nominating petitions that would have placed Democrat Tom Malinowski on the ballot under a second party banner in the 2022 election. So the Moderate Party, along with three current and former Republican voters, sued to invalidate the statute.
Elections now are an existential fight to the death, since the only way for one party to get anything done is to denigrate, demonize, and demolish the other side.
On Tuesday, three judges of the New Jersey Appellate Division will hear oral arguments in this case. The Moderate Party will argue that the state’s ban on cross-nominations violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of free association and speech. From our point of view, we can’t see why the state thinks it should prevent people from forming parties and nominating the candidate they support simply because that candidate has the support of another party. To be clear, neither of us is endorsing the Moderate Party; we just don’t understand why limiting “fusion” promotes democracy.
Of course, we were state treasurers, not attorneys general. We’re not constitutional scholars. But here’s why we hope the Appellate Division judges and ultimately the state’s Supreme Court justices ultimately strike down New Jersey’s anti-fusion laws: We need a more responsive, dynamic democracy that supports compromise and coalition-building. The two-party duopoly is bad for our country and our state. It makes it harder for new people or new ideas to gain traction. It makes everyone angrier at each other. And it is breeding a generation of people skeptical that politics can do anything right. As public servants, we know that isn’t true.
If fusion voting were re-legalized, smaller parties like the New Jersey Moderates could offer voters more choices and a way to reward major party candidates who choose greater comity and less polarization. More competition would be good for everyone, including the major parties. And our democracy, which is being stretched to the breaking point, would gain some needed resilience. That would be good news for all of us.
Bradley Abelow served as state treasurer under New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine from 2006-7, and as his chief of staff from 2007-8. Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff served as state treasurer under Governor Chris Christie from 2010-15.
