Two small political parties are suing the state of Michigan to bring back a voting practice that was banned 131 years ago. If they win, Michigan ballots could look very different. Voters in Traverse City and across the state could see the same candidate listed under multiple party names on a single ballot.
The Michigan Common Sense Party and the Michigan Libertarian Party filed two lawsuits in mid-May. One landed in the state Court of Claims. The other was filed in Ingham County Circuit Court. Both suits name Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Director of Elections Jonathan Brater as defendants.
What Fusion Voting Would Change
Fusion voting allows a candidate to appear on the ballot under more than one party label. Votes cast for that candidate under every party are then added together for a final total.
The practice is currently legal in just a handful of states, including New York. In that state, a candidate can run under both the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party. All votes for that candidate count toward their final tally.
Michigan law currently prohibits it. State election statutes say a candidate's name "shall not be placed or printed in more than 1 column on the ballot for the same office." If a candidate is nominated by multiple parties, they must choose which single party line appears.
The Lawsuit's Core Argument
The plaintiffs argue the fusion ban violates three constitutional rights. They say it infringes on freedom of association. They say it restricts freedom of speech by limiting how voters express their views at the ballot box. They also argue it violates the state constitution's guarantee of a fundamental right to vote.
"The fusion ban deprives the plaintiff voters of the opportunity to cast an effective vote for a new or minor party," the Circuit Court complaint states. "It prevents those parties from forming or surviving, and places the voters in the untenable position of casting a wasted ballot for a new or minor party they prefer, casting their ballot for a major party that does not fully represent them, or not voting at all."
The complaints note that Michigan actually used fusion voting regularly during the second half of the 19th century. The state legislature banned the practice in 1895.
Who Is Behind the Push
Jeff Timmer, a one-time executive director of the Michigan Republican Party and now a senior advisor for the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, helped create the Michigan Common Sense Party in 2023. He is a leading voice behind the litigation.
Timmer argues that fusion voting would help voters he calls "politically homeless." These are people who feel they can no longer support the Republican Party but also do not want to vote for a Democrat.
"Voters are not merely consumers choosing between two prepackaged brands," Timmer wrote in a press release accompanying both lawsuits. "They are citizens with principles, priorities, and associations. A voter may want to support a broadly acceptable candidate while also sending a clear message: I am voting for moderation, democracy, reform, restraint, fiscal responsibility, labor rights, environmental protection, civil liberties, election integrity, or whatever political identity a party chooses to organize around."
Timmer previously said in 2023 that the push reflects frustration with what he described as extremism within the Republican Party.
"These are people who have left the Republican Party because of the rise of extremism and the rise of authoritarian, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law tendencies in the Republican Party," Timmer said at the time.
What It Means for Michigan Elections
Independent and minor party candidates already face steep hurdles in Michigan elections. Even Mike Duggan, the former longtime mayor of Detroit, ended his independent campaign for governor. He cited financial support from national Republican and Democratic parties going to his challengers as one factor.
Third-party candidates are often dismissed as spoilers. Voters frequently fear that supporting a minor party candidate throws away their vote in a high-stakes race.
Timmer frames the litigation as a voting rights issue.
"The argument here is that a state cannot claim to respect the fundamental right to vote while maintaining a system that artificially narrows voter choice, weakens minor parties, and forces voters into a major party, wasted vote, or abstain dilemma," Timmer said.
State Response
A spokesperson for the Michigan Department of State declined to comment on the pending litigation.
The lawsuits are still in their early stages. No court date has been set for a ruling. If the courts side with the plaintiffs, Michigan's election laws would need to change before the next ballot is printed. That could reshape how Traverse City voters and residents across the state cast their ballots in future elections.