I am not specifically aware of any literature, but on review of the cases it
should become clear that the distinction is the identity of the complaining
political party.  The Democratic and Republican Parties get strict scrutiny
review and the minor parties get the Timmons sliding scale.  And compare the
state's burden of showing compelling interests in Munro v Socialist Workers
Party 107 S.Ct. 533 (1986) and Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 122
S.Ct. 2528 (2002)- i.e. independents get better treatment than minor party
candidates.  In short, the evidence seems to point to the Supreme Court
favoring a strong two-party system.

Richard Shepard
818 S. Yakima Ave., #200
Tacoma, WA 98405
253-383-2235



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Steven
Mulroy
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:17 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Fusion Parties & Open Primaries


If I may be permitted a non-BCRA question:  Is there a tension between
the Sup Ct's invalidation of the 'blanket primary' out of concern for
parties' 1st Am rights, on the one hand, and the Sup Ct-upheld ability
of States to ban fusion parties, on the other?  Is anyone aware of
materials discussing this?

Steven J. Mulroy
Assistant Professor
University of Memphis School of Law
207 Humphreys Law School
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-4494
FAX: (901) 678-5210