Law Forward, a left-leaning legal group, is urging a Dane County court to strike down Wisconsin’s longstanding ban on fusion voting, calling the 1897 law a “partisan power grab.” In reality, critics see this lawsuit for what it is: yet another gambit by the ranked-choice voting crowd to let candidates game the ballot, stacking up votes under a buffet of party labels and cobbling together their totals.
United Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is the latest vehicle for Law Forward and its allies to chip away at election integrity. Filed on behalf of a so-called centrist and a handful of allegedly republican voters, the suit argues that the ban somehow tramples on free speech, equal protection, and the state’s ‘free government’ clauses. Law Forward, a Democratic-aligned nonprofit, insists the law keeps minor parties from playing a ‘constructive role’ and corrals voters into a two-party pen. In other words, they want to upend a century-old law and voting practice to rig the rules to benefit their own coalition.
Fusion voting is the political equivalent of double-dipping: one candidate, multiple party labels, and every vote on every line gets tallied up for the same person. This shell game was once common in Wisconsin, until lawmakers wisely shut it down in 1897 as part of a broader effort to clean up elections.
Fusion voting’s supporters claim it promotes moderation, but the reality is far less noble. In states where this scheme is allowed, it’s a favorite tool for progressives to coordinate and consolidate power. Picture a Democrat running as a Democrat, a Democratic Socialist, and a Green Party darling—all at once. Voters get the illusion of choice, but every vote just piles up for the same left-wing candidate.
State Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, a leading Democratic contender for governor and a preferred candidate of the Democratic Socialists, illustrates this point. Under fusion voting, Hong could appear on the ballot as the Democratic, DSA, and Green Party candidate. Her vote totals from all three lines would be combined, allowing minor parties to support a single progressive candidate without dividing the left-leaning vote. Every left-wing vote gets funneled to the same candidate, neatly sidestepping any risk of splitting the progressive bloc.
Critics rightly contend that this outcome is intentional. The same groups pushing ranked-choice voting are eager to add fusion voting to their bag of tricks, all to tip the scales in their favor. Ranked-choice lets them dodge ‘spoiler’ candidates, while fusion voting lets them openly collude behind a single candidate, dressing up a power grab as ‘choice.’ The endgame is simple: consolidate power for the left, not expand democracy.
Wisconsin’s ban was enacted precisely to block this kind of backroom coordination. For over a hundred years, our elections have been refreshingly simple—one candidate, one party, one set of votes. Bring back fusion, and you hand progressive operatives a blank check to manufacture minor parties, cross-endorse their chosen candidates, and rake in bonus votes, once again trying to tip the scales against Republicans.
“Parties in power don’t want electoral competition,” one plaintiff stated. Critics argue that fusion voting undermines competition between distinct parties and philosophies. They contend that, rather than encouraging broad appeal or coalition-building, fusion voting benefits niche parties that primarily serve to support a single ideological group.
Wisconsin voters have already said no to ranked-choice voting and its cousins. Now, the fusion voting push is sneaking in through the courts, not the ballot box. If the left gets its way, we’ll see even more convoluted election schemes—always designed to help organized progressive machines, never the individual voter.
