A bill meant to clarify what it means when candidates in Vermont run with more than one party affiliation is advancing toward what could be a rancorous House vote this week.
The bill, H.429, seeks to reduce voter puzzlement over so-called “fusion candidates” — those who run with hybrid party labels such as D/P or R/D, to reflect that the candidate has the nomination of more than one party.
Rep. Mike McCarthy (D-St. Albans) initially proposed doing away with the ability to run with multiple labels altogether, arguing that candidates should be required to “pick a lane.” Following objections from the Progressive and Republican parties, however, he revised the bill to create rules for when and how a candidate could use such fusion labels.
“I just want to have it be a little more meaningful and a little bit more clear what it means,” McCarthy said.
Candidates would no longer be able to decide which party affiliation to list first after their name on the ballot. They could only run on the ballot in one party’s primary, and that would determine which party is listed first.
If they were to win another party’s nomination by another means — as a write-in candidate, or by being named by a party to replace a nominated candidate who dropped out — that second affiliation could still be added.
Placeholder candidates often run in primaries — sometimes multiple ones — and then drop out, allowing the party committee to nominate a replacement candidate.
Such a change would directly affect how a candidate like Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman runs. He won the Democratic primary last year, then received the Progressive nomination from that party’s nominating committee.
Had the bill been law, he’d have had to run as a D/P. But Zuckerman wanted the Progressive label to appear first on the general election ballot and ran as a P/D in his successful general election. He told Seven Days he remains strongly opposed to a set of “forced fusion” rules that strip a candidate’s ability to represent their political affiliations as they see fit.
Zuckerman denied the fusion labels are confusing for voters and told the committee they help describe a candidate’s politics.
“It gives people a general understanding of the way a person leans on a wide range of issues,” Zuckerman said.
Rep. Matt Birong (D-Vergennes) disputed that, arguing that it actually muddies the waters for voters, much like if Zuckerman, an organic farmer, marketed his vegetables as “conventionally organic.”
Voters “don’t really understand the political product in front of them,” Birong said.
Josh Wronski, chair of the Progressive Party, said he felt the committee was trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist.
Sixty-nine fusion candidates ran for public office in the state last year in Vermont, and the overwhelming majority won, Wronski told lawmakers.
“Vermonters appreciate when the parties can actually work together and collaborate on a candidate,” he said.
McCarthy said that was far from the case in Franklin County last year. Voters were confused and angry when a candidate for sheriff, John Grismore, ran as an R/D in the general election — despite facing an assault charge after being caught on video kicking a detained man.
Grismore had won the Republican primary, and he earned the Democratic nomination only because 237 people wrote in his name in the Democratic primary. (The Democratic party didn’t field a candidate.) The video became public shortly after the primaries. Both parties called on him to quit the race, but he refused and won.
Zach Scheffler, chair of the Democratic Party in Franklin County, said it was “deeply upsetting” to Democrats to have Grismore on the party’s line.
“I feel like having candidates on the ballot who are clearly supported by their party is important,” he said.
In addition to clarifying what order the party letters appear in, the bill would raise the threshold of write-in votes needed to win a nomination from a mere 25 votes to 10 percent of the total votes cast.
Another controversial provision of the bill would prevent a candidate who loses a primary from running as an independent in the general election.
The goal of such a “sore loser law” is to prevent a scenario in which a candidate loses a primary and then runs as an independent in the general election — splitting their party’s vote and allowing another party to win.
The third chunk of the bill is a proposed change to campaign finance law.
Current rules limit how much statewide candidates can donate to their state political party to $10,000. Candidates make such donations in exchange for the party’s support, such as access to donor lists or canvassers. The bill would raise that limit to $100,000.
The bill passed the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs on Tuesday morning, with all three Republicans on the committee voting against it.
Paul Dame, chair of the Vermont GOP, seized on the bill’s progress as evidence that Democrats wanted to use their newfound power to hobble Progressives.
“They want to eliminate their competition, and they are willing to use the power of their supermajority to whip votes and make it happen,” Dame wrote to supporters.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
