Conclusion

Today, wide swaths of the electorate lament the lack of meaningful choice beyond the two major parties. As shown throughout this historical survey, there is nothing new about this frustration. The irony is that in the 1890s, Kansans had a better chance of overcoming barriers to full participation in elections. During that time, Kansas voters used that opportunity to raise new issues, elect new kinds of candidates, and create laws consistent with their values. To do so, they thought creatively about how politics could work. They developed organizations and strategies that allowed them to challenge and defeat the political party that had controlled the state since its beginning. That was no simple task, as the ensuing 120 years have demonstrated. One of the major contributors to that era’s political competition and vibrancy was the practice of fusion, which allowed cooperation on the ballot between different political parties. In essence, it was coalition-building, something seemingly inherent in any successful political environment.

But, the political opponents of fusion responded by simply outlawing cooperation between political parties. The anti-fusion laws were not attempts to create some kind of rational and controlled two-party election system. Rather, they reflected a political desire to cement a one-party rule. And there can be no doubt that anti-fusion laws in Kansas have been overwhelmingly successful in achieving these ends. Since the ban on fusion in 1901, Kansas has maintained a near-total absence of meaningful competitive party activity. For more than 120 years, Jayhawk politics has been a classic case of Republican hegemony. Yet, Kansas retains enormous discretion to set the rules and bounds of its elections in ways that can restore and promote the pluralism that defined the 1890s.

The aim of this report is to educate the public and the courts on (i) the political context in which Kansas’s fusion restrictions were adopted and (ii) the systemic and long-term effects of those restrictions. We hope that by highlighting Kansas’s history with fusion, as well as the anti-democratic motivations behind its abolition, we can assist decision makers who are evaluating the legality of the currently enacted fusion ban.