State Conservative Party Executive Committee Member Ralph Lorigo said he met with the party's chair and executive secretary Tuesday in New York City to discuss options to preserve fusion voting in New York State.

  • Public Finance Commission could recommend eliminating fusion voting
  • Conservative Party members met Tuesday to discuss how to protect fusion
  • The situation is similar to what happened with the Pay Raise Commission and outside income limits

Fusion is the process by which one candidate can run for office on multiple party lines and take the cumulative total of their votes on those lines. It has come under fire, particularly this year from the state Democratic Committee which passed a resolution in favor of abolishing it.

Critics said it gives minor parties undue influence and further complicates New York's already confusing election laws. Proponents, like Lorigo, said it gives voters more choice and makes it easier for them to vote for candidates that share their values.

The public finance commission could recommend eliminating fusion under the argument that it wouldn't work under a new campaign system. Lorigo wouldn't say much about the conversations to combat that commission Tuesday except that Conservatives are exploring all alternatives including litigation.

"The governor is trying to make an end run with regard to fusion voting. He's trying to eliminate fusion voting through a commission. So he's established a commission which ostensibly is for public financing of campaigns but a couple of lines in that commission is that they would have the right to modify, amend or even eliminate fusion voting. My trip to New York (Tuesday) is exactly to counteract what the governor is trying to accomplish,” he said.

The legislation in the budget authorized up to $100 million annually in public funds for elections. Its report is due December 1 of this year and will be binding unless modified by law within 20 days.

The situation is similar to what happened at the end of last year with the Pay Raise Commission. Some legislators were upset it also instituted outside income limits, which they argued was outside its scope.

Legislators had the opportunity to block it from becoming law and did not. There is a legal challenge in court.