Kansas voters deserve more choices than 2-party rule, like they used to have | Opinion

For Americans, the Fourth of July is a celebration of freedom. It’s also an opportunity for us to reflect on what freedom really means. Freedom is different things to different people, but a primary expression of it is the ability to make choices.

Our daily lives reflect the powerful ideal of American choice in action. Walk into a typical Walmart and you’ll see thousands of items for sale. But in one area of American life the choices are often severely limited: our politics. On Election Day, when we step into a voting booth and look at a particular race, we typically see a grand total of two options, and sometimes only one. This contributes to further polarization and lack of engagement, with one-third of eligible citizens today not even voting.

Last summer, the United Kansas Party filed lawsuits in Kansas state courts challenging the state’s 1901 anti-fusion law. It claims the law violates fundamental values of American choice: freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to equal protection. United Kansas wants more voters to have a voice in elections, and believes overturning the anti-fusion law is a move in that direction.

But what is the anti-fusion law? Simply put, the law reduces voter choice and freedom. When Kansas became a state in 1861, the Republican Party — which stood for the Union during the Civil War — was the state’s dominant political organization. Every governor but one between 1861 and 1893 was a Republican, and every Legislature during those years was controlled by Republicans.

This arrangement began to weaken in 1890 when a new political force, the Populist Party, appeared, advocating for the economic interest of farmers and laborers. In the 1890 Kansas governor’s race, the Republican won 39% of the vote, the Populist 36% and the Democrat 24%.

Even a poor mathematician could see that combining Populist and Democratic votes would produce a winning majority — 36 plus 24 is greater than 50. In 1892, Democrats endorsed the Populist running for governor and he defeated the Republican. This strategy, known as fusion, revolutionized Topeka’s political arithmetic. Now, two different parties could support the same candidate while maintaining their own distinct values, presenting an alternative to the two-party status quo.

Populists broke Republican stronghold

In 1896, ballots that enabled Democratic and Populist voters to support the same electorally viable candidates produced a sweeping victory. Populists won the governorship, all other state executive offices, the state Senate and House, and even a majority on the state Supreme Court. 1897 was the only time in Kansas’ entire history as a state in which Republicans did not control at least one of these institutions.

However, fusion’s success was brief. In 1900, Republicans won back majorities in both legislative houses. And when the Legislature met in 1901, Republicans made fusion illegal. The lawmakers’ action was a partisan response to its 1890s defeats. It was not a patriotic effort to encourage two-party competition or to simplify the voting process. Instead, its purpose was to maximize the likelihood of Republican success by minimizing voter choice, preventing voters from working together to effectively participate in the electoral process.

The law achieved its goal: In the 1904 election, Republicans won a crushing victory. They gained all the executive offices plus overwhelming legislative majorities. This one-party pattern has persisted for more than 100 years, with Republicans controlling both houses of the Kansas Legislature almost uninterrupted for the last century.

Fusion was not just banned by Kansas Republicans, however. In the 1890s and early 1900s, the dominant party in almost all states (sometimes the Democrats, sometimes the Republicans) stacked the rules against competition. The two major parties did this through a variety of election law changes. Despite their intense disagreements on many issues, they both opposed fusion.

Why is reviving fusion necessary to restore political freedom? The answer is that the inherent advantages of the two major parties, especially their self-interested control over voting laws, have made third parties today impotent. Virtually all voters perceive support for minor parties to be wasted (or worse, spoiler votes). Fusion allows third parties and their supporters to have a meaningful say in American democracy.

United Kansas’ lawsuit against the 1901 anti-fusion law is a reminder that we can learn a lot from our history. There was a time in Kansas when voters had more choices. And then there was a time, continuing to today, when Republican and Democratic leaders limited those choices. As we celebrate Independence Day 2025, shouldn’t we ask ourselves which experience is more consistent with American freedom?