Committee hears testimony on fusion/hybrid candidates and ‘two bites of the apple’ practice

Representative Kate Logan, a state lawmaker, and other witnesses told the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee that fusion and hybrid candidacies raise logistical and political questions for Vermont elections.

Logan said fusion voting — candidates appearing on a general‑election ballot with more than one party’s endorsement — and related rules are meant to give voters broader representation within a majoritarian, district‑based system. “Fusion voting is another one of these policies, and allows candidates to affiliate with more than one party by earning more than one party’s nomination,” Representative Kate Logan said. She told the committee that 39 fusion candidates appeared on the 2024 ballot and described fusion as a way for voters to express hybrid political identities.

The issue also touches on what supporters call flexibility and critics call an opportunity for strategic filing. A separate concern, often called the “two bites of the apple” problem in testimony, is the practice that lets a candidate who loses a major‑party primary run in the general election under another party’s nomination. Representative Logan described the feature this way: “Two bites of the apple allows a candidate to seek a major party nomination in a party primary, but if they lose, allows them to go on to the general election with another party’s nomination or as an independent.”

A Burlington lawmaker who said she had been appointed, then had to run in both a Democratic primary and the general election under a progressive nomination described the workload and voter confusion the pattern produced. The Burlington appointee said the progressive nominee she faced had been nominated by caucus after losing the Democratic primary and filed to run in the general election within the statutory deadline. “I literally had to do twice the work and raise twice the amount of money, against the same person,” the representative said, recounting that voters were confused and campaign costs nearly doubled.

Members asked practical questions about party processes, whether progressives resource primary campaigns, and how primary ballots are presented to voters. Representative Hooper’s separate bill H.117 — described by witnesses as a narrower fusion filing bill — was mentioned repeatedly; committee members said they were considering whether to incorporate H.117 language into the larger elections bill under discussion.

Committee members and witnesses raised several policy tradeoffs: supporters said fusion preserves political identity and lets smaller parties participate without “spoiling” outcomes; critics said the practice can confuse voters, encourage tactical behavior and create unequal resource patterns across parties during primaries. The Burlington representative urged limiting repeat access to the ballot after a primary loss, calling the “two bites” practice “not something that is afforded really any other candidate.”

No formal committee action was recorded in the transcript on fusion provisions during the session excerpt; witnesses and members said they expected further drafting and additional testimony before the committee moved the bill forward.

The committee paused the fusion discussion to hear testimony on ranked‑choice voting and other sections of the elections bill.

Short term follow‑up items mentioned during discussion included clarifying filing deadlines and party nomination processes and determining whether to merge standalone H.117 language into the committee’s larger elections draft. Public‑facing materials or guidance for voters on how party ballots and nominations work were proposed as part of any legislative fix or clarification.