From 18th-century false ballots to the second JFK and double Dan Sullivans, a brief history of spoiler candidates and the unsuccessful legal challenges to them
The spoiler candidate is one of the oldest tricks in the American campaign toolbox, and the law has rarely touched it.
In the world of political campaigns, the use of "spoiler candidates" has long been a tactic to manipulate votes and sway elections. While the practice has evolved over time, its underlying principle remains the same: recruiting individuals with names or ideologies similar to those of opposing candidates in order to siphon votes and undermine their chances of winning.
Historically, this tactic dates back to the 19th century when American elections were conducted with party-designed ballots. During this time, rival names could be added to party ballots by unscrupulous printers, thereby influencing voter decisions. As government-printed ballots became more common in the 1890s, this deceptive practice was largely eliminated.
Despite these advancements, the threat of spoiler candidates has persisted. In the 1946 U.S. Senate race, John F. Kennedy faced an opponent named Joseph Russo, whose aide had paid a janitor with the same name to enter the race. Kennedy ultimately won more votes than both Russo's combined. Eight years later, in Massachusetts, a Gillette stockroom supervisor named John Francis Kennedy was elected treasurer and receiver-general of the state, likely due to his name's recognition among voters.
While some spoiler candidates are intended to win votes, others serve to amplify a message or appeal. In 1978, Republican Carroll Campbell ran for a House seat in South Carolina, facing an opponent named Max Heller, a Jewish refugee. Days before the election, an independent candidate named Don Sprouse, who claimed Heller was unfit for office because he was not a Christian, held a press conference.
Although Campbell condemned Sprouse's remarks, the antisemitic message inadvertently resonated with some voters, ultimately costing Heller the race. This tactic, while not successful in terms of votes, demonstrated the power of a candidate's name in shaping public perception.
In modern times, the use of spoiler candidates has taken on new forms. In Alaska, where there is no petition requirement to get on the ballot, candidates can simply pay a $100 fee to appear without any vetting by political parties. This has led to instances where unwitting individuals have been placed on the ballot under false pretenses.
In 2010, two Democratic officials in Oakland County, Michigan, unknowingly submitted candidates under the Tea Party label in three races without their knowledge. While perjury and forgery charges were eventually brought against the county party chair and operations director, the act of unknowingly placing candidates on the ballot highlighted a loophole in state election laws.
In Alaska, this tactic can be employed cheaply, with no barriers to entry and minimal legal consequences.
Written by urgent.news from The Conversation's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
