South Carolina permits a candidate to receive the nomination of more than one political party. South Carolina also requires candidates who are seeking the nomination of any political party (whether a party that nominates by primary, or by convention) to file a declaration of candidacy in March of election years.
In 2008, South Carolina changed its policy on declarations of candidacy, for candidates who are seeking the nomination of more than one political party. In the past, a candidate who was seeking the nomination of more than one party only had to file one declaration of candidacy, listing one party. But in 2008, the Election Commission changed its policy, and said a candidate must file a separate declaration of candidacy for each political party.
However, on March 1, a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruled that South Carolina cannot implement the 2008 change, because it didn’t ask the Voting Rights Section for permission to make the change. South Carolina is one of the states that must get U.S. Justice Department approval before changing an election law or practice. The case is Gray and United Citizens Party of South Carolina v South Carolina State Election Commission, 3:09-2126. Here is the decision.
One of the key facts in this decision is that in 1998, Peter Ashy was the U.S. House nominee of both the Reform Party and the Patriot Party, in South Carolina’s 4th district. The South Carolina Election Commission did not require Ashy to submit two different declarations of candidacy, one for each party.
This outcome will help the Green Party win its South Carolina ballot access case, which is pending in the 4th circuit and which will probably have an oral argument in April. One of the reasons the South Carolina Election Commission kept Eugene Platt off the November 2008 ballot is because he had only filed one declaration of candidacy, although he was seeking the nomination of three parties, Green, Working Families, and Democratic.
The declaration of candidacy is filed with the political party. It is a bizarre interpretation of the law that you wouldn’t have to file with each party whose nomination you seek.
The more logical conclusion is that the South Carolina Election Constitution (1) should have sought preclearance in 1998, when it accepted the nominations of Ahly, since that interpretation is contrary to the State law that was pre-cleared in 1988; (2) The South Carolina Election Commission did not have the authority to change the manner in which a congressional election is conducted from that provided by the state legislature.
A much simpler procedure would be to have any person who wishes to seek office to apply with county or state election commission, and have all candidates names appear on the primary ballot.
Little victories like this ease the procedural burdens on political associations like the United Citizens Party and the Greens. As we even out the playing field in local elections, then we begin to make some headway.
The precedent is encouraging for the SC Green Party in its fight against one-sided fusion and to all the folks that want to work against the two-party political culture.