On February 4, IndependentVoting.org filed a request with a U.S. District Court in South Carolina, asking that it be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit called Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee, and South Carolina Republican Party, et al., v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-01407. Here is IndependentVoting’s memorandum. Here is IndependentVoting’s Motion, which includes affidavits by Jacqueline Salit, president of IndependentVoting, and Wayne Griffin, chair of the ballot-qualified Independence Party of South Carolina.
The Motion also includes unsigned statements by a South Carolina Democratic legislator, Joe Neal; by Allen Olson, chair of the Columbia Tea Party; by Brett Bursey, who was the Labor Party’s nominee for state house last year; and by Ted Adams, chair of the Constitution Party of South Carolina.
The lawsuit was filed last year by the Greenville County Republican Party and the South Carolina Republican Party. It argues that since parties in South Carolina must pay for their own primaries for municipal office (in cities that have partisan elections), the parties ought to be able to limit voting in those primaries to voters who are not “rivals” of the party. The Republicans also attack a state law that says that if a party convention chooses to nominate by convention, the motion must pass with a 3/4ths vote. South Carolina is one of the few states that lets all parties decide for themselves whether to nominate by primary or by convention, but the 3/4ths law makes it difficult for the major parties to ever opt out of a primary. The papers filed by IndependentVoting do not discuss the point that parties pay for their own municipal primaries. Also, IndependentVoting does not discuss the state law requiring a 3/4ths vote for a party to choose to nominate by convention. Thanks to Harry Kresky for copies of IndependentVoting’s legal papers. All of the state legislators mentioned as supporting IndependentVoting’s intervention are Democrats. Here is a Greenville News editorial opposing the lawsuit, although the editorial does not mention IndependentVoting’s request to intervene.
Here is the Republican Party’s complaint, filed last year.
Ugh.
The Republican Parties in this lawsuit are absolutely correct. Their freedom of association is being violated (especially given the fact that they are the ones paying for the primary election), and the 3/4 requirement in convention is not reasonable.
I generally don’t side with a major party over minor parties and independent voters, but in this case I do. The way to solve any problems with participation of independents and minor parties is to have easier ballot access laws and a better election method and/or system (i.e. approval voting and/or p.r.), not to violate a party’s right to choose its own candidates.
I find it sad that the SC Constitution Party chair states that “The current two party monopoly in South Carolina has not served our state well,” but instead of proposing a fairer voting method and/or system (one that would allow third parties and independents to better compete), he proposes that the two major parties not be allowed to choose their own candidates with their own rules.
As I stated in other posts, if the party pays for its method of selecting candidates, it has the right to close the process and the state has no rights to impose any rules on this private entity. Chip is also right about finding a better voting method and ballot access. I now believe we only need elections were all candidates: paid for parties selected candidates, parties unselected members, independents, and write-ins are all on one open general election ballot.
the solution is blank primaries, but for only non-affiliated voters (and only eligible non-affiliated voters being natural born citizen and legally naturalized US citizens — anchor babies without formal naturalization as adults are not eligible voters) that the future after the ongoing state trial court determination and then with this state court’s final establishment of an eligible 2008 state voter person “standing” to challenge the 2008 electoral college of this state’s electoral college delegate vetting of POTUS/CINC candidate, then on to a DC based court commenced quo warranto removal of POTUS/CINC and decertification of all parties who installed an undocumented and probably (on its face certainly) unconstitutionally ineligible current POTUS/CINC.
Part of the problem is that South Carolina has really confusing laws, they were written when Strom Thurmond was governor (slight hyperbole), and they’re afraid to change anything because it would have to get VRA pre-clearance.
One of the arguments that the intervenors make is that having closed primaries would tend to result in the segregation of the parties on the basis of race.
The city of Greenville has partisan elections, but the primaries are conducted by the local parties, and they can restrict participation. Primaries for state and legislative offices are conducted by the state (unless the party decides to nominate by convention). But when the primary is used, parties can’t restrict participation. The original complaint was that a Republican in Greenville County, but not the city was denied equal protection because even though he was willing to pay for the primary, he was forced to have non-Republicans participate.
This mixed system of primaries and conventions was part of the cause of Eugene Platt controversy. Since the state is conducting the primaries, they have to know who the candidates for nomination are. So Platt filed his declaration of candidacy with the Democratic Party, who forwarded it to state officials. His declarations of candidacy for the Green and Working Families parties was made just before the conventions. If a candidate made just one declaration and did it for a convention-nominating the party, the state would not know to put him on the ballot. That is why it doesn’t make sense to read the law as requiring only one declaration.
If the nominating activities were truly private, but all declarations of candidacy had to be made contemporaneously, then a party could make its own choice whether they wished to participate in (con)fusion voting.
#4, If all party nominations were truly private, there is no principle that says they would all need to be simultaneous. Presidential candidates are nominated by national party conventions, and those conventions are not simultaneous. And there is no law telling presidential candidates seeking a nomination that they must announce on any particular day.
Richard: Does the same convention that decides to nominate by convention then become a nominating convention, or does that happen at another time?
It’s worth noting that less than 10 SC municipalities still hold party primaries in elections for their own officials.
Virginia parties have several nominating options in addition to the primary, with the exception that incumbents get to pick the method by which they run for renomination. The 4th circuit said that, when a party is forced to nominate by primary, the party decides who’s eligible to vote in that primary. But when a party chooses to nominate by primary, that primary must be open to all voters. The court reasoned that, if the party wanted a closed process, and it had a choice, it could nominate by a method other than the primary (Miller v. Cunningham, originally Miller v. Brown).
Since SC is also in the 4th circuit, the Virginia ruling may control, at least up to the 4th circuit. I’m guessing that SC’s 75 percent rule will be struck down.
The ruling from the US district judge is overdue in the Idaho suit challenging the state-mandated open primary. Idaho parties can only nominate by primary (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa).
As best as I can tell from reading the South Carolina law, a party meeting is free to vote to nominate at that meeting, and then do it at that very same meeting. But the parties might have their own bylaws about that.
#2: In 1995, the 8th circuit ruled that, when the state mandates that parties nominate by primary, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
#4: “One of the arguments that the intervenors make is that having closed primaries would tend to result in the segregation of the parties on the basis of race.”
Florida and Kentucky have closed primaries, and North Carolina has semi-closed primaries, in which independents are eligible to vote. Is there racial segregation of the parties in those three states?
My state has open primaries, and the big majority of blacks vote in the Democratic primary. So I guess you could argue that open primaries cause racial segregation of the parties.
It should be noted that, if the state-mandated open primary is ultimately struck down, a party will still be able to have an open primary if it wants one (except that the state has the power to prohibit parties from inviting members of competing parties to vote in their primaries).
Are the party hack robots in SC still LUNATIC due to the 1860 gerrymander election — i.e. some after effects from the Dec. 1860 secession stuff in SC ???
For any MORONS on this list —
Nominations for candidates for PUBLIC office by PUBLIC Electors is PUBLIC business — totally subject to PUBLIC laws.
See the 1989 Eu case — PUBLIC stuff versus private stuff by the party hack gangs.
What exactly is the fixation that ANY PRIVATE group has some sort of PUBLIC independent power to do any thing whatever ???
#8: They were wrong! There is a growing feeling in this country that it is time to take this to the Supreme Court and get the states out of the primary business. Parties opening their primary does not work. With over 40% of registered voters not part of the two major parties, voters will want to select candidates not parties. The solution is Open General Elections, were all candidates: paid for parties selected candidates, parties unselected members, independents, and write-ins are all on one open general election ballot.
#11: You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but the 8th circuit’s opinion is the one that controls.
“…take this to the Supreme Court and get the states out of the primary business.”
The Supreme Court would have to overturn a multitude of precedents, and that’s not going to happen.
Voters are accustomed to party primaries, so states will continue to mandate and pay for primaries, since only the states can afford to pay for them.
Left to their own devices, parties would not hold primaries, due to the expense, so far fewer people would be choosing the parties’ candidates.
One of the big reasons that there are so many registered independents is that, in 1986, the Supreme Court empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries.
Suppose a party nominates by convention, and all the candidates for a particular office are in that party. Grassroots citizens would not get to vote for that office.
I’m assuming you would have a runoff following your Open General Election. That’s what Louisiana, Washington, and California have for state and congressional elections, despite the fact that most people call it a “primary.”
#12: For what ever reason there are more non major party registered voters, we do need a new system of ballot access and voting.
Could the Supreme Court say the states’ no longer could use taxpayers’ taxes to run parties’ primaries?
In my system, parties are free to select what ever selection processes they want as they are paying for it.
If the General Election is as open as I suggest, isn’t that giving ALL the voters the ability to make the final selection, the one that counts.
Under this system, there could be a larger number of candidates for a position, so I would proberly use the 50% + 1 to determine if Top Two runoff is needed.
The top 2 primary machine grinds on —
NE
LA
WA
CA
Next ???
#13: I strongly suggest that you read California Democratic Party v. Jones, in which the US Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary.
A quote: “We have recognized, of course, that States have a major role to play in structuring and monitoring the election process, including primaries. See Burdick v. Takushi… (1992); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn.,… (1986). We have considered it ‘too plain for argument,’ for example, that a State may require parties to use the primary format for selecting their nominees, in order to assure that intraparty competition is resolved in a democratic fashion. American Party of Tex. v. White,… (1974)… Similarly, in order to avoid burdening the general election ballot with frivolous candidacies, a State may require parties to demonstrate ‘a significant modicum of support’ before allowing their candidates a place on that ballot. See Jenness v. Fortson… (1971).”
“Could the Supreme Court say the states no longer could use taxpayers’ taxes to run parties’ primaries?”
Someone would have to file a new lawsuit, and a multitude of precedents would have to be overturned, including the 8th circuit’s ruling in Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County. That’s just not going to happen.
“Under [my Open General Election], there could be a larger number of candidates for a position, so I would proberly use the 50% + 1 to determine if Top Two runoff is needed.”
Your “Open General Election” is like the Louisiana “top two” (“open primary”), except that Louisiana does not permit write-in votes. In the Washington state and California “top two,” of course, there is ALWAYS a second round of voting. Thus a candidate who gets 50%-plus in the first round may be defeated in the runoff.
Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election– both of whom may be from the same party?
It’s worth noting that when Louisiana parties endorse//nominate a candidate, it has always been done by the party’s central committee– a far, far less democratic method than the party primary. Parties are not going to hold primaries unless the state pays for them, due to the great expense.
#13: Two more points: (1) Your “Open General Election,” like the Louisiana system, is only a “top two” when no candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round. But if the race is settled in the first round, it’s a “top one.”
(2) Parties in Virginia have several nominating options besides the primary. And yet, for years, the state has paid the costs of party primaries.