On August 7, the South Carolina Green Party filed a lawsuit against the State Election Commission. The Commission refuses to print Eugene Platt on the November ballot as the Green Party candidate for a particular State House seat. This is because, after the Green Party nominated Platt via convention, Platt then also tried to win the Democratic primary for the same office. He barely lost the Democratic primary. Under a somewhat ambiguous South Carolina election law, as interpreted by the state, Platt is now disqualified from being the Green Party nominee because he tried and failed to get the Democratic nomination. The case is South Carolina Green Party v S.C. Election Commission, federal court. This is an ACLU-sponsored lawsuit. South Carolina permits fusion, so if Platt had won the Democratic primary, he would be listed on the November ballot as both a Green and a Democrat.
Platt is a local office-holder and one of the strongest Green Party nominees ever nominated in South Carolina. He had also won the Working Families nomination, so if he wins the lawsuit, he will be listed in November as a Green and perhaps also as the WFP nominee.
South Carolina does not have registration by party.
Why did the ACLU fail to argue, in the alternative, that the State Election Commission misinterpreted the statute and that it does not bar ballot placement when the nomination of one party is confirmed before the nomination of the other party is decided?
The ACLU made this distinction in its constitutional argument but did not make a separate statutory interpretation argument on those grounds.
This is at least a plausible enough interpretation of the statute that it should have been included as an alternative argument.
Eric, I am not an attorney. I have not read the full documentation. I did, however, make just that argument to the Election Commission.
I can only assume that the attorneys wrote what they thought would be their most persuasive case. I may be called as a witness, and if I am I can assure you that I will bring Eric’s point up to the judge or jury.
Unfortunately, since it is an argument about the law, it needs to be made in the complaint, not by a witness. The complaint should include all plausible alternative legal arguments for the relief the plaintiff is seeking. Otherwise, the plaintiff will lose the right to assert those arguments at a later date.
It may be that the ACLU lawyers considered this argument and decided that it was frivolous. However, it would be worth checking in with them about it.
Platt got what he deserved !
If a candidate has so little conviction that he or she decides to run on multiple ballot lines that includes a major party that candidate deserves to run on NEITHER !
The Green Party in Northern California is infested with members routinely bop back and forth between the Green Party and the DemocRAT Party. After what transpired at the Green Party 2004 National Convention the eye of suspicion was firmly cast upon these members. With good reason may I add. Candidates for public office need to thoroughly vetted and should stand loyal to the party that nominates them.
Fusion is nothing more than a ruse to funnel the successful members of small parties back into the dominant parties.
#4: If a party wants to nominate or endorse a candidate, why shouldn’t it be allowed to do so?
One of the motivations for fusion in NY is that the parties have to poll a certain number of votes in order to maintain their qualified status.
History has lots of examples of people who moved between political parties: Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, George Wallace…