On August 22, the Democratic Party of Charleston County, South Carolina, asked a federal court to let it intervene in the pending lawsuit South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission. The Democratic Party simultaneously filed a brief, arguing that the Green Party nominee for State House, Eugene Platt, should be kept off the November ballot. The Court is very likely to grant the Democrats the right to intervene.
The issue is whether someone who has already been nominated by a minor party, and who later runs in a major party primary and loses that primary, should be kept off the general election ballot entirely. South Carolina permits fusion. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “sore loser” laws in 1974, Platt argues he isn’t a “sore loser”. He is an “ambitious winner”, i.e., someone who wins one party’s nomination and then tries for another party’s nomination.
The Democratic Party brief makes much of the fact that in 1976, a federal court in South Carolina kept some United Citizens Party nominees off the general election ballot. But the United Citizens candidates in that case had first lost the Democratic primary, and afterwards had received the United Citizens nominations. Thus, they were “sore losers”.
By the Democratic Party’s logic, Hillary Clinton would have been kept off the ballot in her Senate re-election bid if the Working Families Party had turned her down!
It would seem that members in both major parties are perfectly willing to keep non-major party candidates off the ballot; by any means necessary.
Some Democrats are targeting Nader, while some Republicans are targeting Bar.
The “sore loser” law has been portrayed as allowing the big bad parties to gang up on the little saintly parties, but in fact it gives enormous power to small parties. If Eugene Platt had won the Democratic primary, but lost a contested race in the Green Party convention for that nomination, he could not have run as a Democrat.
SC is one of seven states which permit “fusion” voting — cross-endorsements by multiple parties, with all a candidate’s votes counted together. SC is one of four states with a “sore loser” law. The relationship is obvious — if you seek to benefit from fusion, you shouldn’t be able to turn around and bite the hand of the party that failed to nominate you. Or: what goes around comes around.
Platt will lose in court, but he’ll get what he’s looking for — lots and lots of attention.
Look at me … I’m so pretty…. I’m so lacking in IN-TEG-RETY I’ll sign any promise and welsh out….. luv ya Eugene. Just what South Carolina needs… more self-promoting, self centered polticians.
I love these anonymous critics who are so sure of themselves but afraid to have their identity known. “follitics”, the reality is that if ever the situation arose that a 3rd party eliminated one of the big bad parties from running their candidate, they’d use their enormous influence, legislative power and teams of lawyers to change the law. You say: “if you seek to benefit from fusion, you shouldn’t be able to turn around and bite the hand of the party that failed to nominate you”. Why not? It’s ok to run as a Green against the Democrats but it’s not ok to try to bring them on board?! That’s ridiculous!
“Frolic2” it’s spelled “integrity” and both major parties lost theirs years ago. And the approval ratings for Congress and the president reflect that. Integrity is about standing up for what you believe is right and fighting for the people who have little power which is what Eugene has been doing for the last 14 years on the James Island PSD.
Richard, you make one error here. South Carolina does not recognize major and minor parties. All parties under South Carolina law are equal, or are supposed to be. Our nomination is as valuable as the Republican or Democratic nomination.
In addition I must point out that the pledge Eugene signed promises that he will not seek to run as a write-in nor as a petition candidate. Finally, the pledge specifically says that the chair of the “offended” political party must go to court themselves to seek redress. Instead, the Democratic Party is using taxpayer money and government employees to keep the Green Party from ballot access we are entitled to, carrying their water instead of simply complying with state law.