South Carolina Senator Harvey Peeler has introduced a bill to injure independent candidates in 3 ways: (1) independent candidates would need to file a declaration of candidacy in February, when candidates running in primaries also file a declaration; (2) signers could not sign for an independent candidate unless they had been regiistered to vote for 30 days before signing; (3) signers could not sign if they had voted in a party primary that year.
The first two parts of this bill would almost certainly be found unconstitutional. South Carolina passed a law in 1989 requiring independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy in February, but it was invalidated by the 4th circuit in Cromer v State in 1990. And the US Supreme Court summarily affirmed a case in 1970 that had invalidated a law saying newly-registered voters can’t sign for independent candidates. That case was Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller. Thanks to Scott West for news about the South Carolina bill.
In Cromer, the majority asserted that the interests put forward by South Carolina did not justify the burden placed on supporters of independent candidacies. They chastised the dissent for putting forward hypothetical reasons why a State could have for such a law, but that South Carolina itself had not presented.
The majority also noted that other States had similar laws, and offered the possibility that those other States might provide a constitutional rationale for doing so.
One hypothetical rationale offered in the dissent was that the state would want to educate voters about all possible candidates before the party primaries. If petition signers were restricted to non-primary voters, then the State would have an interest in ensuring that potential primary voters were informed of alternative candidates. If a voter wished to support an independent candidate, they would need to abstain from voting in a primary. Rather than just an abstract not being able to sign a petition, it would be a concrete not being able to sign the petition of Mr. Cromer (or whomever). Since South Carolina has an open primary, voters would not only be choosing a party, they would be choosing whether or not to support an independent candidate.
The majority also seemed to be particularly concerned about the early date of the declaration (it was March 30) seven months before the election, but not concerned at all with respect to party candidates. They also seemed to give undue deference to the role of independent candidates.
While Mr. Cromer was in the South Carolina House, he offered legislation that would have provided for a blanket primary (this was in the 1990s); non-partisan county elections; elimination of the straight ticket; and term limits.
He is more recently noted for being the writer, director and producer of “The Long Way Home: A Bigfoot Story.”
The South Carolina major parties, should they agree with each other, are free to move the date of the primaries to a later time, such as September, if the Dems & Reps feel uncomfortable deciding whether to run or not as early as the spring. Also if Dems & Reps really feel it is a huge advantage to enter a race late, why don’t their activists and potential candidates take advantage of the so-called advantage that independents have, and why don’t they run as independents? The truth is that there are huge advantages to being a Rep nominee, or a Dem nominee, in independent candidates really do not big advantages when all factors are considered.
The bill died in committee yesterday. Bret Bursey from the SC Progressive Network made a presentation against it, citing the decision of Cromer vs SC.
He doesn’t think the bill is going anywhere this year.
Here is a link to the bill: http://preview.tinyurl.com/bills-3746
Doesn’t South Carolina law set the date for the primary? While the legislature could change the date, I don’t believe the political parties can unilaterally change the date.
With a common declaration date, individual candidates could choose whether to run as a Democrat, Republican, 3rd party, or independent candidate.
An independent candidate has the advantage of not having to convince party members to support his nomination. If the party candidate fails, then he is disqualified from the general election. Of course if he succeeds, then he is ensured of having some of his competitors cleared from the field.
Of course, the best solution would be to go to Top 2 or similar primary.
Why would Top 2 be “the best solution” from the prespective of independent and minor party candidates, who will almost inevitably be shut out of participation in general elections with such a system (as has already happened in Washington state)?
In 2006, Washington held conventional primaries. The number of minor party and independent candidates for legislature could be counted on the stump of one arm. Well there coulda, woulda, shoulda, been more but there weren’t.
And what is so important about the general election vs. a primary, where every candidate appears, and every voter can vote. It’s OK to choose between several independents but not several Republicans or Democrats?
The previous news that the bill H3208 died in committee was incorrect. The bill has passed the committee, and will be before the full House Judiciary committee on Tuesday, April 7.
A Senate anti petition bill is up Thursday, April 2, 9am in a Senate Subcommittee.
Session 118 (2009-2010) – H 3746 http://preview.tinyurl.com/petitioncandidate
Session 118 (2009-2010) – S 590
http://preview.tinyurl.com/petitioncandidatesenate