The South Carolina Green Party will appeal its lawsuit over fusion to the 4th circuit. Yesterday the U.S. District Court had ruled against the party. South Carolina permits fusion, but says if a minor party nominee tries to get a major party nomination as well, and fails to win the major party primary, then the candidate can’t even keep his or her original minor party nomination and can’t run at all in November. Thanks to Gene Platt for this news.
Is this fusion or that ‘sore loser’ rule? I am not sure I can see a reason for such a law, as described.
I bet that the horrible Twin City v. Timmons case will come up. Something to the effect will likely be said; “well since fusion is not a right, we can do or not do what we what with it. nah, nah, bo-bo.”
Like so many election laws, this one “stacks the deck” in favor of the major parties.
The law’s original intent was to keep candidates from running indy or write in…after….losing a primary…the sore loser law….
In this case you had a recognized, organized party who nominated a candidate, but because he lost a primary of another party, were denied the right to have this candidate on their ballot line.
The way the “sore loser” law was written, it (in a stretch) could be seen to apply to this case. Whether this steps on voter rights is above my pay grade, but I do think it should be addressed.
Also my understanding of fusion voting in S. C. is that is not a “law” but an interpretation that was the result of fusion not being prohibited.
I could see this ending in a challenge to fusion voting in general.
What if Mr. Platt had campaigned for the Democratic nomination with the expressed argument, that if nominated he would bring the additional support of Green and Working Family voters; but if he lost, he would try to defeat the choice of the Democratic party, even if it meant being a spoiler, and would also not support the nominees of the party for other offices. IOW, I will be sore if I lose, and make you pay. The Democratic Party could have reasonably rejected his participation in the primary. But just because he didn’t overtly make that argument, isn’t the effect of his continued candidacy under other party banners the same?
And what if pigs had wings Mr. Riley? Eugene’s goal, and the Green Party’s goal, is to win the seat. That means the Democrat looses. Surprisingly enough, the Republican does as well. See how that works out? Some go so far as to call that democracy.
You do raise an interesting point however…did the Democratic Party have the option of keeping him off *their* primary ballot? If so, since his securing the Green and WFP nominations was no secret, shouldn’t that have been their course of action instead of using the Elections Commission to do their dirty work for them?