On January 6, the South Carolina Supreme Court will hear Tempel v Platt, a case involving the Green Party’s attempt to place Eugene Platt on the November 2008 ballot as its candidate for the State House of Representatives, 115th district. The Green Party had nominated Platt by convention. Afterwards, that same year, Platt had run in the Democratic primary for that same seat (in June) and lost that primary.
The Democratic Party of South Carolina had then sued Platt, saying that by trying to be the Green Party nominee in November 2008, he was violating a pledged he signed when he entered the Democratic primary. The pledge, which is in section 7-11-210 of the election law, says if someone who lost a fight for a party nomination still tries to run for the same seat in November some other way, “the chairman of the party which held the primary shall forthwith institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for an order enjoining the person from so offering or campaigning in the general election.” See this story. Thanks to Dave Gillespie for the link.
This case is separate from Platt’s case pending in the 4th circuit, South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina Election Commission. That federal case argues that it is unconstitutional for South Carolina to keep a party nominee off the general election ballot if that same nominee later tries to get another party’s nomination and loses the fight for that second party’s nomination. All the briefs have been filed in the federal case, but no hearing date has been set.
One may read this post and wonder what the difference is in the two cases. The reason there are two cases is that Platt faced two legal barriers to being put on the November ballot as the Green Party nominee. First he placed the barrier of a state ballot access law, which is the subject of the federal case. Second, he faced the barrier that another state election law gives a party to power to sue someone who tries to run against the party’s nominee, if that person had first tried to obtain that party’s nomination and had failed to get it. That second law would even make it illegal for someone like that to run as a write-in candidate in November. All of these laws make little sense, given that South Carolina permits two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. None of the other states that permit fusion place such landmines in the path of anyone who tries to use the fusion process.
Thanks for your usual fine reporting Richard. One thing I would all is, the statue in question enjoins a candidate from running as a write-in candidate, as you point out, and enjoins them from seeking a place on the ballot as a petition candidate. Platt did neither of these things, and never planned to do so. His goal, and ours as South Carolina Greens, was to run the best, most representative candidate we could…and that person was Platt.
Other party’s primary voters should not be permitted to decide whom the Green Party is able to nominate.
While I am no constitutional lawyer, or lawyer of any sort, I don’t understand how one can give up his or her constitutional rights by signing a pledge.
The fundamental concept behind a partisan nominating system is to exclude candidates and voters from participating. In essence, candidates Hutto and Platt were seeking an exclusive right to appear on the general election ballot as the Democratic Party.
Before adoption of the Australian ballot, the Democrats would have had their party “workers” out disrupting distribution of ballots with Platt’s name printed on it. Democratic and Republican leaning newspapers might omit Platt’s name from sample ballots they print, just as they often ignore minor party candidates in their news coverage.
Now political parties seek to exclude through control of the election law. Party lawyers have replaced the party toughs of the 19th century, but their purposes are the same.
But consider what would happen in an Open Primary state such as Washington or Louisiana, and soon to be California. Placement on the ballot requires a modest number of signatures and a filing fee, much as was promised when the Australian ballot was introduced over a century ago.
Endorsement and support of candidates is totally separate from placement of candidates on the ballot. The parties are free to recruit candidates, provide financial and other support, run positive or negative campaigns, but they could not use the legal system to prevent voters from casting a ballot for other candidates.
In California, political parties will be able to have their endorsements distributed as part of the Voter’s Pamphlet. In races where the party does not have a candidate, they may endorse a candidate who prefers another party, but may be closer to the party’s political views than the other candidates. A party might even endorse a candidate who prefers another party, if a candidate who prefers their candidate is an embarrassment (eg Tom Metzger or Duke Cunningham).
The federal district court did not rule on the filing deadline and party oath issues, thus (at least as argued by the State in their brief) they may not be appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Jim: get your own blog. No one can understand what you are talking about.
Pingback: Eugene Platt for SC State House
Pingback: Eugene Platt for SC State House
Pingback: Temple v Platt case argued before the SC Supreme Court « South Carolina Green Party
Pingback: Temple v Platt case argued before the SC Supreme Court « Some Carolinian