On January 19, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned opinion, dismissing the Green Party’s challenge to the oath that candidates must sign before they run in a major party primary. The mandatory oath is one reason the Green Party’s candidate for the State House in 2008, Eugene Platt, could not be on the November 2008 ballot. Platt had first obtained the Green Party nomination. Then he had run in the Democratic Party primary. To get on the ballot in the Democratic Party primary, he had to sign an ambiguously-worded oath that the party says barred him from running in November as the Green Party nominee.
The Supreme Court says its own opinion has no precedential value and will not be published. It avoided the issue that the Green Party had argued in that court, namely, that loyalty oaths are unconstitutional for candidates. The Supreme Court said since the party had not made that argument in the lower state court, it can’t raise it now.
Two federal cases on this issue in South Carolina are still pending. One challenges the election law that says that someone who tries to get the nomination of two parties, and fails to get either one, cannot then be the nominee of the other party. The other case asks whether South Carolina should have obtained U.S. Justice Department approval, under the Voting Rights Act, before it changed its rules on whether candidates seeking a party nomination must file a declaration of candidacy for each separate party. At one point only one declaration of candidacy was good enough, but later the state changed the rule and said a separate declaration of candidacy is needed for each party. But the state didn’t clear this change with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. Thanks to Scott West for this news.
How many USELESS MORON lawyers are there who fail to make ALL attacks possible on ALL election laws in the LOWER courts ???
What if Eugene Platt had filed his single declaration of candidacy with the Green Party (county chairman) instead of the Democratic Party?
How would the Democratic Party know that he wanted their nomination, so that they could tell the election commission to place his name on their primary ballot?
See how much simpler it would be if candidates for office would file with the state/county election authorities, who would then place all names on the primary (or preferential election) ballot, where all voters could choose from among all candidates.
Political parties would still be free to recruit, endorse and support candidates.
It is a disappointing result, but not entirely unexpected. The lower court judge refused to entertain constitutional arguments on freedom of speech, regarding the whole thing as a contractual matter. The state supreme court wouldn’t hear the constitutional issues because the could not be raised, ostensibly for the first time, on appeal.
At least it is not precedent, but it is evidence of an reluctance of the courts to weigh in on free speech within political parties.