On October 27, the South Carolina Election Commission said that Republican Bobby Harrell will remain on the November ballot for State Representative, district 114. However, the Commission says it doesn’t matter how many votes he gets, his votes don’t count. There could hardly be any clearer example of the decline in the sovereignty of the voter in the United States today. It is one thing for a candidate who is elected to decline to accept the post, but quite another to tell the voters that if they vote for a particular candidate, their votes won’t be honored. See this story.
It seems somewhat likely that because this is a Republican district, Republicans will quickly come up with a write-in recommendation. Harrell recently resigned from the legislature. The ballot will list him, his Democratic opponent, and his Green Party opponent. The 114th district is in Charleston.
Yes, if the Republicans need this seat bad enough, they will do and spend whatever it takes to keep it via a write-in campaign. However, they had better hurry, as the election is hardly over a week away. Sounds like the Democrats have won this one by default, as I can’t see a heavily GOP district voting for a Green candidate.
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
Should have candidate/replacement rank order lists for all legislative bodies.
How would you have the vote be honored?
Jim Riley: If your reply question was addressed to me, I can only say I don’t really see any issue here. The SC Election Commission is the “law of the land” in this state regarding elections, and therefore any votes cast for Bobby Harrell will “wasted” votes and not be counted or recorded.
If the GOP needs this seat bad enough to control the lower House, they probably have already selected someone (hopefully with an easy name to remember and spell) and are saturating the airways telling the Republican faithful to go vote and write-in this person’s name
Otherwise, they will write this one off to the Democratic nominee. I think the Green candidate is too liberal for the voters of this district, and while votes cast for the Green candidate may be higher than would be normally cast, I don’t expect to see the Green candidate elected and would be shocked if such happens.
I recall a similar situation in Florida when Mark Foley resigned from Congress and withdrew from the election after the ballots were made. In Florida, it was made determined that a vote for Foley was actually a vote for the replacement candidate, Joe Negron.
The original comment about “the decline of the sovereignty of the voter” overlooks the fact that Mr. Harrell entered a guilty plea in which he agreed to withdraw from the race and agreed that he would not hold elective office for at least three years. Thus, the statement from the State Elections Commission that votes for Harrell would not be counted seems quite reasonable. The Republicans selected Mr. Harrell as their nominee knowing that he was under a cloud, and it is too late under the applicable statute to select a replacement candidate.
Darryl: Each state has the right to control its elections and make any rules they want. And we know the various Courts also disagree, and sometimes have to call on the SCOTUS to make the final verdict.
Our federal system of government often has it negatives as well as its positives. But I’d rather live in a republic like the United States, than in some countries where the basic human rights are not recognized. A country called North Korea comes to mind.
I’m going to test Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and see if we now only elect rich billionaires. — rodericke.com
Roderick: What do you mean by “I’m going to test Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and see if we now only elect rich billionaires?”