Reprinted from The Post and Courier
by Sandi Perry

As many of your readers are already aware, the ACLU has now stepped in to the case of Eugene Platt, who is running for House District 115, Folly Beach and James Island.

After losing to incumbent Republican Wallace Scarborough by only 40 votes in the last election, Mr. Platt sought the nominations of the Democratic Party and the Green Party in a process called “fusion,” permitted under state law.

On May 3, he gained the nomination of the Green Party, but on June 10, he failed to win the Democratic Party primary.

The State Election Commission (Democrats and Republicans only) has interpreted the state’s “sore-loser” law, and announced that it will refuse to put Mr. Platt’s name on the ballot for the general election. The Green Party has thus been denied its candidate.

The ACLU has rightfully requested an injunction prohibiting the commission from denying Mr. Platt and the Green Party access to the ballot. Citizens, take heed — your choice for representative may be unjustly denied.

SANDI PERRY
Ashley River Road
Charleston

By Richard Winger
Reprinted from Ballot Access News

On August 22, the Democratic Party of Charleston County, South Carolina, asked a federal court to let it intervene in the pending lawsuit South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission. The Democratic Party simultaneously filed a brief, arguing that the Green Party nominee for State House, Eugene Platt, should be kept off the November ballot. The Court is very likely to grant the Democrats the right to intervene.

The issue is whether someone who has already been nominated by a minor party, and who later runs in a major party primary and loses that primary, should be kept off the general election ballot entirely. South Carolina permits fusion. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “sore loser” laws in 1974, Platt argues he isn’t a “sore loser”. He is an “ambitious winner”, i.e., someone who wins one party’s nomination and then tries for another party’s nomination.

The Democratic Party brief makes much of the fact that in 1976, a federal court in South Carolina kept some United Citizens Party nominees off the general election ballot. But the United Citizens candidates in that case had first lost the Democratic primary, and afterwards had received the United Citizens nominations. Thus, they were “sore losers”.

Reprinted from Spartanburg Herald-Journal
Editorial

Democratic Party voters shouldn’t be able to dictate who represents the Green Party on the ballot. That’s why South Carolina’s “sore loser” law should be struck down.

The law is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the state Election Commission on behalf of Eugene Platt. Platt ran for a state House seat from Charleston as a Democrat but lost the primary.

Now the Green Party wants Platt to represent it on the ballot, but state law won’t allow it. The “sore loser” law prohibits a candidate who loses a primary from appearing on the general election ballot as another party’s candidate.

The ACLU claims the law is unconstitutional, and it’s right.

The Democratic Party has a genuine interest in preserving the integrity of its nominating primaries. Democrats who have been rejected from the primary shouldn’t continue to work against the party’s nominee.

But that interest is dwarfed by the right of other parties to nominate whoever they choose to represent them on the ballot. The law is being used to deprive the Green Party of its chosen candidate.

The worst aspect of the law is that the Green Party will lose its candidate because of the choice of Democratic voters in that party’s primary. In other words, the law allows Democratic Party voters to reject a Green Party candidate.

The “sore loser” law also obstructs South Carolina’s law allowing “fusion voting” - one person running as the candidate of two or more parties, appearing more than once on the ballot and combining his votes.

The lawsuit points out that, under the sore loser law, if a candidate planning to run under the banners of several parties runs in any primary, he runs the risk of not being able to appear on the ballot under any party - just because of the votes of the members of one party.

The “sore loser” law is an invention of the members of the two major parties. Its intention is to protect those parties and their monopoly on the political process. It makes sure that candidates rejected by one of these parties are out of the campaign.

The court should strike down the law. It narrows the political process. It is dedicated to the preservation of the current power structure, not the effective expression of the will of the people through elections.

This story appeared in print on page A6

Comments and editorial here

By Yvonne Wenger
Reprinted from The Post and Courier

COLUMBIA — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Thursday that alleges the State Election Commission violated Eugene Platt’s rights when it decided to not allow him on the November ballot.

The broader issue is over the ACLU’s contention with South Carolina election laws that allow candidates to run for office under multiple parties while imposing a “sore loser” statute that prohibits a candidate defeated for one party’s nomination from appearing on the ballot for another party.

“For South Carolina voters — no matter what party they belong to — this election system is not acceptable,” Graham Boyd, interim executive director of the ACLU South Carolina Office, said in a statement. “We are confident the court will fix this problem and let the voters of this state choose the candidates that best represent them.”

The ACLU wants the court to require the state to place Platt’s name on the ballot as the Green Party candidate for the House District 115 seat. Platt, though, was defeated in the June 10 Democratic Party primary for the seat by James Island lawyer Anne Peterson Hutto. Incumbent Republican Rep. Wallace Scarborough is running for re-election.

Platt was selected for the Green Party nomination May 3.

Chris Whitmire, public information officer for the State Election Commission, said he could not comment as of late Thursday afternoon because the commission had not seen a copy of the lawsuit. He cited a state statute as the basis for the commission’s rejection issued in late June.

Platt questioned the logic of allowing what happened in one party to negate what happens in another. “My primary motivation is to win the election and to try to serve the people of District 115,” he said.

A related issue involves a pledge Platt had signed with the Democratic Party regarding future candidacy.

Bill Runyon, attorney and former Charleston Democratic Party chairman, said it’s the party’s job to enforce the pledge, not the election commission. Whitmire agreed that the pledge is an issue to be handled by the party.

PDFs

COMPLAINT - Nature of the Case

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.

Copyright © 1997 - 2007 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Group Says “Sore Loser” Statute Violates Free Association Rights

ACLU Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBIA, SC – In the first case of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the South Carolina election rules that prevent a candidate seeking the nomination of more than one political party from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate wins one party’s nomination but loses another’s. South Carolina is one of only four states that permits fusion voting, which allows multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate, but also has a so-called “sore loser” statute disqualifying candidates who have been selected by one party but rejected by another. The ACLU brought this legal challenge on behalf of the state Green Party, a disqualified candidate for the state House of Representatives and a South Carolina voter.

“In the context of fusion voting, the sore loser statute unconstitutionally violates the right of voters and parties to select the candidates of their choosing,” said Bryan Sells, Senior Staff Counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “The First Amendment provides special protection for the process in which a political party selects a nominee that best represents its ideology and preferences. But South Carolina’s election scheme rejects that fundamental protection and makes the outcome of one party’s convention dependent on the outcome of every other party’s nominating process. The real loser here is the democratic process.”

One of the clients in the ACLU’s case is Eugene Platt, who was selected as the Green Party candidate for a South Carolina House seat, but later failed to win the endorsement of the Democratic Party. At the urging of the Democratic Party and relying on the sore loser provision, the South Carolina Election Commission decided that Platt was ineligible to appear on the ballot under the Green Party banner.

“Even though we selected Eugene Platt as our party’s nominee for the South Carolina House of Representatives, his name will not appear on the ballot,” said Gregg Jocoy of the South Carolina Green Party. “The state should not be in the business of telling parties and voters who their candidates should be. The people of this state and this district deserve better.”

In its brief, the ACLU charges that South Carolina’s election scheme imposes an unjustified burden on the First Amendment’s free association rights of Platt and voters who are supporting him as well as the Green Party’s right to select its preferred candidate. The ACLU is also seeking an injunction requiring the state to place Platt’s name on the ballot for the general election in November.

“For South Carolina voters – no matter what party they belong to – this election system is not acceptable,” said Graham Boyd, Interim Executive Director of the ACLU South Carolina Office. “We are confident the court will fix this problem and let the voters of this state choose the candidates that best represent them.”

Attorneys on the case are Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project.

The legal documents in today’s case are available at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/access/36353res20080807.html

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

More information about the ACLU South Carolina Office is available at: www.aclusouthcarolina.org