South Carolina Supreme Court to Hear Case on Party Loyalty Oath

January 4, 2010

By Richard Winger
Reprinted from Ballot Access News

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.
4 Comments »

Eugene Platt for SC State Assembly 115

Latest News

News Archives

Search

South Carolina Supreme Court to Hear Case on Party Loyalty Oath

January 4, 2010