“Our democratic process should not be derailed by what amounts to a technicality.” Senator Larry Martin, R-Pickens (quoted in an editorial on 5/6/2012 in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal)
Last week, South Carolina was stunned to learn of a lawsuit that would potentially remove every challenger (both Democrat and Republican) from the primary ballot in an election occurring less than six weeks from now on June 12. Even more stunning was the verdict from the South Carolina Supreme Court. In a 5-0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, creating chaos across the state. In the past, the Court ruled in favor of voter access and voter choices, but this time they did not.
As the Democratic and Republican state parties, their local counterparts—myself included, as the Chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party—and the Election boards across the state started the process of figuring out what the ruling meant, candidates were scrambling to find out if they were affected. When the ruling first came down, the parties thought that as many as 500 candidates (from both parties) would be affected statewide. When the air cleared, fewer than 200 candidates had been removed from the ballot—still a lot of candidates!—that had filed in good faith, thinking they were in compliance. The affected candidates were all challengers.
The finger-pointing has begun and I can guarantee you it will continue, but the real culprit appears to be an antiquated law that requires candidates to file their Statement of Economic Interest (SEI)—a document that shows the source(s) of the candidate’s income—simultaneously as they file their other paperwork with the county party official. When that law was written, the SEI was only in paper form because the Internet was not a viable option. In 2010, the law was changed to say that a candidate had to file the SEI online with the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission only takes that form online, and a candidate’s information goes up immediately once it is submitted. The remainder of that incongruent law has never been updated to reflect the new Ethics Commission’s policy.
What happens now? That is the question. Already, rumors of appeals to federal courts, candidate protests and interference of the US Department of Justice are circling. This Tuesday, Senator Larry Martin (R-Pickens) has called an emergency meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to address the law with a resolution introduced by Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) that would allow those affected candidates another opportunity to file properly. The General Assembly does have the ability to rectify the situation, and should—whether they have the will to do it remains to be seen, but it would be much better for the Legislature to do so than other alternatives.
The main issue facing the state is the little time left between now and the primary election June 12. South Carolina is still in a state of flux over this matter. The parties did certify the candidates Friday that were not affected by the ruling to the Election Commission, but things can still change. If the Legislature does update the law to reflect the current policy, what does it mean to the State Election Commission? The point is that we just don’t know; however, what we do know is this situation is far from over.
LaDonna Ryggs, Chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party, is the Managing Editor of www.palladianview.com, a digital magazine for the conservative, Republican woman.
Barbara McGowin
8:49 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
The SC Supreme Court ruling states "The effect of the political parties ignoring their statutory gatekeeping role is the prospect of the inclusion of many candidates on the ballot who did not comply with the statutory requirements. Accordingly, we grant relief to require compliance with the law and ensure that only legally qualified candidates are included on the ballots."
If we want to hold to the fundamental values as Americans, as South Carolinians, and follow the ruling of the Supreme Court the SCDP and the SCRP must comply with the law. Using electronic verification does not conflict with the law; it makes it much easier to verify compliance with the law.
It has been said that a law passed in 1991 provided an exemption for State House and Senate incumbents from filing a Statement of Economic Interest with their Statement of Intended Candidacy with their respective parties for candidate certification. This is not true. Here is the 1991 law that we are hearing so much about: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/c052.php
The incumbent exemption does not apply to incumbent candidates for State House and Senate (see article 52-607 of the 1991 law).
Should the Senate Judiciary Committee decide to follow the laws that they passed there will be a lot of incumbent State House and Senate candidates that will need to petition to retain their seats. There will also be many first time candidates that will find themselves back on the ballot.
I say follow the law.
reg
12:03 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
There could be an avenue of exclusion that I don't think many are aware of. This may apply only to races in which a party's candidate is unopposed, and the office is limited within a single county, but - in that specific format, a county party could verify such a candidate to be legit, documented and accepted to the county's election office. That was needed by noon on last Friday, though.
Rusty Inman
1:06 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
It is interesting that Ms. Ryggs would characterize as "stunning" a 5-0 decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that very simply insists that candidates "comply with statutory requirements" in order that "only legally qualified candidates are included on the ballots." The only eventuality deserving of such a characterization would have been a 5-0 decision by which the state's highest court did not insist that candidates be in compliance, thereby allowing the inclusion of candidates on the ballot who were not "legally qualified."
Equally interesting is Ms. Ryggs' implied applause for past Supreme Court decisions that favored what she terms "voter access." Given her party's position on the new Voter ID law, one finds her mention of "voter access" cynical and her sudden interest in it laughable.
Also interesting is Senator Martin's relegation of "statutory requirements" and "compliance with the law" to nothing more than "a technicality."
And then there is Senator Bryant, who, given the frequency of his ascension to it, is the only member of the Senate allowed to keep his soapbox at his desk. Known as the senator who has something to say about everything, he has introduced a resolution that "would allow" candidates who did not meet the statutory requirements per their initial filing "another opportunity to file properly."
The GOP melting down over laws protecting the integrity of the ballot is proof that there is a God and that He/She loves a good laugh.
John H
10:11 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
I am not surprised that the party leaders and candidates in this state that was recently ranked among the most likely to be susceptible to government corruption has difficulty complying with ethics filing requirements.
I was reminded to reread this original Patch article,
http://irmo.patch.com/articles/s-c-flunks-state-integrity-report