|  

Monday, June 16, 2008

State Law Could Curb Three-Way James Island Race

Posted by Greg Hambrick on Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM

After a loss at the polls on primary day last week, the now former Democrat Eugene Platt has been in serious talks about running as a candidate for the Green Party in the S.C. House District 115 race. But state law could prevent him from getting on the ballot.

Considering the closeness of Platt's run as the Democratic candidate in 2006 (losing by a scant 40 votes to Republican Wallace Scarborough), its not surprising that the Democratic Party is concerned about Platt spoiling the vote in a election year where people are even more keyed up about voting out the status quo.

The state law says that if a candidate who lost in the primary attempts to be placed on the general election ballot, the county party chair can seek through the courts to enjoin him/her from being included on the ballot.

The gray area is the term "thereafter" in the law. Since Platt secured the Green Party nomination prior to the Dem primary, he could argue that this electoral double jeopardy doesn't apply in his case.

But (and this is a BIG BUT), one could easily see the court weighing the intent of the law, which seems to be to prevent any losing primary candidate (regardless of the time and place of a second endorsement) from being on the general election ballot.

Tags:

Comments (6) RSS

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

Generic user icon

This interpretation of this law would seem to imply that if someone lost their attempt to get the Green nomination, they'd be disqualified from getting the Democratic or Republican nomination. Why should one party's decision's prevent another party from getting the candidate of their choice?

Posted by Paul on June 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

This interpretation of this law would seem to imply that if someone lost their attempt to get the Green nomination, they'd be disqualified from getting the Democratic or Republican nomination. Why should one party's decision's prevent another party from getting the candidate of their choice?

Posted by Paul on June 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Paul makes a good point. Especially considering that, had Eugene won the Dem nomination, his name would have been on the ballot multiple times (for the Working Families, Dem, and Green parties) but since he lost one, he can't have any.

Posted by Greg Hambrick on June 17, 2008 at 5:49 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Paul makes a good point. Especially considering that, had Eugene won the Dem nomination, his name would have been on the ballot multiple times (for the Working Families, Dem, and Green parties) but since he lost one, he can't have any.

Posted by Greg Hambrick on June 17, 2008 at 5:49 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Thanks for this piece Greg. Another consideration is this: When Eugene came before the Green Party to seek our nomination he did so without foreknowledge that he would win the party nomination. Indeed, since the South Carolina Green Party votes by consensus, meaning that 100% of the people must agree or stand aside for the party to nominate a state level candidate, Eugene could well have lost our nomination. If he had lost it, by the state's reasoning, his name would not have appeared on the primary ballot. No party can be given control over another party's ballot line, and this is what the state appears to want to do. Most importantly though is this question: What serves the voters of the 115th District the best? Move voices and choices in November, or less democracy for the voters in the low Country?

Posted by Gregg Jocoy on June 19, 2008 at 8:29 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Thanks for this piece Greg. Another consideration is this: When Eugene came before the Green Party to seek our nomination he did so without foreknowledge that he would win the party nomination. Indeed, since the South Carolina Green Party votes by consensus, meaning that 100% of the people must agree or stand aside for the party to nominate a state level candidate, Eugene could well have lost our nomination. If he had lost it, by the state's reasoning, his name would not have appeared on the primary ballot. No party can be given control over another party's ballot line, and this is what the state appears to want to do. Most importantly though is this question: What serves the voters of the 115th District the best? Move voices and choices in November, or less democracy for the voters in the low Country?

Posted by Gregg Jocoy on June 19, 2008 at 8:29 AM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Greg Hambrick
News Editor

Press Time Tweets

Recent Comments

City Paper Blogs

RSS Links

Classified Listings
  • Tokyo Bistro Just ate lunch there this week and it was great! They have a trendy, but… -CHS291
  • Il Cortile Del Re We went to Il Cortile after the Mike Moran Furniture show at Rebekah Jacob Gallery… -project_runwayHottie
  • Baked Heaven!!! The service was friendly & suggestive not to mention knowledgable on all the incredible… -alicia66
  • A.C.'s Bar and Grill Love A.C.'s brunch. Chicken and waffles are the best cure for a hangover. If you… -chaslovah
  • Tokyo Bistro The Sushi is AWESOME, their Dancing Dragon Roll is the best sushi I have ever… -Megan
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2009, Charleston City Paper   RSS