On August 12, U.S. District Court Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, upheld South Carolina election laws that permit fusion, but which also say that if someone gets the nomination of one party first, and later tries to get the nomination of a second party and fails, then the first nomination is voided. South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission, 3:08-cv-02790.
The plaintiff-candidate, Eugene Platt, had been nominated first for a legislative seat in 2008 by the Green Party. Then he tried to win the Democratic primary for the same seat, but he lost, so the state wouldn’t let him appear on the November ballot as the Green Party nominee. The decision says the burden on the Green Party was not severe, since the state would have let it choose another nominee. Here is the decision.
Its a bad decision, which seems to have been made in a political vacuum.
Early nomination is necessary for parties and candidates with fewer resources to provide more time to overcome hurdles.
The point to running a candidate who would be competitive in another party’s primary is to win that primary with an appealing candidate, and failing that to gain enough recognition to win in the general election.
And so on. I can see why a major party absolutist might not like fusion, but I fail to understand how it doesn’t create a “severe” burden for the party seeking fusion to throw their candidate off the ballot.
The problem is that Mr. Platt was trying to qualify on the basis of being the nominee of a political party. If South Carolina were to adopt the Washington Top 2 system, then he would have qualified on the basis of support of individual voters. He could indicate his own political preference on the ballot, and political parties would be free to endorse him or not.
If Platt wanted to be placed on the ballot by individual voters, he could have run as an independent.
#3 If all candidates were placed on the ballot by individual voters, he would not have had to make that choice. And under a system like that used in Washington he could indicate his party preference on the ballot.
Yes, in Washington state, a candidate can invent his “party preference,” say, “Beer Keg Party.”
I take it, Jim, that you want the 29 states that have party registration to repeal it.
Why should the State keep a record of your political activities?