Comments on: South Carolina Senate Passes Bill to Impose Primary Screen-out, but Bill Also Lowers the Number of Signatures http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/29/south-carolina-senate-passes-bill-to-impose-primary-screen-out-but-bill-also-lowers-the-number-of-signatures/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:15:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3814 By: Jim Riley http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/29/south-carolina-senate-passes-bill-to-impose-primary-screen-out-but-bill-also-lowers-the-number-of-signatures/comment-page-1/#comment-784298 Jim Riley Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:57:16 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=10253#comment-784298 South Carolina treats nomination by petition as nomination by an ad hoc group of voters, and parallel to nomination by organized political parties via convention or primary. This is the same as is used in Texas. Permitting a voter to vote in a primary and then participate in the nomination of another candidate for the same office would be in violation of the principles expressed in <i>Jones</i>. South Carolina does not have party registration, so requiring a declaration of candidacy filed before the primary/convention/signature-gathering protects a voter from inadvertently participating in one nomination process, and then later discovering that he may not help nominate a preferred candidate. If South Carolina would do away with party nomination as the vehicle for gaining access to the ballot at which all voters may participate, they likely would set a much lower qualification standard. This is true in Washington and Louisiana, and as proposed in California. South Carolina treats nomination by petition as nomination by an ad hoc group of voters, and parallel to nomination by organized political parties via convention or primary. This is the same as is used in Texas.

Permitting a voter to vote in a primary and then participate in the nomination of another candidate for the same office would be in violation of the principles expressed in Jones.

South Carolina does not have party registration, so requiring a declaration of candidacy filed before the primary/convention/signature-gathering protects a voter from inadvertently participating in one nomination process, and then later discovering that he may not help nominate a preferred candidate.

If South Carolina would do away with party nomination as the vehicle for gaining access to the ballot at which all voters may participate, they likely would set a much lower qualification standard. This is true in Washington and Louisiana, and as proposed in California.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/29/south-carolina-senate-passes-bill-to-impose-primary-screen-out-but-bill-also-lowers-the-number-of-signatures/comment-page-1/#comment-784283 Demo Rep Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:54:27 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=10253#comment-784283 How many UNEQUAL ways have the party hacks dreamed up to make it more and more impossible for there to be ANY opposition to the incumbents in the various regimes ??? I.E. Is the U.S.A. just as rotted NOW as in France 1789 ??? Gee -- Things happened in France 1789. Where are the court cases asking for GIANT $$$ damages to bankrupt the party hacks and election bureaucrats involved in making / enforcing UN-constitutional laws ??? How many UNEQUAL ways have the party hacks dreamed up to make it more and more impossible for there to be ANY opposition to the incumbents in the various regimes ???

I.E. Is the U.S.A. just as rotted NOW as in France 1789 ???

Gee — Things happened in France 1789.

Where are the court cases asking for GIANT $$$ damages to bankrupt the party hacks and election bureaucrats involved in making / enforcing UN-constitutional laws ???

]]>