According to this news story, the state chair of the South Carolina Republican Party said the party will soon file a lawsuit to win a closed primary for itself.
The party might lose such a lawsuit, however. The Virginia Republican Party already had a similar lawsuit, and the 4th circuit said the party only has a right to insist on a closed primary for itself in instances at which the party has no choice but to nominate by primary. Both Virginia and South Carolina are in the 4th circuit, so the Virginia precedent will control. The Virginia case is Miller v Brown, 462 F 3d 312 (2006). South Carolina law says any qualified party is free to nominate by convention or primary. The party decides. Major parties in South Carolina always choose a primary, instead of a convention, but because the party is legally free to choose a convention, it will have difficulty winning the lawsuit.
One of the ironies is that the South Carolina state Republican chair made this promise to a Tea Party meeting. Yet in Texas, which also has open primaries, polls have shown that the 2010 gubernatorial candidate favored by Tea Party activists, Debra Medina, receives more popular support from self-described independent voters than she does from self-described Republican voters.
Only party hack extremists voting in party hack closed primaries and closed conventions — producing party hack extremist general election candidates ??? Duh.
P.R. and A.V.
Richard – there’s a story that’s calling your name! Evan Bayh is retiring from the Senate and only one candidate has nearly enough signatures to qualfiy for the ballot (she has about 3500 and needs 4500 by Friday). If she doesn’t qualify, party bosses will appoint a nominee.
Thanks, Ross.
By the time the 4th circuit decided the Virginia case in December 2007, it was called Miller v. Cunningham.
South Carolina parties can indeed nominate by convention; however, 75% of convention delegates must approve of a nominating convention.
To my knowledge, the South Carolina Republicans have not adopted a party rule for a closed primary. That was the technicality on which the 5th circuit ruled against the Mississippi Democrats in their suit against the state-mandated open primary (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour).
As to the last paragraph in your post: Absent a state-mandated open primary, each party, of course, has the power to invite independents to vote in its primaries (unless state law prohibits it, a party also has the power to invite members of opposing parties to vote in its primaries).
Party bosses will appoint a nominee? Why do party bosses get to appoint a nominee? Federal Court here in Arizona has ruled consistently that independent candidates have to obtain four times as many signatures as party candidates in order to get on the ballot because candidates can be required to show a “modicum of support”. Independent voters do not get to appoint a nominee if none qualify to appear on the ballot?
So why aren’t political parties required to show a “modicum of support”?
The ongoing ballot access mess is due to the party hack Supremes unable to detect since 1968 —
1. Separate is NOT equal for ballot access — see Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — NOT [yet] brought up in ballot access cases — due to MORON lawyers.
2. Nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC Electors is PUBLIC business — NOT party hack business — i.e. the ENTIRE nomination process is controlled by PUBLIC laws — defining which groups of Electors can do what —
1. Closed primaries
2. Open primaries
3. Partial closed/open primaries — with or without party hacks doing something (regarding independent Electors and other party hack Electors) and
4. Any other nomination schemes that the party hacks can dream up — such as picking names out of a hat or a party hack trash can.
Hmmm. Any primary for independent Electors ONLY for independent candidates ONLY — NO party hack Electors or candidates allowed ???
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed — general election ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates — to show that *modicum of support*.