On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th circuit, upheld a South Carolina law that limits the usefulness of fusion. South Carolina permits fusion (the practice of letting two parties jointly nominate the same candidate). However, South Carolina law also says that if a candidate tries for two nominations, and loses one nomination but gains another party’s nomination, the fact that the candidate lost the battle for one party’s nomination also cancels out the other nomination. The Court upheld that law. The decision, South Carolina Green Party v State Election Commission, 09-1915, is 14 pages.
The case had been filed by the South Carolina Green Party, which had nominated a candidate for the legislature early in 2008. When that candidate, Eugene Platt, then also tried to get the Democratic nomination, he lost the Democratic primary and then he couldn’t even run as the Green Party nominee in November. The Court said this was not a severe burden on the Green Party because the Green Party was free at that point to substitute some other candidate.
The opinion makes no reference to the recent events in the South Carolina U.S. Senate election, in which the leadership of the Democratic Party had supported a former state legislator, Vic Rawls, who had won the Working Families Party nomination, but then lost the Democratic primary in a surprise upset. If the Green Party had won this case, then the Democratic Party’s preferred candidate this year would have been able to appear on the November ballot as the Working Families Party nominee.
In South Carolina, any qualified party is free to nominate either by convention or by primary, but the practice is that the major parties always choose to nominate by primary, and the other parties always choose to nominate by convention. One might imagine that a minor party convention might consider nominating a particular major party person at its convention, but then reject that person and thereby cause that major party member to be ineligible for the major party nomination. This scenario never happens, because no candidate may be considered for a minor party nomination if that candidate doesn’t file a declaration of candidacy. So a major party member simply refrains from filing a declaration of candidacy in time to be considered at a minor party convention.
One of the leading ways that minor party members ever get elected to state legislatures is through fusion, in which a minor party member gets his or her own party’s nomination, and then is also able to win a major party nomination. Most of the Libertarians who have been elected to state legislatures in the party’s history have won this way. The opinion does not acknowledge this point.
Pingback: Green Party Watch » Blog Archive » 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms ruling against Eugene Platt unanimously - America’s #1 Source for Green Party News & Views
This is disappointing news indeed. Thanks for following this news Richard.
On the good side of things though, Platt has submitted over 2000 signatures to appear on this November’s ballot as a petition candidate as well as a Green Party nominee. With 1300 signatures needed to secure that second spot on the ballot it seems likely that the petition effort will be a success.
One could perhaps say that the decision is a boost to this year’s Green Party nominee for U.S. Senate, Mr. Clements. The decision guarantees that Vic Rawls won’t run in November. But on the other hand, Rawls probably wouldn’t have run this November as the Working Families nominee even if the case had gone the other way.
It is not just Vic Rawls who was kepted off the ballot as the Working Families Party’s nominee. Jim Rex was the party’s gubernatorial nominee until he lost the Democratic nomination to Vincent Sheheen. And the case that parellels Greene’s victory, the Democratic establisment’s preferred candidate Robert Burton had to forfeit the Working Families Party’s nomination when he lost the Democratic primary to political newcomer Ben Frasier.
I don’t see this decision as a problem. The court upholds a sore loser rule, as courts have for years. It’s the same way in my state, Indiana.
If 3rd parties could be spoilers and run sore losers, they would be more likely to annoy the legislature and get hit with more ballot access hurdles.
(I am running this year for the state house as a republican, after being unable to get the libertarian nomination.)
There’s alot lacking in this fusion law in South Carolina, but I’ll take it anyday over what we currently have in Alabama – which is nothing!
The opinion says that Eugene Platt filed with the Democratic Party on March 17; the Working Family Party on March 27; and the Green Party on May 3. He was nominated by the Green Party on May 3; The Working Family Party on May 10. He was defeated for the Democratic nomination on June 10.
If Eugene Platt had not filed when he did for Democratic primary, he would not have been on the ballot.
It is not accurate to claim that Eugene Platt sought the Democratic nomination after being nominated by the other parties.
The South Carolina legislature recently passed a bill that would have clarified that timely statement of candidate filing with each party is required. Unfortunately the governor vetoed that bill.
Alvin Greene received the most voters to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party for senator. It is not accurate to claim that Vic Rawls was the Democratic Party’s preferred candidate.