According to this story, because of a technicality, South Carolina will not hold a special election for State House, district 114. The November 4 election will fill the seat for the next two years, even though this disenfranchises voters who wish to vote for a Republican. The Republican Party’s only recourse is to find a write-in candidate, but even if the party could settle on someone quickly, he or she would be handicapped by the fact that the original Republican nominee’s name is still on the ballot. But votes cast for him won’t be valid.
According to the story, if the original nominee’s withdrawal letter had included the reason he withdrew, then there could be a special election shortly after the November 2014 election.
Sounds like the GOP failed to help Mr. Harrell draft his resignation or withdrawal letter with correct wording. And it appears the Democrat will win – unless a “blitzkrieg” write-in effort is made by the GOP . And, as I’ve stated earlier, I don’t think the people of this district would support the Green candidate.
If the Democrat nominee is elected she should enjoy her term to the fullest. For unless she cast her votes in the Legislature for positions which are in line with the voters of that district, she can expect a strong GOP challenger in the next election.
Will be interesting to see what the GOP does and how this election turns out.
How many super computers and armies of lawyers are now necessary to keep up to date with ALL of the EVIL robot party hack election laws ???
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The article misses the point. It is not merely the wording of Harrell’s letter that is problematic. Even if he were to submit an “appropriate” affidavit, the statutory scheme for replacement candidates requires the replacement candidate to be “certified” prior to the general election date, and the certification process in this circumstance is at least a four or five week period (because it requires a primary to fill a spot that was determined by a primary). Consequently, it is impossible for the Republicans to replace the candidate at this late date. Otherwise, a candidate could drop out the day before the general election and thereby trigger a delay in the election, which is clearly absurd. The statutory scheme is clear and unambiguous.
I acknowledge you understand this situation better than I do.
But I feel it is wrong to disenfranchise the majority party in this district. Republicans in theory could get behind a write-in candidate, but if they do their effort will be hampered because voters will see a Republican already listed on their November ballot. I feel if a withdrawal comes so late that the ballots are inaccurate, then the election authorities should continue to count all votes as cast. If the withdrawn Republican gets more votes than any other candidate, that should trigger a special election. It is simply wrong to force the voters of this district not to be able to have a free vote for whichever party they favor, and it seems obvious from this district’s history that it is a Republican-leaning district.
I agree with Richatd’s comments. But, on the other hand, it is sort of poetic justice for a major party to be impacted by rules that have so often penalized minor party and independent candidates.
Gene: You are correct. However, does anyone know the political affiliation of those who make up the South Carolina Elections Commission?
If this is known, we may know part of the problem. Democrats will do everything they can to keep Republicans off the ballot – not to speak of what they will do to 3rd partisans and Independents.
Of course, Republicans will do the same thing. Both major parties deserve each other.
Like Stalin and Hitler deserved each other in 1941-1945.
The ANTI-Democracy gerrymander WARS continue with each gerrymander battle election.
Richard,
My understanding is that recent polling had the Republican candidate with about 26% support, and that was before he pleaded guilty. His Democratic opponent has waged a vigorous campaign and has significant support, and I have no doubt that she will prevail whether or not votes for Mr. Harrell are counted.
See the latest update:
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141029/PC1603/141029303?ref=email
Also, this article from October 2 noted that the deadline to replace Harrell was about to pass:
http://www.thepalmettoinsider.com/poll-bobby-harrell-down-by-7/
I repeat what I had replied earlier:
“If the Democrat nominee is elected she should enjoy her term to the fullest. For unless she cast her votes in the Legislature for positions which are in line with the voters of that district, she can expect a strong GOP challenger in the next election.”