Times Examiner Facebook Logo

Friday, March 29, 2024 - 12:50 AM

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF UPSTATE SOUTH CAROLINA

First Published in 1994

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF
UPSTATE SOUTH CAROLINA

The Supreme Court Decision that removed an estimated 100 Republican and Democrat candidates from primary ballots last week is a dramatic example of the need to get state government out of the internal affairs of political parties.

The legislature passed a law requiring all challengers to file their Statement of Economic Interest at the same time and with the same individual that they file for the office. The law does not apply to incumbents. State party officials did not make certain all county party officials knew about the law and, therefore, a large number of first-time candidates were uninformed or misinformed.

It is fairly obvious that the only purpose of the law is to protect incumbents and to disqualify challengers who are not familiar with all the election laws. The unanswered question goes to the state party leaders. Have they conspired with the incumbent lawmakers, or are they and their legal staff simply incompetent and failed to do their job?

Thanks to the diligence of the Greenville County Republican Party Chairman and party officers, no Republican candidate in Greenville County was caught in the trap. Democrats were not so fortunate. At least two of their candidates, one candidate for the Senate and one for the House, were pulled from the ballot. That was not the case in several other counties where incumbents had serious challengers who were removed from the ballot.

Current South Carolina laws allow any registered voter to vote in either Democrat or Republican primaries. The current result of these laws is that conservative Republicans can’t select the candidate of their choice to represent them in a general election if Democrats, in a Republican District, want to vote for a candidate of their choice in the Republican primary. The current laws also encourage Democrats to seek elected office as Republicans.

For the record, South Carolina is a conservative Republican state with a Republican majority in the state House and Senate and a Governor and Lt. Governor who are also Republicans. The reality and “proof of the pudding” is that on issues important to the Republican Party, such as school choice and registration by party, the majority of both the House and Senate vote with the Democrats. The Democrats who call themselves Republicans have been labeled “Republicans in name only” or RINO’s. A number of the candidates who were removed from the primary ballots were challenging RINO’s who are holding senior positions in the legislature, especially in the Senate.

The State Supreme Court is not blameless in this situation. It certainly appears that members of the court were reckless in not considering the impact of their drastic decision.

We should not overlook the fact that members of the court are elected by the legislature and that they serve at the pleasure of the lawmakers. From a strict ethical perspective, the court ruling on this matter was a conflict of interest. The ruling favors the lawmakers who appointed them to the bench.

This incident presents an opportunity to change the method of selecting judges. Several states, including Texas, allow the people to elect their judges. This seems to work well and eliminates the unjust system of lawyers serving in the legislature and representing clients before the judges they appoint. Is it any wonder that lawyers in the legislature become wealthy and are able to charge large retainer fees? Their success in obtaining a desirable outcome for their client is virtually guaranteed. This system is blatantly unfair to other attorneys and their clients and does not deserve to be referred to as “justice.”

No comments

Leave your comment

In reply to Some User