Strom Thurmond and Lisa Murkowski proved that write-in campaigns can win a U.S. Senate seat. But as their victories are invoked in South Carolina’s current write-in effort, the circumstances behind those historic wins deserve a closer look.
History has a funny way of becoming shorter every time it gets passed around on social media. “Strom Thurmond did it.” “Lisa Murkowski did it.” Both statements are true. Strom Thurmond won a United States Senate seat from South Carolina as a write-in candidate in 1954. Lisa Murkowski accomplished the same remarkable feat in Alaska in 2010. Today, as South Carolinians debate an independent citizen-led effort to write Congressman Ralph Norman’s name onto the ballot for U.S. Senate, those two names are increasingly offered as proof that it has been done before and can be done again. They’re right about the first part. History has settled that question. But history isn’t a collection of convenient headlines, and before we use it to guide a decision today, perhaps prudence ought to finish reading the story.
A few weeks ago, I wrote “The Myth of Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils,” arguing that voting requires both principle and prudence, not simply accepting the accusation that voting for, as some put it, an imperfect candidate amounts to choosing the lesser of two evils. The primary is our opportunity to fight for the candidate we believe most closely represents our principles. When that contest ends, however, the choices before us change, and prudence requires us to examine honestly the choices that remain. I also made something else clear: there can be circumstances in which conscience leads a voter to a third-party candidate or a lawful write-in vote. I haven’t changed my mind about that, and I respect that choice as long as prudence carries the principle, not misguided emotions. But prudence requires more than knowing an option exists. It requires examining the facts, circumstances and likely consequences surrounding it. That is why, when two historic Senate write-in victories are repeatedly invoked today, they deserve more than a passing reference.
Strom Thurmond Did It ...
The Strom Thurmond story begins not with a candidate who lost an election, but with a candidate who died. Much like Sen. Lindsey Graham, in 1954, Democratic U.S. Senator Burnet Maybank had already won his party’s primary nomination when he unexpectedly died on September 1, only about two months before the general election. South Carolina’s Democratic Party suddenly needed another nominee. Rather than hold another primary and allow voters to choose Maybank’s replacement, the party’s State Executive Committee selected state senator Edgar Brown. The controversy wasn’t simply about Brown. It was about how he got there. Party officials had made a decision many voters believed belonged to them.
Enter Strom Thurmond.
The former South Carolina governor announced a write-in campaign against Brown and openly campaigned for the Senate seat, arguing that voters, not party officials, should make the choice. On November 2, 1954, Thurmond received approximately 63% of the vote, becoming the first person in American history elected to the United States Senate as a write-in candidate. During the campaign, Thurmond also promised that, if elected, he would resign before the 1956 primary and submit himself to the voters through the normal process. He kept that promise. Thurmond resigned in April 1956, won the Democratic primary and then won the general election, returning to the Senate.
So when someone tells me, “Strom Thurmond did it,” my answer is simple: Yes, he did. But Thurmond had not lost a primary for that Senate seat. In fact, voters were never given a replacement primary at all. Party officials chose Brown. So, the absence of that voter choice helped fuel Thurmond’s write-in campaign. That distinction becomes important when we compare his circumstances with South Carolina today.
Lisa Murkowski Did It ...
If there is a historical comparison that comes closer to the current argument, it isn’t Strom Thurmond. It’s Lisa Murkowski. The sitting Republican U.S. senator from Alaska lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller on August 24, 2010. But just how close that election was deserves attention. Miller received 55,878 votes, or 50.91%, while Murkowski received 53,872, or 49.09%. Only 2,006 votes separated them, a margin of just 1.82 percentage points.
Murkowski then launched her own write-in campaign, traveled the state, actively campaigned and asked Alaskans to write her name on their ballots. She ultimately won the general election, becoming only the second person in American history elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate. The first, of course, was Strom Thurmond. So let’s be fair to those making the comparison: Lisa Murkowski really did lose a Republican primary and then win the general election as a write-in candidate. That’s not mythology. That’s history.
But Murkowski’s primary defeat was narrower than Norman’s recent defeat in South Carolina. In the August 25 Republican runoff, Darline Graham received 193,396 votes, or 52.45%, to Norman’s 175,327, or 47.55%, a difference of 18,069 votes and 4.90 percentage points. Norman’s loss certainly wasn’t a landslide, but neither was it the virtual coin toss Murkowski lost in Alaska.
South Carolina Has a Rule Alaska Didn’t
There is another important difference. After losing the Alaska Republican primary, Murkowski could announce that she was running as a write-in candidate, organize her campaign and openly ask voters to write her name on their ballots. South Carolina law treats a defeated primary candidate differently. Candidates seeking a political party’s nomination here sign a party pledge. Agree with it or not, Section 7-11-210 of the South Carolina Code states that the candidate will abide by the result of the primary or convention and “will not offer or campaign as a write-in candidate” for an office for which the party has a nominee.
That does not mean South Carolina voters cannot write Ralph Norman’s name on their ballots, nor does it mean private citizens cannot independently advocate such a choice. The current Write In Ralph effort describes itself as an independent grassroots project not authorized or coordinated by Norman or his campaign. But there is an even larger distinction: Ralph Norman has publicly thrown his support behind Darline Graham. After the primary, Norman said he respects the decision of South Carolina voters, congratulated Graham on winning the Republican nomination and said he would support the Republican nominee in November.
That creates a major difference from both historic examples. Thurmond wanted to be elected and personally campaigned for it. Murkowski wanted to be elected and personally led an aggressive statewide campaign. Norman cannot campaign as a write-in candidate under South Carolina law, and he has publicly supported Graham. Whatever becomes of the Norman write-in movement must therefore be accomplished independently of Norman and without Norman asking voters to do it.
“That is not an argument against the effort. It is the arithmetic the effort faces.”
The Map Tells Another Part of the Story
There is another difference worth examining: where the votes came from. Norman’s support in the runoff was geographically concentrated. He ran strongest in the Upstate and northwestern South Carolina, including Greenville County and his home region, while Graham built the statewide margin she needed across much of the rest of South Carolina.
That geographic divide raises another question prudence requires us to consider. Much of the visible enthusiasm I have seen for the Norman write-in effort appears to be coming from the Upstate, the very part of South Carolina where he already demonstrated his greatest electoral strength. But what is happening beyond the Upstate? Is the write-in effort gaining meaningful traction in the Midlands, Pee Dee and Lowcountry, where Graham performed strongly? I have not seen reliable statewide data that answers that question, and social-media activity alone cannot tell us.
That doesn’t mean the effort can or cannot succeed. It tells us what would have to change. Norman already performed strongly in much of his best territory. An independent write-in movement seeking to change the statewide result would have to expand beyond that base and persuade enough voters elsewhere to make a different choice in November. That is not an argument against the effort. It is the arithmetic the effort faces.
This Wasn’t an Ordinary Primary
Much like Thurmond’s case, the Republican primary Ralph Norman entered this year wasn’t South Carolina’s regularly scheduled June primary. It became necessary after the death of Republican nominee and incumbent Lindsey Graham, who had already won his party’s nomination. But unlike Thurmond’s case, South Carolina voters were given another opportunity to choose the party’s nominee. The South Carolina Election Commission conducted a special Republican filing period and primary under S.C. Code Section 7-11-55, with the resulting nominee becoming the Republican candidate on the November 3 general-election ballot. Norman entered that process, South Carolina Republicans voted, and Darline Graham emerged as their nominee.
That leaves us with three stories that sound remarkably similar when reduced to a sentence: Strom Thurmond won as a write-in. Lisa Murkowski won as a write-in. Ralph Norman can receive write-in votes. But the circumstances are not the same. Thurmond had not lost a replacement primary because voters were never given one. Murkowski had lost her primary by only 2,006 votes and was able to personally conduct a statewide write-in campaign. Norman lost South Carolina’s special Republican runoff by 18,069 votes, cannot personally conduct the same kind of write-in campaign and has publicly supported Graham in November.
Those aren’t inconvenient details around the edges of history. They are the history.
“The disagreement is not necessarily over principle. It may be over what prudence requires us to do with it.”
Principle, Prudence and the Choice Before Us
None of this tells a South Carolina voter what he or she must do in November. That wasn’t my purpose when I wrote about the misuse of the phrase “lesser of two evils,” and it isn’t my purpose here. I voted for Ralph Norman in the Republican primary because I could examine a proven conservative record. Darline Graham did not yet have a comparable voting record for me to examine. But Norman losing that primary does not, by itself, give me greater confidence that the same candidate will prevail statewide as a write-in in November. That isn’t discouragement speaking. It is one more fact for prudence to weigh.
Those supporting the write-in effort have every right to say that disappointment, emotion or pressure from a political party will not determine their vote. I respect that. But I know many are and say so by their methods and their attacks against those who do not share the same sentiment. The same respect must extend to voters who examine the same facts and reach a different conclusion. Prudence may lead one voter to write in Norman. It may lead another to weigh the consequences of the general election and the choices actually before us. Neither voter needs to surrender conscience to exercise judgment. The disagreement is not necessarily over principle. It may be over what prudence requires us to do with it.
That is precisely why the histories of Strom Thurmond and Lisa Murkowski matter. History tells us that write-in candidates can win a United States Senate election. Thurmond proved it in South Carolina in 1954. Murkowski proved it again in Alaska in 2010. But prudence doesn’t merely ask whether something happened before. It asks whether the circumstances today are actually comparable: whether the candidate himself is campaigning, whether he has accepted the primary result, where his electoral support lies and whether an independent movement can reach enough voters beyond his existing base to change a statewide result.
So the next time someone tells me, “Strom Thurmond did it,” I’m not going to argue with them. He did. And if they tell me, “Lisa Murkowski did it,” they’re right about that, too. There is simply one thing I would add: Finish the story.
Because history can make a powerful argument, but prudence demands more than a gotcha headline.
