GOP leader: Federal judge must override legislative will

Today's editorial points out the irony in an S.C. GOP county chairman's federal-court lawsuit to overturn open primaries in South Carolina:

Frustrated that S.C. legislators won't do his party's bidding, an S.C. party chairman this week asked a federal court to end open primary elections. A Republican would never dream of accomplishing by lawsuit what can't be accomplished via political action in the legislature, right? So the guy must be a Democrat, right?

Wrong. The perpetrator of this misbegotten lawsuit is Samuel Harms, chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party. He's suing the state to end open primaries because "the legislature has failed to act for so long."

We say "misbegotten" because Harms' attempt to use the U.S. Constitution to void state election law would exclude our state's huge and growing pool of independent voters - many of whom are conservative - from picking the candidates who win elective office. So dominant is the Republican Party in South Carolina that many races are settled in the GOP primary, no Democrat having filed for the general election. Unaffiliated voters have the right to participate in the process and should be allowed to keep it.

Harms takes a narrower view of the situation. In his lawsuit against the state, he likens the current open-primary system to letting members of a Lutheran congregation elect the leaders of a Baptist church.

"Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Party primary, for the same reason only Baptists can vote for deacons in the Baptist Church," he says.

Astute readers have already recognized this as a bogus analogy. Churches and political parties may both be private organizations. But churches are grounded in theologies that make it appropriate for them to exclude members of other sects from church governance. Such exclusions harm no one outside the church.

Political parties, in stark contrast, perform quasi-public functions that have broad effects beyond party boundaries. They recruit candidates for public office who, if victorious, serve all the people, including those who voted for opponents. Parties also raise copious amounts of money to influence and educate all voters, not just voters who are party members.

Still, some partisan readers - perhaps even Democrats - will see merit in Harms' challenge to current election law, which does not require parties to nominate candidates by primary. The law also allows parties to nominate candidates at state conventions - but requires that the candidates nominated be chosen by 75 percent of the party faithful attending such a convention. Harms argues that this restriction, in tandem with the open primary requirement, weakens the party's right to decide which candidates get ballot access under the Republican label.

If S.C. election law were about preserving the power of political parties, he would have a point. But S.C. election law is really about restraining party power to ensure that voters can participate in elections at all levels, not just general elections.

Democracy works best when voters have maximum opportunity to choose their leaders. Harms' lawsuit seeks to exclude voters from making such choices, which is why the federal court should throw it out. Readers who really believe in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects states' rights, should have no trouble agreeing that the gentleman has momentarily lost his Republican bearings.

Comments?

Wrong. The perpetrator of this misbegotten lawsuit is Samuel Harms, chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party. He's suing the state to end open primaries because "the legislature has failed to act for so long."

We say "misbegotten" because Harms' attempt to use the U.S. Constitution to void state election law would exclude our state's huge and growing pool of independent voters - many of whom are conservative - from picking the candidates who win elective office. So dominant is the Republican Party in South Carolina that many races are settled in the GOP primary, no Democrat having filed for the general election. Unaffiliated voters have the right to participate in the process and should be allowed to keep it.

Harms takes a narrower view of the situation. In his lawsuit against the state, he likens the current open-primary system to letting members of a Lutheran congregation elect the leaders of a Baptist church.

"Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Party primary, for the same reason only Baptists can vote for deacons in the Baptist Church," he says.

Astute readers have already recognized this as a bogus analogy. Churches and political parties may both be private organizations. But churches are grounded in theologies that make it appropriate for them to exclude members of other sects from church governance. Such exclusions harm no one outside the church.

Political parties, in stark contrast, perform quasi-public functions that have broad effects beyond party boundaries. They recruit candidates for public office who, if victorious, serve all the people, including those who voted for opponents. Parties also raise copious amounts of money to influence and educate all voters, not just voters who are party members.

Still, some partisan readers - perhaps even Democrats - will see merit in Harms' challenge to current election law, which does not require parties to nominate candidates by primary. The law also allows parties to nominate candidates at state conventions - but requires that the candidates nominated be chosen by 75 percent of the party faithful attending such a convention. Harms argues that this restriction, in tandem with the open primary requirement, weakens the party's right to decide which candidates get ballot access under the Republican label.

If S.C. election law were about preserving the power of political parties, he would have a point. But S.C. election law is really about restraining party power to ensure that voters can participate in elections at all levels, not just general elections.

Democracy works best when voters have maximum opportunity to choose their leaders. Harms' lawsuit seeks to exclude voters from making such choices, which is why the federal court should throw it out. Readers who really believe in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects states' rights, should have no trouble agreeing that the gentleman has momentarily lost his Republican bearings.

Comments?