Even More South Carolina Candidates May be Removed from Republican Primary Ballots

See this story, which describes a hearing in the South Carolina Supreme Court, over whether even more Republican primary candidates should be removed from the ballot. Even though almost 200 have already been disqualified in the June 12 primary for state and local office (both Republicans and Democrats), it appears that some candidates who also did not follow the strict rules about filing a Statement of Economic Interest were allowed on the Republican primary ballots.

4 comments

  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    How many armies of accountants and lawyers are now needed to get candidates on ballots — esp. in TYRANT gerrymander regimes ???

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    This story just keeps continuing and continuing…

  3. Jim Riley · · Reply

    The Supreme Court ruled against the Florence Republican Party.

    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=27128

    The candidates in this case had filed a statement of economic interest (SEI) electronically prior to filing their statement of candidacy (SIC). State statute defines a candidate for office as a “public official” for purposes of ethics reporting.

    The state statute also says that “public officials” who have a SEI on file do not have file another when they file SIC (“public officials” is a broader category than merely elected officials).

    Apparently the Supreme Court decided that since one can not become a candidate without filing an SIC, that the SEI was not filed. Under terms of the Bobby Barger Busywork Act, the two forms have to be filed simultaneously.

    Expect another Supreme Court case exploring whether if the SEI is attached to the SIC (staple or paper clip) whether the candidacy is valid. If the SEI is on top, it is not properly filed since the person was not a candidate. And if the SIC is on top, then the candidacy is not valid because there was no SEI filed when the SIC was filed.

    SECTION 8-13-1356 is quite clear that the two documents must be filed “at the same time”. Any body as lacking in common sense as the South Carolina Supreme Court, would surely interpret “at the same time” as meaning not more than a microsecond different in time, if even that long.

  4. […] DHEC's authoritySavannah Morning NewsSC justices scold GOP lawyer for ignoring orderSumter ItemBallot Access -WPDE -The Augusta Chronicleall 124 news articles » Posted in SC News […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: