S.C. Federal Judge to Hear Lawsuit in Ballot Controversy
A judge is expected to discuss the lawsuit Thursday regarding nearly 200 candidates whose names have been removed from ballots for the state's June 12 primary.
A hearing will be held Thursday in Columbia to discuss a lawsuit that stripped nearly 200 candidates off the ballots for the state's June 12 primary.
The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie is considering the matter at 3 p.m.
On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a proposal that would have reinstated the candidates if they filed statements of economic interest by April 15, according to The State newspaper. That would have restored almost all the ousted candidates, state Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, told the paper.
On Friday, state Senate candidate Amanda Somers filed a lawsuit that alleges that the S.C. Election Commission, among other things, had violated the Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and that that the state's high court's ruling would violate the federal Voting Rights Act, if followed, by kicking candidates off of their ballots as the result of litigation to which they were never legally named a party to.
Ken
9:33 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
I just love how our lawmakers are wasting taxpayer money and time fighting an issue that has already been decided. The people failed to file the proper paperwork on time, it is no one's fault but their own, they should suck it up and accept bl;ame for their own mistakes.
reg
9:44 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
But there were no "mistakes," Ken. They all followed the new rule that said the one form had to be filed online. It was one politician that started this - getting one of his paid campaign staff plus another person to file suit, claiming that the old format (also doing a paper copy of that one form) should still be valid, as well. There's only ONE lawmaker "wasting taxpayer money" on this issue - and it's that incumbent (GOP state Sen. Jake Knotts). And why did it happen? Because Knotts had a primary opponent that everybody knew was likely to beat him.
Torie Little
10:17 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
You nailed it, reg. I'm tired of people spouting "it's no one's fault but their own" when there are plenty who construed the law differently -- including Karen Wiggins from the SC State Ethics Commission who sent a memo on April 13, 2012, to Dean Crepes at the Lexington County Election Commission affirming 20 of the 27 Lexington candidates HAD properly filed a statement of economic interest in accordance with the statute.
Barbara McGowin
12:10 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
State Senate Ethics says there are probably some old paper SEI forms in a desk somewhere. Nevertheless, an SEI form was not available for candidates filing noon March 16 through noon March 30, 2012, the prescribed filing period for partisan candidates. Dick Harpootlian testified an SEI is submitted electronically on the State Ethics Commission’s website. The court decision states “Filing an SEI with the State Ethics Commission cannot excuse noncompliance with § 8-13-1356(B).” It was as difficult to certify that the Earth rotates around the Sun to the Roman Catholic Church in 1600 as it was to explain to the Supreme Court May 2, 2012, that it is not possible to provide a paper SEI form simultaneously with a paper SIC form. Thankfully, those who hold to the truth that they complied with the filing requirements will not be executed; all they have to do is petition for the desired elected office.
Incumbent State Representatives and Senators that had an SEI on file prior to noon March 16, 2012, were exempted. 2 State Representatives and 8 State Senators had filed an SEI prior to noon March 16th.
Legislators scrambling to figure out how an impossible burden of compliance placed on non-exempt candidates by the SC Supreme Court can be removed. However, what concerns incumbents most are how to finagle an exemption for non-exempt incumbents. Expect many more law suits filed in addition to federal review if part of the solution is changing South Carolina’s election laws.