Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 01:21:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  lol South Carolina
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: lol South Carolina  (Read 578 times)
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14169


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« on: May 03, 2012, 04:04:16 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The state Supreme Court Wednesday ordered S.C. political parties to remove up to 100 candidates from their June 12 primary ballots, sending candidates and voters into a tailspin in an election year already fraught with confusion.

http://www.thestate.com/2012/05/03/2260162/supreme-court-orders-some-candidates.html
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2529


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2012, 06:10:19 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Any candidate who did not file a statement of economic interest listing income, property and other financial information at the same time they officially filed for office must be removed from the ballot, the court ruled in a unanimous decision. The ruling does not affect incumbents seeking re-election or officeholders seeking another office because they already had economic-interest statements on file.

The deadline to file to run was March 30.

How did they even make it onto the ballot if they didn't comply with the existing election requirements? Was it unenforced until this decision or something?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14169


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2012, 06:23:51 pm »
Ignore

That's my suspicion. The article doesn't really explain the court case very well.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27817
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2012, 09:41:45 pm »
Ignore

There was a change in the election laws between this election and the last one.  It added the requirement to file the required financial statement electronically, but did not eliminate the requirement that non-incumbents file a hard copy of the financial statement with the county party when they filed to run in the primary.  A number of county parties told people they only needed to file it online.  The court ruled that law meant what it said and that the hard copy needed to be filed with the party.

Sen. Knotts got a friend of his to file this lawsuit so as to knock his opponent off the ballot.  He failed, and in the process has managed to cost himself at least one vote, mine.  I was planning on voting for him, despite his flaws, because I don't care for his enemies.  Now I'll be voting for Shealy, because as bad as I think his enemies are, they ain't this dirty.

The number of affected people turned out to be closer to 180. Efforts to fix the problem have failed because of the opposition of the incumbents who think they benefit from it.  The affected candidates still have the option to file as petition candidates in the general election, and a number of them are planning on doing so.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines