|
Title: lol South Carolina Post by: Meeker on May 03, 2012, 04:04:16 PM 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 Title: Re: lol South Carolina Post by: greenforest32 on May 03, 2012, 06:10:19 PM 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? Title: Re: lol South Carolina Post by: Meeker on May 03, 2012, 06:23:51 PM That's my suspicion. The article doesn't really explain the court case very well.
Title: Re: lol South Carolina Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 16, 2012, 09:41:45 PM 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 (http://www.thestate.com/2012/05/16/2278968/sc-gop-clears-challenger-to-run.html), 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. |