BY Lucy Twinkle
Closed primary bills Part 2:
Bill H. 3695 was introduced by Brandon Newton, the State Representative who successfully shut down a closed primary bill debate in last year’s session. H. 3695 really is about Voter Registration and Party “Affiliation,” not closed primaries. There is only ONE PASSAGE relating to closed primaries, which states, “In no event may an elector registered as a member of a certified political party vote in the partisan primary election or advisory referendum of another certified
political party with which that elector is not registered.” So a Democrat couldn’t vote in a Republican primary and vice versa.
H. 3695 has the highest chances of passage of all the closed primary bills. You can tell by the number of State Reps who have jumped on the bandwagon to become sponsors. A week ago, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (where the bill currently resides), Wes Newton, added his name as sponsor. This bill is showing lots of activity. So, what is in this bill? And how is it different from the “Closed Primary” bills?
H. 3695 states that an elector must be registered as a member of a
certified political party or unaffiliated within 45 days of a “partisan
primary.” A party affiliation can be changed, but only in writing and on a form approved by the SEC. The voter application form must be changed to allow for a party preference to be noted.
CONCERNS: Under this bill, there is still a way for an unaffiliated voter to vote in a party primary. So although we exclude parties from crossing over to vote in their opposing party primary, unaffiliated voters would still be able to vote; so technically this is not a clean closed primary bill.
The second part of the bill deals with candidate qualifications. A new section will be added to the SC Code which states that the “State Executive Committee” of a certified party may establish party rules to require all prospective candidates to be registered as “affiliated” with that political party. Should the State Executive Committee have the authority to do this or should it be at the state convention? Is it appropriate for a state statute to mandate how a candidate is vetted or
approved by the party? Who should be able to make the “party rules?” The delegates at the State Convention, the State Executive Committee, Or? What does it mean to be “registered as affiliated with that political party?” Wouldn’t being registered with a certified political party be enough?
Will this provision result in qualified candidates being excluded from the ballot because they don’t meet qualifications of being “affiliated” spelled out in new rules? Look at the recent “loyalty oaths,” which prohibit House members from endorsing or supporting any candidate challenging a GOP incumbent. As stated in this article, the loyalty oath is really code for an “incumbent protection racket.” Those who
won’t sign are barred from attendance at the Republican Caucus, where most of the legislative deliberations take place. To be barred is to be deprived of access, hence power, the currency of politics.
Could this provision empower party leaders to enact party rules to exclude those candidates of whom the party establishment disapproves? Yep. Is that the main purpose of this legislation? Maybe. Will President Donald Trump be prohibited from being placed on the Republican ballot if he refuses to sign a GOP loyalty oath? Possibly. Are similar bills being introduced nationally? Will this provision have the effect of excluding Freedom Caucus members or America First candidates? Is there a difference between registering with the party and being “affiliated” with it? If you register, you are responsible for your
relationship with the party. If you are “affiliated,” do you need to be approved by the party to be associated with it? Are there party caveats? Will there be more requirements for entry into the party?
Finally, the bill states that the SEC must establish a voter education program concerning the provisions contained in this legislation. While a right idea, this provision is weaker than passages in the previous bills which require all electors to be contacted and informed of this new change to our voting laws…by a certain date.
In summary, where do we stand? It seems as if H. 3695 will be the bill brought to the House floor for passage. So here are some recommendations for how to make the bill stronger:
- Informing the public of the change: Section 4. The State Election
Commission must establish a voter education program concerning the provisions contained in this legislation.
AMEND AND ADD the following language from H. 3685 Section 1C. “Prior to January 2, 2024, the entity charged by law with registering qualified electors shall contact the qualified electors of that county, by whatever method it determines to be appropriate, informing them of partisan primary voting procedures…
- Changing voter registration party status – put in some time limits. DO NOT allow someone to change their party status right before a primary election and then back again before the general election: See Section 1C –
It should be stated that changes can be made by affidavit or written
authorization of the elector and that an elector is prohibited from making any changes to their registration 1 – 2 YEARS from the time of the change. Changes must be made 45 days prior to the primary election. - Allow certified political parties the ability to decide for themselves
whether or not they want to include unaffiliated voters. Done at the State Convention (as stated in the previous bills) not by State Executive Committee - Candidates: change the vetting process as follows: Let the party decide how to handle candidate qualifications…or better yet eliminate Section 3 B from the bill and remove any mention of candidate qualifications. This would make the bill “cleaner” by establishing rules for the qualified electors not the candidates.
With these changes, the bill might be worth passing.