Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee, The v. State of South Carolina, The
6:10-cv-01407
D.S.C.Jul 18, 2011Background
- Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee, SC Republican Party, Poe, and Mitchell sued the State of South Carolina and Hudgens to challenge South Carolina election laws governing open primaries and nomination procedures.
- Plaintiffs alleged the open primary system and related statutes burden freedom of association and violate equal protection.
- The court previously granted some defendant-side summary judgment on facial challenges and denied plaintiffs’ facial challenges; as-applied challenges were not resolved due to insufficient record.
- The March Order found the record inadequate for meaningful ruling on as-applied challenges and required further factual development, but did not dispose of those claims.
- The current order clarifies that discovery will be reopened to obtain necessary information, and denies plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the March Order as to the facial challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open primaries facially violate First/Fourteenth Amendment rights | Plaintiffs claim open primaries infringe freedom of association and equal protection | Defendants argue restrictions are reasonable, non-discriminatory, and serve legitimate interests | Facial challenges denied; still unresolved as-applied challenges requiring record evidence |
| Whether the court properly reconsidered its March Order | Plaintiffs contend error in legal analysis | March Order properly applied law; no clear error | Reconsideration denied as to facial merits; the March Order stands on the facial challenges |
| Whether as-applied challenges should be dismissed or allowed to proceed | Plaintiffs seek merits review of as-applied challenges | Record insufficient to adjudicate as-applied issues | As-applied challenges not disposed; discovery to be reopened to develop record |
| Whether discovery should be reopened to develop the as-applied record | Discovery to be reopened; joint scheduling order due within 10 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Pac. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amer. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 1998) (strict standard for reconsideration)
- Farkas v. Ellis, 783 F. Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (strict standards for reconsideration; not relitigating claims)
- In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 814 F. Supp. 850 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (reconsideration not used to relitigate matters)
- Centennial Broad., LLC v. Burns, 433 F. Supp. 2d 730 (W.D. Va. 2006) (read statutes as a whole; give effect to all parts)
- Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 660 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Idaho 2009) (requires factual development before ruling on as-applied claims)
- TNS Mills, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 611, 503 S.E.2d 471 (1998) (statutory scheme read as whole; individual provisions not unconstitutional in isolation)