824 F. Supp. 2d 655
D.S.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge South Carolina's open primary system and related nomination statutes as violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- South Carolina allows open primaries; voters may vote in any party's primary but only one per election cycle.
- Parties may nominate by convention or petition; open primary is mandatory unless parties choose other methods under statute.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against multiple code sections governing primaries, conventions, and party membership rules.
- Intervenors (independents, third parties, and others) intervened; court held hearings and addressed facial constitutional challenges via cross-motions for summary judgment; discovery was not conducted.
- Court focuses on facial challenges to the statutes; Defendants’ sovereign immunity argument was addressed, with dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina's open primary law is facially unconstitutional. | Plaintiffs argue open primaries burden parties’ associational rights. | Defendants contend open primaries are not facially unconstitutional due to available alternatives. | Open primary laws are not facially unconstitutional. |
| Whether convention nomination statute 7-11-30 burdens internal party processes. | Plaintiffs claim the 75% convention vote unlawfully constrains internal party decisions. | Court should view as a restriction on how to access ballot, not on internal party governance; not overly burdensome. | Convention nomination statute does not facially burden internal party processes. |
| Whether the petition/convention options and membership qualifications unlawfully discriminate against parties. | Plaintiffs allege unequal treatment of parties versus private entities and restrictive membership rules. | State treats political parties differently to protect public interests and ensure fair elections; no invidious discrimination. | Statutes do not offend equal protection on facial challenge. |
| Whether state interests justify the challenged election statutes. | Statutes unlawfully burden associational rights without compelling state interests. | States have legitimate interests: integrity, participation, administrative efficiency; restrictions are justified. | Challenged statutes are adequately justified by legitimate state interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2000) (forced association concerns; blanket primary rights of parties)
- Miller v. Brown, 503 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2007) (Virginia open primary not facially burdening associational rights when alternatives exist)
- Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1989) (internal party structure burdens may trigger strict scrutiny)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (balancing burden on voting rights and state interests in elections)
- New York State Club Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988) (facial challenges require no possible valid applications; but narrow)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (state may require substantial showing of support to qualify for ballot)
- Am. Party of Texas v. White, 414 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1974) (state may determine nomination method; open to ensure fair process)
- Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Idaho 2011) (applied open-primary challenge distinguished by facts)