A new lawsuit against the Republican Party of South Carolina makes a compelling case that the party is illegally stacking the deck in favor of President Trump’s renomination.
One can read many hundreds of serious legal briefs in one’s career without seeing one as straightforward and seemingly airtight as this one.
At issue is the South Carolina GOP’s politically counterproductive, antidemocratic (small ‘d’) decision to cancel its usually high-profile presidential primary in 2020. Republican former Rep. Bob Inglis, one of the two plaintiffs, makes an excellent case that the decision is not just ill-considered but unlawful.
The legal argument is clear and two-fold. First, South Carolina state law requires that a recognized political party must choose its preferred presidential candidate either by a primary or by a party convention and favors a primary by putting a high barrier against a party switching from a primary in one quadrennium to a convention in another. Second, state law also requires that a party follow its own published rules with regard to choosing presidential delegates.
The South Carolina GOP did neither one. It eliminated the primary without even trying to hurdle the state-law procedural barrier protecting the primary’s status. And it did so in direct contradiction of its own published rules.
There’s no need to belabor the details of each element here. (Again, the complaint is here, for those who want to read it.) If the party hasn’t followed state law, including the state law that requires it to follow its own rules, it should be forced to follow the law and hold the primary, period.
What’s stunning is the party hierarchy’s hypocrisy. Just four years ago the South Carolina GOP argued in court that canceling the presidential primary would cause “irreparable harm to the public interest” because “the citizens of South Carolina deserve an opportunity to vote on the Republican nominee for President of the United States.”
A year earlier, the party adopted an official resolution lauding “spirited and competitive primaries” in which “Republicans do not wish to be perceived as a party that simply selects its nominee in a backroom or underhanded fashion” and asserted that “anything other than a fair and legitimate primary where state party staff and officers avoid even the appearance of intervention could irrevocably damage the integrity of our primary process.”
The state party was right then, before it lost its way.
“It’s emblematic of the confusion that has entered our thinking,” Inglis told me. “If we are committed to these principles, we really should stick to them. They are good principles … To depart from that really should cause us to stop and reevaluate. [This is] an opportunity to bring clarity to the Republican Party, to say we believe in the rule of law and in following rules. We all need these mileposts to give us correction when we’re off. We’re clearly off; we’re way off.”
Apart from the legalities, simple fairness and common sense are essential.
“You don’t let a central committee decide that there’s no realistic alternative to the front-runner,” Inglis said. “That decision should be made by South Carolina Republican voters expressing themselves. The risk of having a central committee decide that it knows best is obviously a slippery slope that can lead you to some really dark places. After all, right at the core of our republic is this concept of free and fair and competitive elections.”
Bingo. No more need be said.
