Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM
South Carolina Green Party v. South Carolina State Election Commission
Case Information
Date Filed: August 7, 2008
State: South Carolina
Issue: Ballot Access
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District for District of South Carolina (Case 3:08-cv-02790)
Issue:
Whether South Carolina law, which provides that a candidate that seeks a nomination from multiple parties will be banned from appearing on the ballot if any one of those parties rejects his candidacy, violates the U.S. Constitution.
Status:
Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/7/08. Motion to Intervene filed by the Charleston County Democratic Party on 8/22/08. Response to Motion for Prelminary Injunction filed 8/25/08. Answer filed on 8/28/08.
Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 8/7/08) - Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories
(filed 8/7/08) - Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(filed 8/7/08)
- MOTION to Intervene by Charleston County Democratic Party
(filed 8/22/08)
- Exhibit A - Answer of Intervenor

- Exhibit B - Memo Opp to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

- Exhibit 1 - Johnson Circuit Court Order

- Exhibit 2 - Statement of Intention of Candidacy

- Exhibit 3 - Notice of Candidacy and Pledge

- Exhibit 4 - Official Primary Results

- Exhibit 5 - S.C. Green Party Website Article dated 7/1/08

- Exhibit A - Answer of Intervenor
- RESPONSE in Opposition to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
(filed 8/25/08)
- SUPPLEMENT by South Carolina Green Party
(filed 8/26/08)
- ANSWER to Complaint
(filed 8/28/08) - Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories
(filed 8/28/08) - CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(entered 9/4/08) - REPLY to Response to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
(filed 9/5/08) - NOTICE of Hearing on MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing tentatively set for 9/18/2008 (entered 9/8/08)
- RESPONSE in Opposition to MOTION to Intervene
(filed 9/9/08) - RESPONSE in Support of MOTION to Intervene
(filed 9/9/08) - SUPPLEMENT by South Carolina Green Party
(filed 9/11/08)
- REPLY to Response to MOTION to Intervene
(filed 9/11/08) - Additional Attachments to MOTION to Intervene
(filed 9/12/08)
- SUR REPLY to REPLY to Response to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction
(filed 9/12/08) - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING - Motion Hearing on 9/18/2008 at 2:00 cancelled and rescheduled to 9/18/2008 01:30 PM (entered 9/16/08)
- SUPPLEMENT by South Carolina State Election Commission
(filed 9/18/08)
- Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie: denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting Motion to Intervene as orally stated on the record.
(entered 9/18/08) - Exhibit List
(filed 9/18/08) - NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (filed 10/6/08)
- Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Charleston County Democratic Party
(filed 10/8/08) - Rule 26(f) Report
(filed 10/8/08)


Commentary
Silence of the Lambs
Dale A. Oesterle
With the election of 2012 now well over and past the second inauguration of the incumbent President, the historical analysis of the events has begun and will last as long as written human history lasts. An interesting tidbit may already be lost to the majesty of the moment.
The voters of three very different states, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, all had an opportunity to call state constitutional conventions. In each state the voters turned the opportunity down by very similar votes, 68%, 64% and 68% respectively against.
more commentary...