Now we have the power, and all of the petty, self interested party hacks and politicians that go along with it. And the near future will show we are descending from our previous position of power.

The national election in 2006 was a lesson in what small minded, glory seeking, greedy people can do to a party. Those same types here in SC will ride this party to the same place…then scamper away with their money and government jobs and celebrity while the citizens are left to pay the price.

If the state parties run the elections, the balloting is likely to be paper. With the State running them, voting is likely to be with electronic voting machines. I’d think the challenges to electronic ballots would be inherently less than with paper ballots. That’s just one example tipping the scales to state-run…

And regarding your “fiscal conservatism” statement, I agree that republicans lately have grown government irresponsibly and not lived within our means. In the case at hand, we’re the last state in the union to have parties pay for these primaries…doesn’t that tell you something? While there are surely instances where standing alone is a good thing, I’m not convinced this is one of them.

Conversely, do red state voters care about Rhode Island? Dems have no shot at carrying SC’s bevy of six electoral votes, so there’s no incentive beyond the primary for national Dems spending any money in South Carolina.

The SC primary matters in the primary race because of the large number of black voters, who could account for half the primary voters.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/mark_knopfler/song_for_sonny_liston.html

The argument about justifying paying for this with public funds because the primaries generate tax revenues is EXACTLY the trap that the party has fallen into the last few years on the budget: “fiscal conservatism” no longer means controlling the growth of government, it just means spending what you can afford.

Of course, using that definition, everyone in the government MUST be fiscally conservative, as balanced budgets are constitutionally mandated.

A perfect example of losing control of our brand.

I fail to see the Florida connection…why spend all that time and energy suing over what you will presume to be a challengable primary when practically the whole country will be having its primaries a week later? In fact, you could argue that whining and crying about losing in SC — and filing a lawsuit about it — would cast a candidate in a bad light for the next round of primaries. In 2000, Gore had nothing to lose (his reputation and soul having long before been bartered away); that would not be the case if Rudy decides to challenge.

Also, you and the GOP make one basic assumption: that the state can run an election that is less likely to lead to lawsuits than if run by the parties. I’m not talking about running a better election — I might be willing to concede that — but it is another thing entirely to think that just because the state runs it we will have an issue-free election.

All things considered, I still don’t see the justification for spending my tax dollars on this.

One other thought – the other reason this has trouble is that it discriminates against people who choose to be neither Republicans nor Democrats (whether third party or simply independent) by using tax dollars for only the two major parties. If we had partisan registration we could pay for a single unified primary (as is done in other states) without that problem, but until we get that, the parties should continue to handle this themselves. Just guessing, but I would think that S.99 would have to overcome legal challenges from some combination of the Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Peace and Freedom parties…

As for the veto and this thread… I think this veto lacks the left like Henry’s Hammer, but the bill might still go down like lead…

What the bill does is guarantee that the parties can open all the precincts and staff them with capable, fully trained employees, not simply party volunteers. Got a blind voter? HAVA says you can’t have someone read them the ballot, but that you have to have another mechanism that would allow the voter to vote unassisted. Cha-ching. $$$

If you think Florida 2000 was a show, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until the losers of the primary–and I’m not talking about the lower tiered candidates but the losers in the top eschelons of both parties–bring out their high powered and now time tested attorneys to rip the primary to shreds.

If you were any part of the Senate race in 2004 here in SC, then you would have seen the hundreds of DC lawyers here ready for a challenge of a state run election. Fortunately that didn’t happen, but its a sure bet with a 2008 primary that will be party run. Hundreds of lawyers at polling places across the state…I think you get the picture.

Guys, we don’t need that kind of negative limelight on SC.

And if your argument is about fiscal conservatism, the amount of money that these early primaries will bring in to the SC economy MORE than pays for the amount the state would outlay in order to assure a fair and non-challenged primary process.

To address a final point, all those folks who claim “we” can pay for our primary, but the Dems can’t. The only mechanism the Democrats have to raise money is for a primary. Once that reason to give to them is taken away, so is their fundraising ability. Unlike the SC Democrats, the SCGOP enjoys a healthy small donor base which will allow us to continue to enjoy a sizable cash advantage. This is in no way a crutch to them..it is quite the opposite.

Finally, walk a mile in my shoes…how many of you have cut a check to the State GOP with enough zeros to help cover the costs? Want us to pay for it? Show me your money! :-)