|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
A South Carolina circuit court judge has ordered the Palmetto State’s election commission (SCVotes) to include the name of a candidate on next week’s ballot for U.S. Senate over the objection of the S.C. Republican Party (SCGOP).
Does the ruling undo the damage done, though?
And, perhaps more importantly, what’s to stop the party from arbitrarily and capriciously limiting access to the ballot in the future?
As we reported last week, the SCGOP and its pro-establishment leader – Drew McKissick – were slammed for their selective enforcement of a new party rule which excluded multiple candidates from the August 11, 2026 ballot. Curiously, though, McKissick and party leaders permitted the establishment favorite – Darline Graham Nordone – to remain on the ballot despite legitimate concerns regarding her eligibility.
Per the text of the rule (.pdf), access to the GOP ballot is expressly limited to registered Republican electors who “voted in at least two of the last three statewide Republican primaries.” Neither Nordone nor Ford qualified for the ballot based on a plain text reading of the rule, but McKissick’s party allowed Nordone to remain on the ballot while booting Ford.
Grassroots Republicans were livid at yet another example of McKissick and party leaders playing favorites – this time with the fundamental right to ballot access.
***
RELATED | REPUBLICAN PARTY SUED OVER BALLOT ELIGIBILITY
***
Shortly thereafter, McKissick’s party was sued by Danny Lee Ford II – one of the candidates excluded from the ballot based on the party’s selective enforcement.
“Other candidates who were not removed… have the same or similar voting history,” Ford’s complaint noted.
South Carolina’s court system agreed this selective enforcement was unfair, assailing the “asymmetry” of the SCGOP rule and rebuking “the lack of safeguards around the (party’s) process” for enforcing it.
According to an order issued on Tuesday morning (August 4, 2026) by S.C. circuit court judge Daniel M. Coble, “the SCGOP interpretation, use and application of its own rules reveals a lack of consistency, which tends to present its decisions on candidate certification as capricious and arbitrary.”
As a result of this uneven application of the rule, SCVotes – which was not involved in the decision to exclude Ford – has now been ordered to “include (him) by name as a candidate in August 11, 2026 special Republican primary election for United States Senator.”
***
Coble further determined the SCGOP was expressly excluded from “declining or refusing to certify (Ford) as a candidate” on the basis of its newly adopted rule or on the basis of “his prior primary-voting history” – language which would also be applicable to Nordone.
In a statement issued immediately following Coble’s ruling, SCVotes noted “by court order issued this morning the State Election Commission is adding a candidate to ballots for the U.S. Senate Special Republican Primary to be held on August 11, 2026.”
Given that Coble’s order was entered less than 24 hours before the start of early voting for this election, questions immediately arose regarding the feasibility of adding Ford’s name to the ballot for those choosing to vote ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.
While the agency’s statement did not immediately clarify whether Ford’s name would appear on all early voting ballots, sources familiar with the situation indicated it would.
“He will be on the ballot tomorrow for early voting,” one local election official told us. “(SCVotes) already sent us the new election database with his name on the ballot. We’re currently in the process of programming our equipment with the new ballot containing Ford’s name.”
SCVotes also confirmed Ford’s name had been updated as an “active” candidate in its tracking system, meaning his name now appears on all sample ballots voters download from the agency website.
***
THE BIGGER PICTURE…
***
In addition to addressing Ford’s specific claim, Coble’s ruling touched on the SCGOP’s broader efforts to make its own rules regarding candidate and ballot eligibility – which it insists it is entitled to do on the basis of a First Amendment right to free association.
“The SCGOP has waded into the gray area of state action when it certifies to (SCVotes) who is and who is not on the ballot,” he wrote. “After that certification, the SCGOP moves from a merely private association comprised of like-minded individuals to a state actor.”
Coble is absolutely correct on that point. As we noted in our original treatment of this issue, “state and local taxpayers shell out millions of dollars to host these elections, manage the filing process, provide access to the polls, collect the votes, protect the integrity of the ballot, tabulate and disseminate results, certify the outcomes of elections and resolve any disputes related to those outcomes.”
That means access to the ballot must be applied evenly…
Coble’s order correctly cited a 1947 case in which a state court’s decision striking down the exclusion of ballot access to black South Carolinians by the erstwhile lily-white S.C. Democrat Party (SCDP) was upheld by the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals.
“When these officials participate in what is a part of the state’s election machinery, they are election officers of the state de facto if not de jure, and as such must observe the limitations of the Constitution,” the citation noted. “Having undertaken to perform an important function relating to the exercise of sovereignty by the people, they may not violate the fundamental principles laid down by the Constitution for its exercise.”
Grassroots GOP activists were thrilled by Coble’s decision.
“This is one small step for Ford, but one GIANT leap for conservatives in their fight against the tyrannical chokehold of the SCGOP,” Lexington, S.C. activist Sarah Grace Allen noted.
***
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
