Tempel v. South Carolina State Election Commission

400 S.C. 374 (2012) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · September 20, 2012

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that Paul Thurmond was not exempt from the statutory requirement to file a Statement of Economic Interests simultaneously with his Statement of Intention of Candidacy. The court further held that his resulting disqualification permitted the Republican Party to conduct a special primary election to fill the vacancy under South Carolina Code section 7-11-55.

Holdings

  1. Thurmond was not exempt under section 8-13-1356(A) because the statement of economic interests on file was not filed in connection with the municipal office he currently held.
  2. Thurmond was selected through a party primary and was a party nominee for purposes of section 7-11-55, notwithstanding the fact that he was unopposed and was erroneously certified.
  3. A candidate improperly placed on the ballot and certified because of a defective filing may be considered disqualified from the primary election for purposes of section 7-11-55, even though the defect concerns ballot eligibility rather than a constitutional qualification for office.
  4. The circuit court properly ordered the Republican Party to conduct a special primary election under section 7-11-55.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Thurmond was exempt from the simultaneous filing requirement of South Carolina Code section 8-13-1356(B) because he had an economic-interest statement on file as a public official.
  2. Whether Thurmond's failure to comply with the simultaneous filing requirement constituted a disqualification after nomination under section 7-11-55.
  3. Whether section 7-11-55 authorized a special primary election to replace Thurmond as the Republican nominee.
  4. Whether Thurmond was selected through a party primary and was a party nominee for purposes of section 7-11-55.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (10)

  • Anderson v. South Carolina Election Commission, 397 S.C. 551, 725 S.E.2d 704 (2012)(followed in part; distinguished as to scope)
  • Florence County Democratic Party v. Florence County Republican Party, 398 S.C. 124, 727 S.E.2d 418 (2012)(followed)
  • Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 713 S.E.2d 278 (2011)(followed)
  • Lancaster County Bar Association v. South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, 380 S.C. 219, 670 S.E.2d 371 (2008)(followed)
  • South Carolina Green Party v. South Carolina State Election Commission, 612 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • In re DNA Ex Post Facto Issues, 561 F.3d 294, 300 (4th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Hill v. York County Natural Gas Authority, 384 S.C. 483, 682 S.E.2d 809 (2009)(followed)
  • Ravenel v. Dekle, 265 S.C. 364, 218 S.E.2d 521 (1975)(discussed in dissent)
  • Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening v. Huff, 320 S.C. 241, 464 S.E.2d 324 (1995)(discussed in dissent)
  • Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp., 381 S.C. 460, 674 S.E.2d 154 (2009)(discussed in dissent)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…