ACLU files suit supporting Platt's right to be on ballot
By Yvonne Wenger
The Post and Courier
Eugene Platt
PDFs
COMPLAINT - Nature of the Case
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Previous stories
Peterson Hutto posts easy victory, published 06/11/08
Platt trying for spot on November ballot, published 06/19/08
Platt off November ballot - for now, published 06/27/08
Platt off ballot for District 115 race, published 06/28/08
COLUMBIA — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Thursday that alleges the State Election Commission violated Eugene Platt's rights when it decided to not allow him on the November ballot.
The broader issue is over the ACLU's contention with South Carolina election laws that allow candidates to run for office under multiple parties while imposing a "sore loser" statute that prohibits a candidate defeated for one party's nomination from appearing on the ballot for another party.
"For South Carolina voters — no matter what party they belong to — this election system is not acceptable," Graham Boyd, interim executive director of the ACLU South Carolina Office, said in a statement. "We are confident the court will fix this problem and let the voters of this state choose the candidates that best represent them."
The ACLU wants the court to require the state to place Platt's name on the ballot as the Green Party candidate for the House District 115 seat. Platt, though, was defeated in the June 10 Democratic Party primary for the seat by James Island lawyer Anne Peterson Hutto. Incumbent Republican Rep. Wallace Scarborough is running for re-election.
Platt was selected for the Green Party nomination May 3.
Chris Whitmire, public information officer for the State Election Commission, said he could not comment as of late Thursday afternoon because the commission had not seen a copy of the lawsuit. He cited a state statute as the basis for the commission's rejection issued in late June.
Platt questioned the logic of allowing what happened in one party to negate what happens in another. "My primary motivation is to win the election and to try to serve the people of District 115," he said.
A related issue involves a pledge Platt had signed with the Democratic Party regarding future candidacy.
Bill Runyon, attorney and former Charleston Democratic Party chairman, said it's the party's job to enforce the pledge, not the election commission. Whitmire agreed that the pledge is an issue to be handled by the party.
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
Riptide (anonymous) says...
I think he would screw up the office of dog catcher. Doesn't the ACLU, the Green Party and Platt know by now that splitting the socialist vote within the democrat party will ensure a republican victory. In order for the democrat party to have any chance at all of winning they will need every socialist, communist, progressive, liberal, illegal alien, Muslim, and any other anti-American vote they can muster. Platt must have one big ego problem.
August 8, 2008 at 5:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
Johnq...
In the words of Antonio Gramsci, the famous communist that broke from the International during the 1920s, one must work within the cultural and political institutions of a capitalist society in order to bring about a socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Contact Barack Obama campaign headquarters, they'll fill you in on the details, it's in the liberal playbook.
You have a nice day.
August 8, 2008 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeitup (anonymous) says...
Johnq must have chashed his welfare check and bought more crack.
August 8, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
Good Old ACLU! Liberal idiots trying to subvert the laws and constitution of the USA! If they would take up causes that actually have a Contitutional reason, they might be a little more respected! Instead they look for whatever radical cause they can find to force their liberal anti USA agenda on the majority! IDIOTS!
CAN WE LEGALLY RUN THEM OUT OF S.C.??
August 8, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
We don't hate America, just only the reich winged Conservative fascist, which are the likes of most of you guys!
August 8, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
America has the strongest most advanced military in the world, the most vibrant ecconomy, the best standard of living, one of the longest life expectancies and is benchmark the rest of the civized world uses to measure themselves by and BO wants to change that! Will one of you Dem's please explain why?
August 8, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Zeke, did you even RTFA? Or is this just a mindless, knee-jerk response to any headline with the letters ACLU?
If fighting to get a Green Party candidate on the ballot is their way of forcing "their liberal anti USA agenda on the majority" then you should be glad. Green Party candidates tend to dilute the liberal vote by taking away primarily from Democrats.
Anyway, read the article. They have taken a reasonable position here. I almost see it as a friendly warmup for the ACLU in SC to gain favor. But perhaps they have underestimated the degree to which we blindly spew our right-wing rhetoric.
August 8, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Yes, Jane. Believe me, I have LOTS of problems with the ACLU. They generally test the Constitution on causes I abhor. I could go on all day about what I hate about the ACLU.
I want people to react to what the issues are, though, and not just blindly dismiss a cause because the ACLU may have embraced it.
August 8, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yellowdogdemocrat (anonymous) says...
This is so crazy because Platt is a CONSERVATIVE! Just ask him how he feels about gay rights or womens rights. He's a party flip flopper from way back. He will wear out his welcome with the Greens soon enough and he'll be dragging his whiney ass back to the Republicans wanting to sue the ACLU because they can't get him on the ballot either. So support Eugene Platt and his cause to get on the ballot and make a mockery of the whole election system! Ooops, I forgot. George Bush already did that...
August 8, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
RW
Just because Newt does not buy into the kool-aid that the Reich's winged conservative talk show blow-hards try to brain wash you guys with doe not make her crazy. I love my country, but I think it is very arrogant to think we are the end all to be all. I HATE HEARING THAT JUST BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH YOU IDIOTS WE HATE THIS COUNTRY!!!!! T-TOTAL BS!!!!!!!! If we did hate this country, we would not put up the good fight with the likes of you, the likes of who are sending this country down the tubes!
August 8, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
RW
Contrary to what you think, I don't have a one certain model country. What works well for one country will not work for the next (there are variable and factors that make this the case). I know that you have me pegged as a socialist just because I feel that we have an ethical right to provide affordable health care, but so does most of the western civilized world. I do disagree with about 85 percent of your much skewed viewpoints, because they are so extreme. I am not a person that follows a certain ideal logy, but more like a pragmatist and a person that uses reason to solve problems. I know that it will be hard for you conservatives to understand, because it does not hold some black or white solution.
For example, Sweden is a country where socialism works well; yet, it does so because it is a small wealthy country with a literate very educated workforce. Yet, I know that socialism would not work in the US because we have too large of a population, we don't have the wealth (well the few have it, but not the large majority), and we too many people that feel that we are entitled to hands outs. Yet, there are many problems that we as a country face that will take some radical solutions. With a growing world population, and a limited number of resources, the US really needs to re-evaluate it consumption habits for example. Something most of you conservative could really care less about. I could go into more details, but sorry I really do not have the time:., but maybe a later day.
August 8, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
PS I don't agree with everything that the ACLU does, yet their founding principles are pretty sound. Sorry ColdBeer, but I am sick and tired of conservatives stating that we hate America when this is not the case. It not intending to everyone that post, but definitely to the people that claim we hate America.
August 8, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
follitics (anonymous) says...
James Islanders will remember that Eugene Platt's campaign signs read "Integrity." What a joke.
When he filed as a Democratic candidate, Platt signed and swore an oath on a pledge that if he lost the primary, he wouldn't run against another Democrat. He signed the same pledge two years ago. Now he says he doesn't remember and it doesn't count and he's going to run against Anne Peterson Hutto, who beat him handily in the primary.
And there's more. Platt started out his political career as a Democrat. Then he became a Republican. Then he was a Democrat against. Now he's a Green -- whatever suits his purpose of the moment. And he morphed his "principles" accordingly.
"Integrity"? "Vanity" says it better.
August 8, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
RW, NAMBLA was protected (when it used to actually exist) in THIS country. They were protected because they SAID, not DID. Their's was the disgusting use of free speech that constitutes a test of the limitations of free speech. Of course we HATE them, that's why they made a good test case. Defending the I Love America Club and it's right to present their message may be easy and may feel good, but it doesn't really test anything.
The list of countries where hated groups would be banned would pretty much give you the same list you were asking guidedbystewart to give you.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Everyone loves that phrase, only some really mean it.
August 8, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Google for ACLU defends Christians.
Here they defend religious groups against a city ordinance that would ban them from protesting against a gay pride parade. Just search and you will find many more.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLett...
They may be headed by socialists, they certainly support some horrible causes, but they also consitently defend free speech - and without that we are not free.
August 8, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Useful comments from Christianity Today concerning the ACLU and it's relationship to Christians:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...
Don't get me wrong, the ACLU is hardly the defender of Christians. It just happens that Christians' free speech rights are sometimes challenged and, when that happens, they have the support of the ACLU.
August 8, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
Again, we go back to Antonio Gramsci who split with Lenin as to how to overthrow capitalist society. Antonio felt that by corrupting our legal, political, educational, mass media and religious institutions the socialist left (liberal democrats) can over throw the capitalist system. The ACLU is one of many organizations on the left that was founded by people like Baldwin and Foster both Marxists. Sure the ACLU is there defending someone who is burning the American flag or desecrating Christian artifacts as free speech but where were they when it comes to our second amendment rights or the supreme court case of Kilo vs. New London? Yes, liberals are in favor of free speech? That's a laugh. Try to listen to a conservative speaker on a college campus or wait til next year when Congress tries to usher in the Fairness Doctrine.
Well my break is over with.
August 8, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Jane, we agree more than we disagree on this.
I am just hammering on sort of a devil's advocate angle. I don't like the ACLU. I do like some of the things they do. I don't trust them either, but when they defend the I Hate Children magazine, I understand why they do that. And if they have a hidden agenda, and if they themselves actually hate children, I don't like that. But it doesn't stop me from supporting their defense of the magazine.
What I mean is, at the same time as I question their agenda, if what they happen to be defending in a case happens to be a cornerstone of American freedom, then I will support them in that effort. People have a bad habit of going against lots of things, some good, just because the ACLU has stamped their name on it.
August 8, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Oops...
Above should say: I don't ESPECIALLY like the ACLU.
Anyways...
August 8, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"I don't see why guided can't give us another country that he thinks would be the ideal."
Sorry Jane and RW but there isn't a country that is ideal, and that includes the US. All countries have their flaws. But there are many, from at least an outsider's view and a limited knowledge of (but since Geography is one of my passions I know more about these countries than most Americans) that do I admire. Canada, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Great Britain, New Zealand, Costa Rica, all have admirable traits in some way, whether if it's there natural beauty, government or the way they treat there people. Like I said before, these countries are different from the US in size, global responsibility, power, etc., so US to these countries would be like comparing apples to oranges. Yet, we can learn what works for these countries, and use this knowledge to better our nation.
August 8, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"the leftists are a dieing breed...they ahve no new ideas, now means of accomplishing their agenda without taking from the workers, and their base are nuts like moveon, welfare queens, radical homosexuals, those wanting free health care, those wanting to help illegal aliens,"
The conservtives are not doing much better, it the extremist that are the main ones buying into the bull of either party... unfortunitely there are allot of extremist here in SC.
August 8, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riptide (anonymous) says...
Comrade Newt:.
Paranoid? No it's not paranoia. I can understand the left's views when it comes to the second amendment. Anyone who can defend themselves with a firearm lend credence to the ideal of self reliance and individualism. Self reliance and individualism goes against the collectivist ideology of the left. I also understand why the left ruled against this nurse in Connecticut in the Supreme Court case of Kilo vs. New London. This case involved a nurse and her house vs. the government's right to subordinate her right to property to the interest of the state. The fifth amendment and eminent domain cases clearly states what the government can do and can not do, there is nothing in this case where the government can take a person's property and hand it over to a developer for the express purpose of generating taxes.The government is not allow to that. This is fascism which is a kissing cousin of socialism. Property rights is the foundation of capitalism and property rights goes against the ideals of socialism.
I don't have a problem with socialism, just take it back to Europe where it belongs. I don't want to live under it.
August 8, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
