Somers v. All Improperly Filed Candidates (3:12-cv-1191) and Smith v. South Carolina State Election Commission (3:12-cv-1543) (Cameron McGowan Currie, Clyde H. Hamilton, and J. Michelle Childs) and Williams v. South Carolina State Election Commission (Henry F. Floyd, David C. Norton, and Richard Mark Gergel, 2:12-cv-2760) (D.S.C.)
Many candidates were disqualified from primary-election ballots following a state supreme court’s strict interpretation of a candidacy filing statute. A candidate who was not disqualified filed a federal action attacking the disqualifications. The district court determined that a candidate who was not disqualified and who was not suing as a voter lacked standing for the suit. In a related case, disqualified candidates filed a federal action arguing that the state supreme-court decision could not have effect without preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge district court determined that the state court’s interpretation of the statute comported with the statute’s plain meaning, so it could not be a change requiring preclearance. Another section 5 complaint alleged that preclearance was required for a state supreme-court decision approving a special primary election after it was determined that the only candidate in the original primary election was not exempt from the filing requirements at issue in the previous cases. A new three-judge court determined that the state supreme court’s decision was an application of existing law rather than a change in voting procedures.
Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; campaign materials; section 5 preclearance; three-judge court; recusal; case assignment; intervention; laches.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.