South Carolina GOP appears to violate own rules in canceling primary for Trump

What an undemocratic shit-show.

South Carolina GOP appears to violate own rules in canceling primary for Trump

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460391-south-carolina-gop-appears-to-violate-own-rules-in-canceling-primary-for

The South Carolina Republican Party appeared to violate its own rules on Saturday when the party's executive committee voted to cancel next year's primary election.

The executive committee voted nearly unanimously to cancel the primary, state party chairman Drew McKissick said, because President Trump had drawn "no legitimate primary challenger."

Trump has drawn two former Republican elected officials as challengers. Former Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) -- who served two terms as governor of South Carolina -- is also considering joining the field.

Any of those candidates may decide to sue the South Carolina GOP, some Republican insiders said, because Saturday's vote ran contrary to the state party's rules.

The rule that governs South Carolina's presidential preference primary allows the state party to cancel the primary only by a vote at the state party convention, within two years of the subsequent primary.

South Carolina Republicans did not vote to cancel the primary at either of its last two conventions.

While bad in principle, this ultimately changes nothing.

Trump is the most popular republican politician out there, and winning a primary against a standing president is quite difficult.

All they did was speed up the inevitability.

That should be up to the people to decide.

Hmm, so not against the laws but against internal rules.

Not sure what you are trying to paint here but the republicans can decide what they want so do not have a problem with them not holding a "mock primary" for some idiotic "republican" who thinks they can beat Trump and be nominated.

Waste of money and resources.

Parties can decide their nominees with a ham sandwich eating contest - the methods and rules are almost entirely up to them.

Didn't the Republicans chastise DNC and Hillary over similarly issues with the Sanders primary?

Then where’s your thread criticizing California for passing a law preventing Trump from being on the Republican primary ballet unless he agrees to release his taxes, which isn’t required in the Constitution to run for president?

Hm but to draw a comparison of an open seat primary to an incumbent running for Presidential re-election?

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/aug/08/california-republican-party/no-president-trump-wasnt-kicked-california-ballot-/

That article doesn't disprove what I said. Based on the new law, Trump can't participate in the California primary, which takes away a choice of California Republicans unless he releases his taxes. I didn't say anything about the general election.

Regardless of whether or not you think he should release them, releasing tax returns is not a requirement of the Constitution to run for president.

It actually does disprove what you said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom did sign Senate Bill 27 into law last week. But it doesn’t prevent Trump or anyone else from appearing on the California ballot, nor does it mean he’s "kicked off."

Instead, it requires candidates for president and governor to release five years of tax returns to run in the state’s primary. The requirement does not extend to the general election.

The underlined says exactly what I mentioned earlier, which is that Trump can't participate in the primaries unless he releases his taxes. You're not going to spin this into something else. I never claimed that he was restricted from running in their general election.

Sure, you could respond by saying "well, all he has to do is release his taxes and he can run," but that is not what the Constitution says is required. This isn't an "you can add to but you can't take away" scenario; this isn't the military.

Would you be okay if a state like Washington passed a law stating you could only appear on the presidential primary if you signed a pledge stating that you would push for laws fighting climate change, if Alabama passed a law stating that you could only appear in their primary if you sign a pledge to push for laws restricting abortion, or if Utah said you could only appear on the ballet if you were Mormon?

Whataboutism yay! He is not booted off just because. And the rules in California apply to ALL candidates.

Note the facts put your stance at pants on fire.

Show me in the Constitution where it says you are required to show your last five years of tax returns to run for president.

Better yet, let me know if you truly believe California would have passed that law if Hillary Clinton was president right now.

You deflected. Nonetheless this law applies to everyone of all parties.

"what about....."

Who cares? This is internal rules and they can decide what they want. It´s not against the law and if they decide not to waste money and time on someone who is clearly using this as a platform to further his own career, I have zero issues like I also have with how DNC runs their business.

First of all it´s none of the democratic governors business how both parties run their primaries and this law is highly unconstitutional and if it does not get struck down by the supreme court, I will be very surprised.

Also, your link clearly states two things, to get into the primary ballot the candidate must release 5 years, which is none of their business and is clearly a ploy to avoid a future "trump"

While it does not apply to the general election, it does not need to consider the importance California has in the election.

Voter ID laws if passed supposedly apply to everyone of all parties and walks of life, but that doesn't stop people against it from saying it should never be implemented because they say it targets minorities more likely to vote Democratic.

I'm not here to change your mind specifically, I'm just pointing out how people are saying things they wouldn't tolerate in other situations are totally okay in these particular situations because they could potentially hurt Trump. You're not the only person reading my replies.

Keep denying it if you want, and I’m sure that a few other posters will agree with you because, well Orange Man Bad and he should just release his taxes anyway. Doesn't change the facts that the law was specifically made to get Trump out of the primaries.

The vast majority of the laws, rules, and regulations that apply to you are not in the constitution. They don't have to be. The only requirement is that the constitution can't say that those laws, rules, and regulations are illegal.

The issue in South Carolina is that the organization in question (the republican party) is failing to follow its own rules. This should be a slam dunk case in a civil lawsuit, and I think the affected parties at the very least should be able to get the cost of their presidential campaigns refunded by the party. That would only be fair.

That wasn't a whataboutism, I was actually just asking you a question.

And if it turns out they did, that would be hypocrisy.

Well, everyone in politics is a hypocrite when it comes to the "other side"

But again who cares what they do it´s internal rules and there are no laws that prevent them from doing what they want

The GOP is a private organization and can shut down any primary attempt they want. It's a bit rich considering how people constantly ripped on the DNC in 2016 for not being 'fair' to Sanders though (ignoring that super delegates didn't need to come into play to see him lose).

For once we agree.

Sanders got a fair primary and lost because he lacked the right appeal to the masses.

The GOP is a party of fascism and its adherents a danger.

;)