Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said his party had been ready to go to court only if the South Carolina State Election Commission had ruled the other way1. The Commission had barred anyone who voted in the June Democratic primary from taking part in the Republican special primary on 11 August, applying a state statute that ties a voter to one party's nominating contest per election cycle. Jay Parmley, executive director of the state Democratic Party, publicly agreed with the exclusion.
That agreement is why the rule has drawn no challenge. A restriction on who may vote is tested in court by someone who objects to it, and in South Carolina the two organisations with the resources and the standing to object have each concluded the rule suits them: the Republicans keep Democratic voters out of a primary that will effectively choose the next senator, and the Democrats keep their own voters from being counted as Republican participants. The Department of Justice put the exclusion outside the scope of its overseas-ballot agreement with the state, so it will not be testing the rule either.
Excluded voters could still sue on their own. Doing so means finding counsel, standing and a court date inside the fortnight before ballots are cast, against a rule both parties defend. In practice, a June vote in one primary now settles whether a South Carolinian has any say in filling Lindsey Graham's seat, and no institution is asking a judge whether that is lawful.
