26JUL

Nobody sued over the crossover ban

2 min read

10:41UTC

South Carolina barred June Democratic-primary voters from the Republican special primary, and the state's two party chairmen both said they were content with it.

← Back to 0-for-17 in court, and the map that held Jump to analysis ↓

PoliticsDeveloping

Key takeaway

The crossover ban stands because both state party chairmen want it, not because a court approved it.

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 way ¹. 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.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

South Carolina lets anyone vote in either party's primary, because the state does not register voters by political party. When the state election commission barred anyone who had voted in June's Democratic primary from taking part in the special Republican primary, nobody sued, because both the Republican and Democratic state party chairmen were content with the outcome.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

South Carolina does not register voters by party, so any bar on crossover voting rests on a state agency's interpretation of "the requirements of South Carolina election law" rather than a specific registration record.

That discretion only goes unchallenged when both parties benefit from the same ruling, as they did here: Republicans keep out voters who might dilute a Trump-aligned outcome, and Democrats avoid a fight they were never going to win in a Republican primary they had no stake in.

What could happen next?

Meaning
The exclusion rule survives this cycle only because it was politically convenient to both parties, not because a court or statute settled the underlying question of who may vote in South Carolina's primaries.

Sources:The Post and Courier

Mentions:South Carolina State Election Commission →South Carolina →Department of Justice →Republican Party →North Carolina →Democratic Party →Lindsey Graham →

First Reported In

Update #14 · 0-for-17 in court, and the map that held

The Post and Courier· 26 Jul 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

SC bars June Democratic primary voters

The Commission's Democratic-voter exclusion drew no legal challenge once both party chairs accepted it.

Occurred 15 Jul 2026

Read story →

This Event

Nobody sued over the crossover ban

A voting restriction adopted weeks before a Senate primary faces no challenge, because the only actors with the standing to bring one want it in place.

Different Perspectives

Senate Budget Committee under Ron Johnson

Johnson, reported to succeed the late Lindsey Graham as Budget chair on 22 July, has a record of opposing reconciliation packages on deficit grounds, a different proposition than his predecessor for carrying the $10bn voter-ID grant through the Senate on 51 votes after the House passed its version 216-214.

NRCC and Republican committee strategists

The NRCC's $92.7m cash on hand outweighs the DCCC's $79.0m by $13.7m even after Democrats out-raised them $37.4m to $35.4m in the second quarter, official FEC filings from 20 July confirmed. Strategists are banking on the reserve gap, not this quarter's receipts, to carry House races.

Memphis civil-rights plaintiffs

The Black Clergy Collaborative and allied Memphis plaintiffs argued Tennessee's redraw split the state's only Black-majority district to dilute their vote, and lost on 23 July when the panel found the map "driven by politics, not race". The ruling leaves it governing the 6 August primary while their underlying trial continues.

Department of Justice

DOJ filed notice of appeal on its Connecticut dismissal the same day, 23 July, a Kentucky court threw out an identical suit, its seventeenth loss without ever pleading which statute authorises the voter-file demand. It continues pressing 13 live cases on an appellate strategy that has produced one ruling, the 6th Circuit's Benson loss.

Overseas and military voters

1,051 UOCAVA voters had requested ballots for the original 9 June primary before Graham's death on 11 July moved the calendar entirely. Dhillon's 19-20 July agreement sets a fresh 1 August mailing date for the 11 August primary, a fix that arrived after the vacancy it addresses rather than before it.

South Carolina State Election Commission

Commission director Conway Belangia declared the June-primary crossover review "completed" on 16 July, barring anyone who voted in the June Democratic primary from the 11 August Republican special primary, citing only "the requirements of South Carolina election law" without naming the statute. Both parties accepted the ruling rather than challenge it.