Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
US Midterms 2026
7SEP

Nobody sued over the crossover ban

2 min read
13:32UTC

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.

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.

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
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
New Hampshire student voters
New Hampshire student voters
Students who hold no accepted photo ID under HB 323 cannot vote in the 8 September primary after Judge Laplante declined to block the law on timing grounds. Whether the same rule applies on 3 November is still open.
Alaska Democratic Party
Alaska Democratic Party
The Alaska Democratic Party moved $884,835 in coordinated spending to Mary Peltola between 17 and 30 July, more than the DCCC spent nationally in the same fortnight.
National Republican Senatorial Committee
National Republican Senatorial Committee
The NRSC, which sued to remove coordinated-spending caps in NRSC v. FEC, put $2,230,472 behind candidates in the first complete month after winning that case, more than double the total for the prior six months combined.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
The unanimous court held that Article III, section 49 carries no redistricting exception, so a referendum petition against a congressional map is as valid as against any other law. It ordered the 2022 map to govern unless voters approve HB 1 on 3 November.
Denny Hoskins, Missouri Secretary of State
Denny Hoskins, Missouri Secretary of State
Hoskins told the Supreme Court that changing the congressional map after 1.2 million primary votes and ahead of the 19 September overseas-ballot deadline violates Purcell and the Elections Clause. He wants HB 1 reinstated before ballots print for November.
Senate Republican leadership
Senate Republican leadership
Floor time is finite at 51-47 with a bipartisan funding negotiation running, and a contested procedural fight over grant conditions is not the best use of it this month. Nothing has been abandoned; the resolution keeps its place on the calendar.