15SEP

Nobody sued over the crossover ban

2 min read

14:21UTC

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 Missouri's election chief held in contempt 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

Cook Political Report

Cook Political Report published a dated House ratings snapshot on 11 September and changed no seat's rating, holding at 206 Democratic to 208 Republican with 21 tossups since its 3 September batch. Publishing without a change is a dated decision, not an oversight, leaving Republicans ahead on seats while Democrats lead the national vote by 6.6 points.

Department of Justice

A Justice Department official told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that preservation letters like the one sent to Aguilar go to states the department is in active litigation against over incomplete voter registration lists. The department would not answer the paper's specific questions about the personal investigation notice riding inside the same letter.

Francisco Aguilar

Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar publicly rejected Justice Department pressure on 12 September, days after a 4 September letter combined a records-preservation demand with a personal notice that he is under investigation. He said he will not fold until a judge orders him to, making his office's compliance a political stand rather than a routine filing.

Brett Kavanaugh

Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri's state-track stay application alone on 8 September without referring it, then sent the separate federal-track application in Onder v. State of Missouri to the full Court, which stayed it on 10 September. His choice of which application to keep and which to share decided how much of the fight one justice controlled.

Robert Onder and the federal plaintiffs

Robert Onder and three other Republican plaintiffs won a temporary restraining order from Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark on 8 September ordering Missouri to use HB 1, then lost it when the Supreme Court stayed it on 10 September. Their federal route ran parallel to Hoskins's own reversal and ended the same way, with the 2022 map governing 3 November.

Richard Von Glahn and People Not Politicians

Richard Von Glahn and People Not Politicians won Von Glahn v. Hoskins on 3 September, persuading the Missouri Supreme Court that their referendum petition stripped HB 1 of effect and sent it to voters as Proposition A. The contempt finding against Hoskins this week confirms their win held even after the state's chief election officer tried to reverse it.