1OCT

McKissick and Parmley accept crossover ban

2 min read

15:11UTC

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 Bulk voter citizenship checks are back 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 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.

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

McKissick and Parmley accept 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

Judge Mary Geiger Lewis, US District Court for the District of South Carolina

Lewis dismissed on standing, without prejudice, the challenge by the South Carolina NAACP and three voters with disabilities to limits on who may help voters. The limits, including a cap of five voters per assistant, stand for the 3 November Senate election.

Judge Victoria Marie Calvert, US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Calvert dismissed the Justice Department's suit for Georgia's unredacted voter list on 30 September, holding that the 1960 Civil Rights Act does not override state privacy law. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger need not hand over birth dates, Social Security numbers or licence numbers.

Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff

Bianco, ordered by the state supreme court on 24 September to return about 650,000 Proposition 50 ballots, called his seizure a lawful investigation. He told CalMatters he would appeal to the federal courts.

Fairshake network, through Defend American Jobs

Fairshake, the crypto-industry super PAC, has said it will spend $30 million against Sherrod Brown, and Defend American Jobs, which the Washington Times places in its network, filed $11.46 million in Ohio. The Washington Times reports that the ads do not mention cryptocurrency.

Texas PAC

The super PAC reported $61.41 million of new spending on 30 September, its two largest lines opposing James Talarico and supporting Ken Paxton. Its race total of $131.53 million is the largest outside effort in any Senate contest this week, with donors undisclosed until 15 October.

Sabato's Crystal Ball

Sabato moved three Virginia seats on 29 September, putting Jen Kiggans's 2nd District at Leans Democratic and the 1st at Toss-up. It wrote that a Democratic win in the 5th, now Leans Republican, would fit a 2006-style wave.