COLUMBIA — Two dueling GOP proposals designed to stop Democrats from voting in Republican primaries are likely going nowhere after causing a “civil war” within South Carolina’s dominating party.
Rep. Brandon Newton of Lancaster, author of the bill repeatedly endorsed by the state Republican Party, opened Wednesday’s two-hour hearing by saying neither bill should advance amid the internal GOP wrangling. The other bill is primarily sponsored by members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus and backed by U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, who’s running for governor and came to the Statehouse last week to demand its passage.
“This has been the nastiest debate internally I’ve ever witnessed in the party structure,” said Newton, former chairman of the Lancaster County GOP and former state GOP executive committeeman. “The divide on this topic and the divide between two pieces of legislation have truly put, I believe, the party in a civil war.”
The accusations and name-calling flying back and forth on social media is over the top, he said, noting an activist even came to the University of South Carolina at Lancaster, where he teaches business, and put fliers on cars all over campus bashing his bill.
GOP candidate for SC governor demands closed primaries. Gov. McMaster threatens a veto.
It’s unfair to put legislators in the position of “trying to create a kumbaya moment between two warring factions between the party,” continued Newton, who’s also the assistant majority leader of the House GOP Caucus.
Besides, he said, Gov. Henry McMaster has made it clear he would veto either bill: “He didn’t equivocate. He didn’t say maybe.” The Senate has “shown zero interest in taking it up.” And there’s no way it can take effect for the June primaries anyway, Newton said, noting that the process of creating the ballots starts in a couple of months.
The House Judiciary subcommittee heard testimony on both bills but took no vote.
Chad Connelly, who led the state GOP from 2011 to 2013, said it’s been a priority of the party for decades and recalled coming to the Statehouse to advocate for the idea as chairman. With a supermajority GOP Legislature — which didn’t exist in either chamber during his tenure — it’s time to make it happen, he said.
But unless the intra-party strife resolves quickly, which seems highly unlikely, there won’t be another hearing on the bills this year.
Several people said closed primaries are a bad idea because they exclude participation of voters who don’t consider themselves Republican or Democrat, which will further polarize political discord.
Voter participation is already low for primaries, which usually decide the winner of South Carolina contests. Closing the primaries would mean an even smaller faction of the population on the right and left would determine who represents all South Carolinians, said Lynn Teague with the League of Women Voters’ state chapter.
“We believe that independents, who are a growing part of the electorate, should not be excluded,” she said.
Newton agreed, saying any bill that doesn’t allow independent voters to participate is a “red line” he won’t support. His bill would allow unregistered voters to participate, but anyone who voted in a party primary would then automatically be registered with that party. The other bill requires voters to register with the party at least 30 days before a primary in order to vote.
Andrew Boucher, chairman of the Charleston County GOP, said that would create “absolute chaos.” It’s hard enough to get people to the polls. People who don’t know they need to pre-register will be turned away at precincts they’ve voted at for years, he told legislators.
Newton pointed to President Donald Trump’s election to argue against pre-registration. Nearly 140,000 additional voters participated in South Carolina’s GOP presidential primary in 2016 compared to four years earlier. People who’d never voted in a primary before helped fuel Trump’s win in the state’s critical first-in-the-South presidential primary and, beyond that, the White House.
“Barring them from having the ability to vote in a primary is wrong,” he said.
Other speakers said it’s Newton’s bill that prevents participation by narrowing who can run in a primary. They pointed to a provision that requires candidates to have voted in two of the last three statewide primaries. It does allow the party’s executive committee to make exceptions for people who don’t meet that qualification. But that means the party will control who can be on the ballot, they said.
Those supporting the Freedom Caucus bill included Mark Lynch, a Republican running to unseat U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham on his right flank, and GOP candidates vying for the coastal 1st District.
Tyler Dykes of Bluffton, who’s among 10 Republicans running to replace U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, said Newton’s bill would bar his candidacy.
The Marine Corps veteran said he and other military veterans who are busy serving their country won’t be able to meet the two-primary requirement. Dykes would have an additional obstacle, as he was imprisoned for his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol before Trump pardoned him last January. Arrested in July 2023, he later pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement but now disputes prosecutors’ accusations, saying his plea was only to get a deal.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Alex Pelbath, another 1st District GOP candidate, agreed that the two-primary requirement for candidacy would unfairly keep veterans like him from running.
Rep. Mark Smith of Daniel Island, the only legislator in the 1st District race, took a different tone.
Noting he’s a co-sponsor of both bills, he said he doesn’t care which passes. He also stressed not caring about McMaster’s threat or whether the Senate would consider whatever the House advances. He contended it’s the House’s job to come up with a compromise that can pass.
In addition to Norman, other Republicans running for governor have also chimed in saying they support closed primaries — though without making a demand at the Statehouse.
In news releases, Mace endorsed the Freedom Caucus bill, while Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson both advocated for the idea without specifically endorsing either House proposal.