South Carolina Judge Says GOP Can Deny Voters Primary; Trump Considers Ditching Debates

South Carolina Judge Says GOP Can Deny Voters Primary; Trump Considers Ditching Debates
Published: 16 Dec, 2019
2 min read

A South Carolina judge last week dismissed a lawsuit against the state’s Republican Party over its decision to cancel a 2020 presidential primary. The decision all but ensures that many of the state’s voters will not have a say in the presidential process.

In her opinion, Richland Circuit Court Judge Jocelyn Newman wrote that the plaintiffs, among whom includes former US Rep Robert Durden Inglis, did not have “a legal right to a presidential preference primary, and the Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the General Assembly or the SCGOP.”

In other words, the party makes the rules, even at the expense of voter choice.

The South Carolina GOP was one of 4 Republican Parties that decided in September to forgo a presidential preference primary in 2020. The decision has been condemned by President Donald Trump’s 3 challengers in the race, which includes former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

Many Republican Parties have changed their rules in one way or another to make it much more challenging for Sanford, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, and former Illinois US Rep. Joe Walsh to pick up any delegates or challenge Trump for the nomination at the Republican National Convention.

Further, not only has Trump and the Republican Party refused primary debates, but the president is reportedly considering not even showing for the general election debates. The New York Times reports that he has told advisors that he has “misgivings” about the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).


The CPD was formed as a partnership between the Republican and Democratic Parties, and sponsors all of the debates in presidential general elections. Since the commission’s rules make it all but impossible for third party and independent candidates to gain access, a decision not to participate by the president would mean no debates at all.

Follow the lawsuit against the CPD.

An ongoing lawsuit in federal court is challenging the CPD’s rules that block even a single additional candidate outside the Republican and Democratic Parties from appearing on the debate stage. If nothing changes, however, it will be another year in which the major parties have denied voters a real choice in presidential elections.

IVP Donate

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read