RAIN
78°

Front
News
Sports
Obituaries
Entertainment
State News
AP News
Lottery Results
Classifieds
Lifestyles
Panorama
Police Blotter
Movies
Opinion
Clarendon
Business
Outdoors
Public Record
A Look Back
Photo Gallery
The Messenger

Weather
T.V. Listings
Event Calendar
Staff Directory
Business Directory
Links

Retail
Classified

E-mail
Movie Trivia
Forums
Chat
Match.com

Network Support
Web Development
Web Hosting

Date Published: July 28, 2004   

Crocker petition has statewide implications

The petition candidacy of Auditor Jomarie Crocker will face its first court test Monday in a hearing before Circuit Court Judge Howard P. King in the Sumter County Courthouse.

At that time, Judge King is expected to issue a temporary injunction barring the petition candidacy until a full hearing is conducted on the merits of the case unless Crocker’s attorney can show cause why the injunction should not be granted.

Crocker, who was soundly defeated in the June 6 Democratic primary by challenger Lauretha McCants, is seeking another bite of the apple by having her name placed on the November general election ballot as an independent candidate. The Sumter County Democratic Party, which filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to stop her petition candidacy, says she cannot take that bite because she signed a pledge agreeing to abide by the results of the primary as well as to issuance of an injunction should she attempt an independent candidacy, as required under the state’s Code of Laws.

This is a case that has statewide implications for the party primary system. If the courts uphold Crocker’s challenge, it means any candidate who loses in a primary can gather up names on a petition and, if a sufficient number of names of registered voters appear on the petition, that candidate can have another crack at election as an independent. It would also mean that party primaries are no longer a binding voting exercise. They would, in a sense, be irrelevant.

In a larger sense, it would render useless the concept of a nation (or state) of laws providing for an orderly election process. Individual ambition and political opportunism would take precedence over codified laws. The electoral process would thus become a free-for-all.

This is not to say there is a lack of merit in having non-partisan elections for constitutional offices such as auditor, or in requiring such offices to be appointive. Those issues are worthy of reasonable debate now or in the future.

However, the pressing issue for the moment is whether Crocker’s signature on a pledge is valid or has any meaning in political party primaries. Crocker and her supporters are saying it doesn’t. They contend McCants is woefully unqualified to carry out the responsibilities of auditor, and on-the-job training is insufficient. Crocker, in encouraging the petition campaign, says she’s doing so on behalf of the taxpayers, who deserve a fully qualified auditor to look after their interests.

That leads to another thought: Should Crocker be prevented by the courts from having her name placed on the ballot and McCants runs unopposed in November leading to her election, perhaps Crocker, in the best interests of the taxpayers, would volunteer her services to train McCants in the duties and responsibilities of auditor. It would demonstrate that the office belongs to the people and is not owned by an individual, and there would no longer be concerns that her motives are purely selfish and reek of political opportunism.

It’s just a thought.

E-mail to a friend