Closing Primaries in S.C. Still a Bad Idea
Some bad ideas are perennial.
Take, for instance, the misguided notion of closing South Carolina’s free and open primary elections.
Closed-primary proposals show up at the Statehouse as regularly as Palmetto bugs tumbling from the trees every spring.
It’s not a pleasant sight.
Closed primaries generally require voters to register with a specific party to vote in that party’s primary.
But primary elections are funded by all taxpayers. They should remain free and open to all voters — not just to those who register with a party.
In addition, many South Carolina political races are decided in the primary elections.
Closing the primaries would disenfranchise unaffiliated voters from participating in the most decisive stage of voting.
That, of course, is one of the effects of closed primaries: limiting the participation of independent-minded voters at a time when they constitute the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.
With roughly 45% of Americans identifying as independent — a historic high — unaffiliated voters now outnumber the major parties.
Independent voters pay taxes to support the primaries and should not be shut out.
South Carolinians have enjoyed open primaries for generations, and voters have shown little interest in having that freedom taken away.
The good news: Although two current proposals to close South Carolina’s primaries have gotten a lot of notice, they appear to be failing due to a pitched “civil war” within the Republican Party, according to reporting by the S.C. Daily Gazette’s Adrian Ashford and Seanna Adcox.
The issue appears to be dead for now, but it’s likely to rear its ugly head in the future.
Political polarization
For at least two decades, fierce partisans in South Carolina have pushed to close the primaries in the name of party discipline and loyalty — at the expense of sidelining independent-minded voters.
They would shrink Ronald Reagan’s vision of a “big-tent” party — an inclusive space that can accommodate diverse viewpoints — into something far narrower.
With fewer independent voters participating in primaries, party leaders can more easily ensure that candidates toe a rigid partisan line.
Closed systems tend to produce lower turnout and an electorate less representative of the broader public, yielding nominees chosen by a narrow slice of highly ideological voters rather than a wide cross-section of citizens.
When only party loyalists vote in primaries, candidates are rewarded for appealing to the ideological extremes of their base rather than to moderate or independent voters.
The predictable result is greater political polarization — exactly what South Carolina does not need.
Hyper-partisanship encourages performative politics, policy distractions and extremism.
It’s how we end up with state lawmakers wasting time and money on anti-vax crusades, chemtrail conspiracies, defunding the police, and abortion bills that could subject women to the death penalty.
What South Carolina needs instead are more independent voters willing to question orthodoxy and temper partisan excess — so we send more pragmatic problem-solvers to Columbia and fewer grandstanding ideologues.
Americans overwhelmingly agree that politics has become too partisan.
Polls consistently show that large majorities (about 86%) believe Republicans and Democrats spend more time fighting each other than solving real problems — and that important policy issues receive far too little attention.
Young people, in particular, believe politics has become too partisan.
For those who have long enjoyed the freedom of open primaries, mandatory party registration feels less like a formality and more like a loyalty oath — a pledge to support a party, right or wrong.
That is unthinkable for many independent voters who value the freedom to judge candidates and ideas on their merits rather than through a partisan lens.
Nor is this merely a matter of personal preference. Many business owners, professionals, and educators deliberately avoid partisan identification, mindful of how it may be perceived by customers, colleagues, or communities.
Teachers, in particular, already face unfair accusations about their beliefs and motives.
Forced party affiliation only deepens suspicion where neutrality should be respected.
As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s worth recalling that many of the Founding Fathers were deeply wary of political parties, which they saw as divisive and corrupting.
Their concern is reflected in the Constitution, which never mentions parties.
George Washington in his 1796 Farewell Address warned that faction would inflame passions and fracture national unity.
James Madison acknowledged that parties were inevitable but insisted they must serve “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
In other words, political parties exist to serve the voters — not the other way around.
South Carolina needs less lockstep thinking and fewer purity tests, not more. We need greater independence, broader participation, and more freedom in how citizens exercise their most fundamental right: the right to vote.
Paul Hyde is a longtime journalist and teacher in the Upstate. He worked 18 years for the Greenville News as a columnist, editorial writer, education reporter and arts writer.
