The South Carolina General Assembly is starting the 2026 session with a bang, and there are several bills of great interest to the League being heard in subcommittees of the House of Representatives during the first week. Two restrict abortion rights and two would close partisan primaries by party affiliation.
Please add your voice as citizens and voters by attending the hearings if possible and by submitting written or oral testimony on these bills! The League is always especially concerned about bills that impact representative democracy, as the bills to close primary elections would, but we are also concerned about infringements on the rights of citizens in other areas.
Closing Primaries!
Two bills that would close primary elections by party will be discussed in the House Judiciary Committee’ Constitutional Laws (Con Laws) Subcommittee on Thursday, January 15, 2026, 9 am, Room 516, Blatt Building, SC State House.
- H.3643 Voter Registration, Party Affiliation (B. Newton and others)
- H.330 Closed Primaries (Burns and others)
The asks
About the closing primaries bills
Primaries are the elections in which individual votes are most powerful, with the greatest potential to allow a voter to elect someone of their choosing. Every voter must be able to participate fully in this process.In South Carolina, the general election in November is too often already strongly tilted to one party or the other, often through gerrymandering, so that the primary is the only realistic hope of influencing how we are governed.
Two issues arise here, that of “crossover voting” by adherents of a party and the question of how to allow participation by those who do not choose to be affiliated with either party.
There is a longstanding fear that primary outcomes might be altered by “crossover” voters who are affiliated with an opposing party. Political parties claim a right to prevent those not committed to their party from helping to determine their candidates. This should not overcome the most basic of rights, that of citizens to cast a meaningful vote to select someone who will govern according to their interests and wishes.
In South Carolina, a primary is often the final election that is competitive, barring extraordinary circumstances. Gerrymandering has very intentionally made South Carolina elections that should be highly competitive very heavily skewed toward one party. Preventing any qualified elector from voting in the primary therefore deprives that voter of a genuine opportunity to elect someone more nearly consistent with their interests and views.
There are some who fear that if there are many crossover voters then their party’s candidate may not reflect the wishes of the party faithful. There is also a fear of malicious crossovers, in which voters participate in an alternative primary to vote for a poor candidate and thereby make the opposing party less competitive in November. Neither fear has been realized in actual elections. Another concern is that of unaffiliated voters or “independents.”
The two bills differ in how they would address this growing portion of the electorate.
H.3643 attempts to address this issue by allowing unaffiliated voters to vote, but only on condition that they subsequently register with that party.
H.3310 permits parties to make their own decisions about whether unaffiliated electors are eligible to vote in their primaries.
Neither option adequately addresses the right of electors to a meaningful vote even if they are not completely aligned with a party and do not wish to claim a distorted identity.
Talking points
In testimony, speak from a personal perspective, emphasizing the reasons that you want your vote to matter as much as possible.
- Our votes matter most in the primaries, and every voter has a right to cast their vote in the primary in a way most likely to shape how they are governed.
- Both parties have participated in gerrymandering districts to protect incumbents and their parties. In South Carolina, gerrymandering has produced strong legislative supermajorities for one party, and both parties enjoy artificially inflated majorities in individual districts where incumbents have protected themselves. Having created this distortion of representative democracy, the parties have no right to bar voters from exercising their vote in the election most likely to influence how they are governed.
- Unaffiliated or independent voters do not agree across the board with any party. They nevertheless have a right to vote in every election that shapes how they will be governed. They should not be required to adopt a false identity to do so.
- The fear within parties that open primaries will permit significant distortions of partisan outcomes have not been realized, even when very public efforts have been made to encourage crossovers.
- Overall, the worst problem facing our primary elections is the failure of most voters of any party to participate. Turnout is routinely a pathetic 15%-20% for all parties combined. We don’t need to make this very bad situation worse.
Abortion Again!
At noon on Wednesday, January 14, the Con Laws Subcommittee will meet in the Blatt Building Room 110, SC State House, to hear two abortion-related bills. The League opposes both.
- H.3537 South Carolina Prenatal Protection Act (Harris and others)
- H.4760 Abortion Inducing Drugs (W. Newton and others)
The asks
-
Attend the January 14, noon, subcommittee meeting and add your personal perspective through written or oral testimony.
-
Submit written testimony to HJudConstitutionalLaws [at] schouse.gov.
About the abortion bills
H.3537 South Carolina Prenatal Protection Act (Harris and others)
Talking points
- Defining a fertilized egg as a legal person is a moral judgement, not a scientific fact, and one that is not shared by many South Carolinians.
- The bill would impair many medical processes that are essential healthcare for pregnant persons and those who wish to become pregnant. The bill threatens miscarriage and stillbirth care, IVF, birth control, and emergency treatment.
H.4760 Abortion Inducing Drugs (W. Newton and others)
Talking points
- Abortion drugs are safer than many drugs available over-the-counter in drug stores. Pregnant people do not need to be protected from these drugs.
- Those who are pregnant are fully capable of making their own decisions and must be able to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and safe, evidence-based medications.
- In making abortion medications less accessible, the bill would encourage less safe methods and delay of care.
