For years, the Republican Party in our state has been locked in a battle with the state legislature, pushing for closed primaries to ensure only registered Republicans (and independents, if the party chooses) can vote. However, this approach fails to safeguard the integrity of the nomination process as effectively as we might hope because simply registering as a Republican does not guarantee one’s commitment to Republican values. Those in favor of closed primaries have the right idea that not just anyone should have a voice in a political party’s nominees to represent their party in November. We’ve determined there’s a problem and identified the cause, but the problem won’t be solved by begging the government to pass another law. A better solution is to nominate candidates by convention.

First, the convention system would limit the selection process to party officials and members who have demonstrated loyalty and dedication to Republican principles. These individuals are vetted by their peers, ensuring that only those who truly value small government and fiscal conservatism get to decide who represents us. Primaries often are swayed by public opinion or media-driven popularity contests. Incumbents are also hardest to challenge in primaries unless they do something so egregious that is widely covered by the news, like when the “Sister Senators” voted against the Heartbeat Bill. Nominating candidates by convention would prevent the influence of candidates who might not genuinely represent Republican values and instead rely on name-recognition to secure nominations through media attention.

Second, turning to a convention system would reduce financial barriers for candidates. Primaries are expensive. In the June 2024 South Carolina statewide primary elections, candidates in just five Republican primaries (Senate districts 10, 23, 26, and 35 and House district 75) spent over $2 million, not including general election costs by the primary winners. What’s worse is that over $1 million of those costs were loans taken out by the candidates. Such a burden deters regular people from even considering running for nomination if they are up against an incumbent armed with hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in campaign accounts ready to be used if threatened with a primary. A convention reduces this to campaigning within the party, making it financially more feasible for genuine, grassroots candidates to run for office.

Third, conventions allow for easier access to direct dialogue between candidates and party members. This interaction isn’t just about visibility; it’s about accountability. Candidates must present their platforms, engage in debates, and answer directly to the party’s concerns. When was the last time you or your county party could publicly challenge your state or U.S. representative about their voting record? This is more difficult the higher the office. However, if a delegate nominates a squishy Republican or a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only), the subsequent organizing conventions provide an opportunity for party members to vote out such delegates. Even better, if the candidate has a bad voting record, the nominating convention gives the party a forum to hold them to account for their misbehavior.

Finally, we can avoid more government dependency by using nominating conventions. The SCGOP endorses primary elections in its bylaws, which were once internal party events that involved thousands of volunteers across the state to help operate and fundraise for them. This was until 2007 when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a law that made primaries publicly funded and operated. Although former Governor Mark Sanford disagreed with this move, saying in his Veto that “government money should not be used in political party activities”, the legislature thought the next year’s presidential election was just too important to worry about the expansion of government. With its endorsement of the primary, the SCGOP bylaws also name the convention system as an acceptable alternative. The answer has been there all along, so why not try something new?

Isn’t it ironic that the party of limited government is relying on government intervention to solve what the party can handle by itself, as it did years ago?

Republicans need party leaders that will take action to solve problems when previous attempts have repeatedly failed. The push for closed primaries for years and years has not worked, and it’s clear that we need a new approach. It has not only been ineffective but also contrary to our principles of self-governance and responsibility. No matter what the general assembly decides this year, the party should take the issue into its own hands. We must elect state party leadership this year that will endorse the convention system over the primary.

The Republican creed states that we have the freedom to fail or to succeed. The party is failing to keep Democrats out of its primaries, but it can choose the path to success without the government’s help. Let’s prove that we can solve our own issues, bypassing government where it’s not needed, and truly represent the will of Republicans.