In an action by an individual and the South Carolina Green Party challenging the constitutionality of South Carolina's "sore-loser" statute, as applied to plaintiff's Green Party candidacy for a state House Seat, a ruling upholding the constitutionality of the statute is affirmed where: 1) the impact of the sore-loser statute imposed only a modest burden on the Green Party's association rights, and thus, strict scrutiny does not apply; 2) South Carolina's sore-loser statute advances several important state regulatory interests that justify the modest burden imposed; 3) thus, there was no violation of the Green Party's association rights; 4) South Carolina's status as a state permitting "fusion" candidates does not alter this analysis; and 5) the sore loser statute is constitutional as applied to plaintiff's Green Party candidacy, and he was properly barred from having his name appear on the general election ballot.