South Carolina

A Bipartisan Effort to Change Election Law in South Carolina

Election Law Society · January 20, 2023 · Leave a Comment

By Susanna Clark

This past May, the governor of South Carolina signed a new bill into law that made changes to early voting, both in-person and absentee, and election crimes. The bill was a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. After some back and forth between the House and Senate and the two parties, the bill passed unanimously. It should be noted that both the South Carolina House and Senate are controlled by Republicans by a significant margin, 80-43 and 30-16, respectively, so moderate Republicans may have been standing with Democrats in enacting a less restrictive law—effectively forcing a bipartisan effort. Either way, when compared to other Republican-controlled states, this law appears to be much less restrictive.

Lawmakers have stated that the goal of the bill was to increase election integrity in the state. House Speaker Jay Lucas said the bill would “make it easier to vote and harder to cheat in South Carolina.” The bill was signed into law less than a month before the primary election on June 14, and due to the new early-voting provisions, voters were able to cast their ballots just two weeks after the bill passed. It is unclear whether this created confusion for voters or election officials, since the bill was passed so close to an election; the lack of news reports related to voter confusion caused by the bill suggest that it was not likely an issue. Confusion can likely be avoided by making the new provisions widely available to the public, and ensuring that election officials are properly briefed on the new legislation.

One of the major changes is that an in-person two-week early voting period replaces an in-person absentee voting, which is now done by mail. This means that there is an in-person voting period prior to Election Day and absentee voting by mail for those who cannot vote during the available time. This would operate like Election Day voting–voters can only vote in their respective counties and must bring a form of photo identification This ID requirement dates back to 2013. The hours and locations differ slightly, based on whether it is for a general, primary, or runoff election. Absentee voting is still available, but it is now done through the mail. Requested ballots will be received by mail, but completed ballots can be dropped off in-person to a county election office or mailed in. Voters must meet at least one of the requirements listed in order to receive an absentee ballot and must request an absentee ballot. They are not automatically sent to voters who meet one of the requirements unless they are active military personnel, are disabled, or are over 65. Voters also must be absent from their residence for the entire 12-day early voting period in order to obtain an absentee ballot. The bill also bans ballot drop boxes, which had been proposed in 2020 as a response to the pandemic, but never implemented.

The early voting measures intend to make it easier to vote, but there is also a significant provision intended to enhance election integrity. The bill effectively increases five election law violations to felonies. Punishments include a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison, which are increased from the punishments before this new law. Some of these violations include fraudulently voting, aiding in fraudulent voting, and requesting or returning more than five absentee ballots in addition to your own. While those convicted of a misdemeanor cannot vote while incarcerated, this measure is significant because those convicted of felonies in South Carolina cannot vote while incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. These punishments do not necessarily make it more difficult to cheat, but they likely deter people from cheating and effectively decrease rates of fraud. Based on an assessment done by Bloomberg News, which takes into account the new law, South Carolina does not score particularly well in the “ease of voting” category, but it does score well in the “ballot security” category, which is the major goal of the bill.

Overall, South Carolina’s new law does not appear overly restrictive, but it definitely is part of a recent trend by states to amend their voting laws in response to the 2020 election, whether by making voting easier, or more difficult, usually depending on which political party is in control. So far, there have not been any legal challenges to the new law, but there has been criticism that it unnecessarily restricts access to voting.

South Carolina and the Free and Open Elections Clause

Election Law Society · March 28, 2022 ·

By: Anna Miller

In May 2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina was asked to rule on whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted enough of a “physical disability” to allow all South Carolina voters to vote absentee in the 2020 election. Currently, South Carolina election law requires absentee voters to have an approved reason for casting an absentee ballot, including being unable to cast an in-person vote due to physical disability. South Carlina Code Section 7-15-310 defines physical disability as “a person who, because of injury or illness, cannot be present in person at his voting place on election day.”

In Bailey v. SEC, the South Carolina Democratic Party sued the South Carolina State Election Commission to reinterpret this provision in light of the global pandemic, which would allow every voter to vote absentee without changing South Carolina’s election laws. However, while this case was pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court, the South Carolina legislature made temporary changes to the election law allowing regions under a state of emergency declaration to vote absentee without a stated reason.

A Proposed South Carolina Bill to Continue COVID-19 Expansion of Voting Accessibility

Election Law Society · November 24, 2021 ·

By: Anna Miller

In February 2021, the South Carolina House of Representatives began to consider several fundamental changes to the voting process through the general reform bill, H. 3822. As the temporary measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired, representatives have debated extending and even expanding these measures. Reform proponents argued in support of increasing accessibility to absentee voting, including eliminating the requirement that the absentee voter sign their ballot in the presence of a witness, and then get that witness to also sign the ballot. This bill seeks to codify that change and to further increase ease of access to absentee voting. For example, absentee voters would no longer be required to provide a reason for casting their ballot from outside the state- the bill would completely repeal Section 7-15-320 of the 1976 Code, which provided a list of approved reasons for casting an absentee ballot.

Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts’ Rulings on South Carolina’s Absentee Ballot Witness Requirement

vebrankovic · November 25, 2020 ·

On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed the South Carolina Federal District Court’s September 18, 2020 order enjoining the South Carolina State Election Commission (“SCEC”) from enforcing the state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots. The witness requirement refers to South Carolina law that requires another person to witness an absentee voter’s signature on the absentee ballot envelope for the November 2020 general election. The law requires the witness to sign the absentee ballot envelop and provides that noncompliant absentee ballots “may not be counted.” However, the Supreme Court’s order granted a narrow exception for ballots if they were cast before the Court issued this stay and were “received within two days” of the order.

It would have been helpful if the Court’s majority had explained the rationale behind its order, given that it overturned both the district court and the Fourth Circuit, which had refused to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction when it considered the matter en banc. The only rationale in the Court’s opinion was provided by Justice Kavanaugh, who concurred with the majority based on “two alternative and independent reasons.” However, as shown below, Kavanaugh’s reasons alone do not seem to provide adequate justification for issuing the stay.

U.S. District Court Changes South Carolina Absentee Ballot Witness Requirement

Election Law Society · October 21, 2020 ·

September was an eventful month for South Carolina’s absentee voting laws. On September 16, 2020, the Governor of South Carolina signed into law the state legislature’s bill H5305, which, in effect, permits all registered voters in South Carolina to vote by absentee ballot for the November 3, 2020 General Election. On September 18, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, issued a preliminary injunction against the South Carolina State Election Commission (“SCEC”) in Middleton v. Andino, No. 3:20-CV-01730-JMC (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2020). The court enjoined the SCEC from enforcing South Carolina law requiring another person to witness an absentee voter’s signature on the absentee ballot envelope for the November 2020 general election. South Carolina law requires absentee voters to sign an oath on their absentee ballot envelope in the presence of a witness, who must also sign and provide their address on the ballot envelope. Additionally, Section 7-15-420 of the South Carolina Code provides that an absentee ballot “may not be counted unless the oath is properly signed and witnessed.” Section 6(a) of the recently passed H5305 bill provides that the absentee ballot envelopes will be examined “in accordance with the requirements of Section 7-15-420.”

There are three reasons that the district court in Middleton reached the right result in issuing the preliminary injunction.