Scarborough Protest Could Be Decided By SC House
S.C. Rep. Wallace Scarborough’s formal protest of the results of his State House race could end up being decided by his colleagues in Columbia, thanks to a little-known section of state law.
Scarborough, who lost his bid for re-election to Democrat Anne Peterson-Hutto last week by just 205 votes, formally challenged the results of the contest yesterday and demanded that the State Election Commission order a new election.
In a protest motion filed on his behalf, Scarborough’s attorneys allege that over 700 ballots were cast illegally, although no specific evidence was provided.
Hutto’s campaign responded by saying their candidate has already been certified the winner of the race, and blasted Scarborough for “accusing hundreds of James Islanders of committing criminal acts of voter fraud.”
“Wallace Scarborough has baselessly accused hundreds of James Island and Folly Beach residents of committing a crime, simply so he can undo an election whose outcome he dislikes,” Hutto spokesman Mike Meehan said. “In so doing, Wallace Scarborough sends the message that he cares more about his own interests than what’s best for the people of James Island and Folly Beach.”
State Election Commission director Marci Andino told FITS yesterday that Scarborough’s petition has been received and a hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 3, at which point both sides will have the opportunity to present testimony and evidence.
Should Scarborough lose his bid for a new election, however, he may have a wild card up his sleeve.
That’s because appeals of Election Commission rulings for House and Senate races are handled not by the S.C. Supreme Court, but by the legislative bodies themselves – which would obviously give Scarborough an advantage.
Comments
By Silence the Noise on November 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Let Bobby try this one. That will be the last straw with us….his constituents.
By JJ on November 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
EVERYBODY listen up: IF 700 voters voted in the election when they were not suppose to it IS cause under our law for a new election. Districts and boundaries are drawn for a reason, and those 700 people should not have been allowed by the poll manager to vote in that race. I ask Democrats: should we ignore this mistake just because your girl won, or should the law be upheld for a FAIR election. You may not like it because you dont like being fair, but 4 Dems used this arguement to get special elections in Richland and Horry County in 2006. In fact a Dem filed this exact same protest in Horry yesterday. So forget about Wallace and follow the law, which includes the above comment.
By Dean J on November 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Just because some redneck moron “alleges” voter fraud does not mean it happened. Taxpayers have to fund a new election and those ain’t cheap. That’s why you have to have really clear evidence of fraud, otherwise these scumbags would challenge every time they lost. We shouldn’t have to pay for a whole new election just because Rep. Scarborough hates to lose his power and whatever other “perks” he got for shilling for the speaker. If there were clear evidence of actual fraud, that would be one thing. But unless he can prove it little Wally needs to take his marbles and go home.
By katlin k on November 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I cannot believe the legislature decides Election Commission appeals. Well, yes I can. This is the most backwards state in America. Why do we even have a governor or a court system? Let’s just let those guys decide everything. They do anyway.