|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
Workers at South Carolina’s State Election Commission (SCVotes) have been way too busy to check up on their agency’s position in the national rankings. After all, the agency and its county-level partners have conducted four statewide races in the past three months – including the recently concluded special GOP primary and runoff races for U.S. Senate.
They’ve also got a general election to administer in just two months’ time…
While our guess is election officials are likely on the verge of a nervous breakdown, the good news is they are doing a good job… at least that’s the assessment of a new national report (.pdf) released by R Street, which graded states on “six core election policy categories” (and one supplemental category).
The Palmetto State scored a solid 86.1% (or 4.5 out of 5 stars) on the review – which looked at voter eligibility, voter registration, the maintenance of voter lists, identify verification, early voting and the tabulation/auditing of results.
***
A supplemental section addressed open primaries, political speech protections and the safety of election workers.
South Carolina received perfect scores on four of those six categories – but only got partial credit for verifying voter identity and early voting. The Palmetto State’s low score on identity verification is a bit misleading, though, as it was tied in large part to the absence of a ballot curing statute.
Ballot curing is a controversial process by which minor errors on mail-in ballots or early votes can be addressed and remedied ahead of an election – or in some states, after an election has been held. While ballot curing often involves the verification of apparent signature mismatches, it is not entirely – or even exactly – a voter identification issue.
South Carolina’s point reduction on early voting was also tied to a controversial policy – namely the state’s lack of “excuse-free” mail-in voting. Currently, state law (S.C. Code § 7-15-320) establishes specific rules for absentee voting – limiting the practice to those who meet one of multiple qualifying conditions.
Frankly, we see no reason to amend those limitations…
***
RELATED | DARLINE GRAHAM CLAIMS GOP U.S. SENATE NOMINATION
***
The battle over voting reform has been fierce across the state – and the nation – in the aftermath of the disputed 2020 presidential election.
Our audience will recall South Carolina recently reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding access to its voter files, which the administration of president Donald Trump first sought in March of 2025. Trump’s DOJ requested the files as part of its purported commitment to “free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.”
Here in South Carolina, debates have raged this year over whether to close partisan primary elections – and whether to redraw the Palmetto State’s congressional boundaries. So far, neither proposal has advanced out of the S.C. General Assembly – with the State Senate explicitly rejecting a bid to redraw South Carolina’s congressional districts to conform to Trump’s wishes.
FITSNews has kept close tabs on all of these issues in recent months, including an ongoing scandal involving SC Votes’ former top two officials – and a questionable deal with a vendor to purchase new voting machines.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
