South Carolina: Report: Updating electronic voting machines would cost $17.3 million | The State

South Carolina’s electronic voting machines do not produce hard copies of votes, and it would cost taxpayers $17.3 million to add that capability to the state’s existing machines, according to a report by the Legislative Audit Council. “The audit process in South Carolina is limited by the absence of a voter verifiable paper audit trail,” the report said. The report notes that “without paper ballots, the reconstruction of the votes cast is not possible.” But the report does not give a recommendation on whether the state should update its electronic voting machines to produce a hard copy of votes. The report notes the paper ballots “undermines the voting access of people with disabilities” and that hand counting ballots always introduces the possibility of “human error.”

South Carolina: Review: South Carolina voting machines not certified by federal EAC | MidlandsConnect.com

A review released by the South Carolina General Assembly Legislative Audit Council says voting machines used in South Carolina are not certified by a federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The 62-page report breaks down where the state stands with current voting machines, evaluates training requirements and looks at alternatives to the current voting machines. The review, which was requested by the former President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, Glenn McConnell, goes on to say the machines South Carolina uses are not certified by the EAC and do not produce paper audit trails. However, South Carolina's requirements meet the minimum requirements in the Help America Vote Act. The EAC was established in 2002 after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act. According to the review, the EAC is without its four commissioners and has not revised the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. The report also says an EAC official claims the lack of commissioners does not affect the testing and certification of voting systems except in accrediting new test laboratories or if a voting system manufactureer wants to appeal a decertification deicision.

South Carolina: Grooms concedes, but recount set in GOP House race | Rock Hill Herald

Former Gov. Mark Sanford will likely face former Charleston County councilman Curtis Bostic in a GOP runoff for an open congressional seat, after state Sen. Larry Grooms conceded second place Wednesday to Bostic. Grooms conceded in the crowded GOP primary in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District even though a recount of the votes, required by state law, will be held later this week. In unofficial returns Tuesday, Bostic edged out Grooms for second place by 493 votes. Sanford was the top vote-getter among Republicans. "The margin is too big to recover from, but state law will still govern the mandatory recount," Grooms said Wednesday. "It's highly, highly unlikely that any errors could overturn a 400-vote margin."

South Carolina: Senators stall proof of citizenship requirement to vote | The State

A bill that would require people to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote was delayed Wednesday in the Senate. Three groups opposed the bill, but a ticking clock and the U.S. Supreme Court were more responsible for the hold up. The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on a similar law in Arizona, and Sen. Chip Campsen, a Charleston Republican who sponsored the S.C. bill, said he would prefer to wait on the high court’s decision before moving ahead. He also continued the bill’s consideration because the subcommittee ran out of time before finishing its discussion.

South Carolina: State Officials Divided on Challenge to Voting Rights Act | wltx.com

Aggressive enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act transformed American politics, especially in the South, by making sure minorities had a clear path to the ballot box and an equal shot at public service. Forty-eight years later, after the re-election of an African-American president, the heart of that law is on trial. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Feb. 27 in a case that is sure to ignite a national debate over how far the country has progressed on racial issues and whether minority voters still need extra protection. State officials in South Carolina, where one of the first challenges to the Voting Right Act originated in the 1960s, are split in how they see the most recent case. The case began when Shelby County, Ala., opposed by the Justice Department and civil rights groups, asked courts to declare two key sections of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

South Carolina: Tug-of-War at State House Stopping Early Voting | wltx.com

Lawmakers says a tug-of-war between bills in the Senate is standing in the way of early voting. Senators on of both sides of the aisle have called for changes to make true early voting a reality in South Carolina, but the senate bill could face some setbacks if nothing happens soon. If early voting does not pass Tuesday, another piece of legislation will take the front seat, pushing the bill back on the calendar. "I thought we had it very close to being resolved, every close, but it just fell apart," said Senate President John Courson. The last few days in session senators have struggled to advance the bill that would allow South Carolinians to head to the polls and cast their ballots early, but failed deals have stalled that process.

South Carolina: Election bill details unclear, but generally well-received | Aiken Standard

Reaction generally was positive Tuesday to legislation that would put Aiken County’s Elections Office under the day-to-day supervision of the County Council. However, many of the people who would be affected by the bill said they weren’t aware of it until recently, so they still were trying to learn about all its provisions and understand how they would work. “I didn’t know the details of the legislation until (Tuesday) morning,” said County Administrator Clay Killian. “I think it could be a good thing because you would have more direct daily supervision of the office. The delegation members are obviously going to be in Columbia three days a week during the legislative session, and that creates logistical issues for them. But if (elections office employees) do work for the County Council, the way the bill is written now, there is somebody here they can go to for assistance on a regular basis as opposed to having to wait until somebody is available.” The legislative delegation discussed the bill during its meeting Monday evening.

South Carolina: Early-voting bill advances in South Carolina Senate committee | Anderson Independent Mail

Legislation creating a one-week early-voting period in South Carolina sailed through a key state Senate committee Tuesday. "People are used to convenience in their lives," said Sen. Bradley Hutto of Orangeburg, who is one of 18 Senate Democrats sponsoring the early-voting bill that was considered Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That is why banks have drive-through lanes." The measure that members of the GOP-controlled panel approved by an 18-2 vote would allow South Carolina voters to start casting ballots 10 days before an election. The early-voting period would end three days before an election. According to the bill's provisions, each county would open at least one and as many as five early-voting polling places.

South Carolina: Early voting bill advances in South Carolina Senate | Aiken Standard

An effort to implement true early voting in South Carolina moved forward Wednesday with approval from a state Senate panel. The measure unanimously advanced to the Senate Judiciary Committee would set parameters for how the process would be handled, including allowing residents to vote starting 10 days before an election and directing local election officials to set up at least one early voting center in each county. Similar efforts have been put forth unsuccessfully in the past. In 2011, the state Senate approved a bill creating an 11-day window for early voting. That measure died in the House, which had already rejected early voting efforts that were tied to legislation requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

South Carolina: Facing higher election costs, Richland County Council chafes | TheState.com

Richland County Council members, frustrated over paying for an election office beyond their control, want legislators to stop sending them the bills for state-mandated services. Councilman Seth Rose suggested the county refuse to pay for expensive new voting machines, additional staff or renting buildings for Election Day polling places. Councilman Jim Manning said any property-tax increase resulting from state-ordered services should be labeled “the local legislative delegation funding tax.” And Councilman Bill Malinowski said it’s just not fair for the county to “keep sucking it up” when the state Legislature hasn’t been paying its way with the Local Government Fund. Under the state funding formula, Richland County should get $18 million this coming year, but “that’s a pipe dream,” Councilman Greg Pearce said. The turmoil came out as the council discussed upcoming budget issues at an annual retreat Thursday.

South Carolina: State Senate passes election law fix | Aiken Standard

A bill meant to prevent another ballot-tossing election mess is heading to the South Carolina House. The Senate had a third reading Wednesday for legislation syncing the candidate filing process for incumbents and those seeking to be officeholders. It also allows those who don’t file properly to pay a fine and remain on the ballot, as long as they fix it before primaries. “We fixed it!” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin, R-Pickens, noting that the bill is designed to address only last year’s election debacle. “I tried to keep from wading into the weeds. We needed to respond and address what happened last year.”

South Carolina: Bill would make Secretary of State run South Carolina elections | TheState.com

South Carolina would turn running its elections back over to the elected Secretary of State under a bill that was sent to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Making an elected official directly responsible for elections would give voters accountability on how they are conducted, said Rep. Alan Clemmons, one of the bill's sponsors. But the director of the agency that currently runs elections said having a non-partisan commission oversee voting is better because it keeps politics out of one of the most important functions of the government. The bill passed a subcommittee Thursday and should be taken up by the Judiciary Committee next week. It is separate from legislation to overhaul how people file to run for office, which was prompted by 250 candidates being thrown off primary ballots last year.

South Carolina: Early voting bills face major hurdle in South Carolina | TheState.com

Democrats and Republicans both say they want early voting in South Carolina, but the idea – advocated in seven bills before the Legislature – could be doomed. Lawmakers so far can't agree how long before an election voters should be allowed to vote. South Carolina does not now have early voting. Instead, it has absentee voting, which allows people to vote for up to 30 days before an election if they meet one of 18 qualifications laid out in state law to vote absentee, such as being 65 or older. However, 31 other states have early voting, where voters can vote for days before election day for any reason.

South Carolina: Richland County Elections Attorney presents possible solutions to fix voting process | MidlandsConnect.com

Richland County Elections Attorney Steve Hamm and his team have been working to resolve the issues that caused problems for Richland County voters; many stood in line for hours to cast their ballot on November 6. It also took officials weeks to certify the results. Hamm addressed the Richland County Elections Board Wednesday afternoon providing board members with a detailed report about what went wrong on election day.

South Carolina: Could 2013 be the Year for Early Voting in South Carolina? | Free Times

South Carolina is one of 18 states where voters are not allowed to cast an early ballot in person without an excuse. Many Palmetto State voters, however, do so anyway by voting absentee. And while the thousands of residents voting early without a real excuse might technically be breaking the law, state elections officials have largely looked the other way because so many are doing it. Attempts to allow early voting in the state have been fought here for years — and failed with Republican opposition. But recent county elections failures have seared images of long, snaking lines at the polls and anecdotes from friends and neighbors of Election Day horror stories into the minds of large chunks of the electorate.

South Carolina: Bill aimed at fixing election filing mess still not foolproof | The Greenville News

Former state Rep. Rex Rice of Easley said he hopes he won’t be forced again to become a petition candidate because of snafus in the state’s election laws. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday took steps to prevent the issues that forced Rice and hundreds of others from primary ballots last year from surfacing again when they approved a bill aimed at fixing last year’s election mess. Under the legislation, challengers and incumbents would file financial disclosure forms the same way, all candidates would file the forms electronically and every candidate would receive a receipt from local officials stating their paperwork was in order.

South Carolina: Lawmakers: State fails on voter ID promises | Times and Democrat

Orangeburg County lawmakers say the state is failing to tell voters they don’t need photo identification to cast a ballot under South Carolina’s new voter ID law. Tuesday’s special election in Branchville will be the first one in the state under the new law. But Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter says officials aren’t telling residents they only need a valid voter registration card to cast a ballot and photo identification is not required. The Orangeburg Democrat said she will bring up the matter in the General Assembly, which opens its new session Tuesday. But “that’s after the fact. The town is having the election” Tuesday, she lamented. “The question is who doesn’t vote because they don’t know” they don’t need a photo ID, said Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

South Carolina: Voter ID Legal Fees Must Be Paid Partly By Feds, Court Rules | Huffington Post

Federal taxpayers will have to foot the bill for some legal fees incurred by the state of South Carolina when it successfully fought to implement its voter ID law over the Justice Department's objections, a panel of federal judges ruled Friday. The same three D.C.-based federal judges who ruled in October that South Carolina could not implement the law in 2012 said in a court order that because the state successfully argued it could begin implementing the law in 2013, it "is the prevailing party" in the case. Justice Department lawyers had previously argued that "neither party fully 'prevailed' in this complex case" and said each party should bear its own costs and expenses.

South Carolina: State will recoup ‘tens of thousands’ of $3.5 million bill for voter ID lawsuit | TheState.com

South Carolina will recoup “tens of thousands of dollars” of the $3.5 million it spent to sue the federal government over the state’s controversial voter ID law, according to a spokesman for S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson. Wilson told a legislative panel Friday the total price tag for the state’s lawsuit was $3.5 million – more than three times his original estimate. Lawmakers on the Joint Other Funds Committee then approved a $2 million budget adjustment for Wilson’s office to pay for the lawsuit. But late Friday, a federal three-judge panel ruled that, because South Carolina was “the prevailing party,” the federal government had to pay some of the state’s expenses. Attorney General spokesman Mark Powell said Monday the office expects to recoup “tens of thousands of dollars.”

South Carolina: Voter ID lawsuit cost $3.5 million | TheState.com

It cost South Carolina $3.5 million to sue the federal government over the state’s voter ID law – but the federal government will have to pay some of that bill. Late Friday, a court ruled that because South Carolina was the “prevailing party,” the federal government had to pay some of South Carolina’s expenses. A spokesman for S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson said he did not know how much money the federal government would pay South Carolina. The state has until Jan. 11 to file a revised bill with the court.

South Carolina: Lillian McBride resigns from Richland County Election Commission | wistv.com

Embattled Richland County Election Commission executive director Lillian McBride has submitted her resignation to the commission. In a letter dated on Jan. 3 from her attorney to the commission, McBride relinquished control of the commission and took the blame for what happened on Election Day. McBride and other members of the county elections commission were criticized after voters were forced to wait as long as seven hours to vote. "In taking this action, I accept fully the responsibility for what occurred during the election on November 6, 2012," said McBride in the letter.

South Carolina: Bill to opt out of complying with South Carolina voter ID law spurs debate | TheState.com

Republican state senators want to make it easier for people to opt out of the state’s new voter ID law – just not too easy.
Republicans tried Thursday to advance a bill that would allow voters to opt out of showing a photo ID at the polls if they signed a document saying why they had a “reasonable impediment” to getting one. State Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, tried to amend the bill further to say that state and county officials may not “review the reasonableness of the voter’s explanation” as to why they could not get a photo ID.

South Carolina: Election laws anemic, lacking in accountability | TheState.com

South Carolina’s election laws are almost completely toothless and enforcement is a matter of foxes and henhouses, concerned state officials are saying in the wake of Richland County’s bungled election. “I know that this agency does not have enforcement authority,” Marci Andino, director of the State Election Commission said. “That is the structure the General Assembly wanted.” Local elections and voter registration boards are created by state law through county legislative delegations, with each running its elections independently of state government control – and accountability, state election officials say. “People can tell her to just go jump in the lake,” state Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, said of Andino. Smith last week filed a bill that would weaken local boards, which he called “fiefdoms.” He wants to shift local control to Andino’s agency.

South Carolina: Richland County leaders ready to see a change at the Election Commission | MidlandsConnect.com

One day after Richland County election commission board chair Liz Crum stepped down, county leaders are still looking for change. Members of the delegation that appointed election commission director Lillian McBride say she should follow suit after a reviewing a report about the elections failures. "We really have no other option but to replace the executive director, that's really the only way publics confidence in this whole process will ever be restored", said Senator Joel Lourie.

South Carolina: Richland’s fiasco has South Carolina lawmakers pushing to put state in charge of elections | TheState.com

Dueling, partisan bills were filed Tuesday at the State House to change the way elections are run across South Carolina. The proposals are the first statewide ripple effect from Richland County’s election meltdown that outraged thousands, disenfranchised uncounted would-be voters and held no one accountable six weeks after the fiasco. Bills sponsored by Democrats call for stripping local election boards of their power and centralizing control in the State Election Commission. The state agency also would set statewide standards for qualifications of local election directors, mandate their training and generally transfer supervision away from all 46 counties.

South Carolina: Crum: Richland County Election Commission Needs New Director | ABC Columbia

After serving a combined 14 years on both the Richland County Election Commission and the Richland County Board of Elections and Voter Registration, Liz Crum has resigned. Crum, who served as the board's chairperson, first announced her intention to resign Monday night. Tuesday, her resignation letter made clear she was not happy with management at the Richland County Election Commission. "I have lost confidence in Ms. McBride's ability to serve as Executive Director and to manage the office effectively," she writes.

South Carolina: Big precincts, long lines and voting machine shortages: It’s all relative | TheState.com

My first inclination was to applaud Richland County legislators for thinking about maybe reconfiguring the county’s voting precincts, nearly two-thirds of which have more than the 1,500 voters that state law allows — nearly half of those with more than 1,000 extra voters, and one with nearly four times the legal limit. But as with so very, very many things at the perilous intersection of legislative hegemony, executive authority and local self-rule, the news is only good in relative terms. Sort of like you’re much better off when you’ve only lost your job, as opposed to losing your job, your home and your family.

South Carolina: Election workers: Missteps on past turnout spurred errors | TheState.com

Richland County’s elections office used turnout from previous elections to help decide the number of voting machines distributed last month, two poll managers and a machine technician said. That might have been one of many miscalculations by the Elections & Voter Registration office – but so far not publicly acknowledged – that prompted machine shortages that created hours-long lines and disenfranchised uncounted others. State law requires one machine for each 250 registered voters. The law has no specific provision for using turnout as a gauge.

South Carolina: Many blamed; no one disciplined yet in Richland County | TheState.com

Richland County’s election meltdown was a system failure by top election officials, including director Lillian McBride and the board that oversees the office, according to a preliminary report released Thursday. “A series of unfortunate assumptions ... led us astray on Nov. 6,” is how attorney Steve Hamm summed up his assessment 30 days after the electoral fiasco widely considered among the state’s worst. Members of the Richland County Board of Elections and Voter Registration received an interim report on the Election Day debacle from attorney Steve Hamm. Hamm presents evidence he believes caused part of the problem on Election Day. A list, drawn up by a part-time staffer, that mistakenly reduced the number of machines to be delivered to the polls and then was not double checked for accuracy. Who, if anyone, will be disciplined and how?

South Carolina: More uncounted votes discovered in Richland County | TheState.com

Two days after Richland County election officials assured their bosses and the public that all votes had been counted, they learned that a voting machine from the Lincolnshire precinct, stored in a warehouse after the election, contained 27 uncounted votes. The notice came not from keen-eyed election officials but from a USC computer science professor who analyzes elections and who happened to be a poll watcher at Lincolnshire, a precinct off Monticello Road north of I-20. The analysis by professor Duncan Buell also found that in addition to the machine used by curbside voters at Lincolnshire, votes in six machines at six other precincts might not have been counted.