Supreme Court Reinstates South Carolina's Absentee-Ballot Witness Rule
By: Jess Bravin (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated South Carolina’s requirement that voters obtain a witness when casting absentee ballots, blocking lower court orders that suspended the rule because of the coronavirus pandemic.
By a 5-3 vote, the court directed South Carolina to accept any absentee ballots returned through Wednesday without a witness signature. More than 150,000 absentee ballots already have been mailed to voters, according to court papers; some 7,891 ballots in South Carolina had been returned as of Oct. 1, according to data collected by the Associated Press.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated their dissent from the order to accept those ballots through Wednesday.
The Democratic National Committee and Democratic voters sued to suspend the witness requirement, arguing that enforcing it while public health measures required social distancing would disenfranchise voters. The South Carolina State Election Commission opposed the request, noting that the state legislature has taken some steps to expand absentee voting because of the pandemic but rejected proposals to set aside the witness requirement.
In response to the pandemic, South Carolina is allowing any voter to vote absentee in the November election. Normally, the state restricts absentee voting to those who can provide a reason, such as being away on vacation on Election Day, having a disability or being 65 years of age or older.
In lawsuits involving public health measures, the Supreme Court generally has sided with state officials, both against challenges to social distancing measures and when private parties contended that authorities haven’t done enough.
In August, the court rejected a Republican suit to reinstate a similar witness requirement in Rhode Island because officials there had agreed to suspend the rule after it was challenged by voters.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
The nation's high court kicked off a new term on Monday with just eight justices. This ruling was an excellent beginning.
Unfortunately: "The Associated Press reports that some South Carolinians have already begun voting and the court stated that votes made prior to the Monday decision "and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement."
Why 'unfortunately', Vic? They didn't 'fail to comply with the witness requirement'. There was no 'witness requirement' in place when they legally voted.
You seem rather...concerned...about your choice of candidates.
I'm concerned about fraud. No witness implies FRAUD