SC judge denies temporary injunction in Election Commission voter privacy case

A South Carolina circuit judge has turned down a resident’s bid to prevent the State Election Commission from turning over voter privacy data, apparently including driver’s license numbers and telephone numbers, to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The decision by Judge Daniel Coble of Richland County means the security of private, personally identifiable information of South Carolina’s 3.34 million voters is now in the hands of the Election Commission board members.

Those five board members are in the early stages of a process the commission says is aimed at fashioning an agreement with the Department of Justice that will safeguard voters’ information.

In his decision handed down Wednesday morning, Judge Coble cited numerous legal reasons to reject the request for a temporary injunction filed by Anne Crook, a retried Calhoun County educator.

Those reasons include, Coble wrote:

• Crook has failed to prove she will suffer an irreparable harm “because the Election Commission has stated it will not release the data without a Memorandum of Understanding containing necessary security safeguards to ensure the proper and confidential use of that data and its transmission.”
• Crook has failed to prove there are no adequate other remedies at law she could use. For example, she “could avail herself to the state and federal tort claims acts if any data is negligently handled in the future.”
• Crook is not likely to succeed on the merits for several reasons, including that the Election Commission is by state law “authorized to engage in the conduct she seeks to enjoin.” Also, the Commission has the authority to enter into data sharing agreements to “disclose securely certain voter registration data. “

Coble also rejected a key argument of Crook’s lawyers, that a specific “right to privacy” enshrined in South Carolina’s state constitution does not “enjoin the sharing of data between the State and the federal government to secure federal elections.”

Moreover, Coble wrote, his court had no authority to mandate a memorandum of understanding between the Election Commission and the Justice Department, an action that would “improperly entangle the judiciary in the routine operations of the Election Commission, which would offend foundational separation of powers principles.”

Coble also said that “Federal law likely requires the Election Commission to provide the requested information to Department of Justice.”

At a court hearing last week at the Richland County courthouse where Crook’s attorneys — Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, and his son Skyler Hutto — argued for Coble’s intervention, Election Commission attorney Liz Crum promised to protect voter information.

“The Election Commission is not going to share anyone’s data unless and until they have an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that protects the security of confidential information,” Elizabeth Crum, an attorney for the commission, told Judge Coble.

Crum added, “If we get an MOU with the Department of Justice, it will be discussed in open session by the commission and any vote will taken in open session.”

In a statement released after Coble’s Wednesday decision, the Huttos said, “The nature of this case changed significantly based on the representations filed and stated by the State Election Commission on Friday. While concern still exists around how this data may be used, it is clear that the State Election Commission intends to ensure safeguards are in place.”

Although the Election Commission collects and makes public some voter information, such as a person’s name, date of birth and address, the Commission also collects personal identification from voters — a voter’s driver’s license number and the last four digits of their Social Security Number.

It is giving the driver’s license number and Social Security to the federal government that Crook objects to in her lawsuit.

The Trump Administration recently made headlines when its National Archives improperly released private information belonging to U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-NJ, including her Social Security number, according to numerous news accounts. Sherrill is in a tight race for governor in New Jersey.

In an affidavit in the lawsuit, State Election Commission interim director Jennifer Wooten described the voter data kept by the commission.

The data includes name, sex, race, Social Security number, date of birth, residential address and “may include” driver’s license numbers, telephone numbers, email addresses and residential addresses, Wooten wrote in a sworn statement.

The State Election Commission does not make public Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and drivers’ license numbers, Wooten said in her affidavit.

In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, the Election Commission said it “appreciates today’s ruling by the Richland County Circuit Court that confirms that the Election Commission may continue working with the U.S. Department of Justice on its request for voter data.”

The Commission added, “Any decision regarding future data sharing with the DOJ will only be made by a public vote of the Commission, with at least 24 hours’ public notice provided in advance.”

“From the moment the DOJ submitted its request, the Commission has made clear that protecting the private information of South Carolina voters and complying with the law are its highest priorities,” the Commission said.

“Most of the information requested by the DOJ is already publicly available and may be purchased by any registered voter in South Carolina. In addition, the SEC has previously entered into agreements with other states to share voter data for the purpose of maintaining accurate voter rolls and strengthening election security,” the Commission said.

“The SEC remains committed to transparency, safeguarding the security of South Carolina’s elections, and preserving the trust of the voters we serve.”

Brandon Charochak, a spokesman for Gov. Henry McMaster, who intervened in the Crook lawsuit and sided with the Commission, said Wednesday afternoon, ““Today’s victory will help maintain the public’s confidence in the security and integrity of our state’s voter rolls and elections.”

Last summer, the Justice Department requested more than 30 states, including South Carolina, to turn over their voter rolls of tens of millions of voters. Critics say the information could be misused by allies of President Donald Trump. On Thursday, the Justice Department sued six states for failure to turn over their voter rolls.

This story was originally published October 1, 2025 at 12:10 PM.