SC’s record mail-in voting stirred fears that ballot rejections would spike. Did they?

Fears that confusion over South Carolina’s witness signature requirement would fuel a spike in absentee ballot rejections this election cycle did not materialize, an analysis by The State found.

Despite the back-and-forth court battle over the witness rule, which came amid historic absentee turnout, the rate at which mail-in ballots were rejected for witness signature deficiencies was roughly 60% that of the 2016 general election, according to state Election Commission data.

About 0.7%, or 3,134 of the 440,508 mail ballots returned statewide were rejected for lack of a witness signature this cycle compared to nearly 1.2%, or 1,575 of the 132,747 returned by mail in 2016, data show.

The State’s analysis of absentee ballot rejections focused exclusively on mail-in ballots, which accounted for one-third of the 1.3 million absentee ballots cast statewide in the 2020 general election, because only mail-in ballots required a witness signature.

While ballot rejection rates increased sharply in some counties, the additional attention paid to the witness signature rule may help explain why rates of rejection were lower overall in 2020 than in 2016, Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said.

“The whole state was doing more to educate voters about absentee voting, how to do it and how to make sure that your ballot is counted,” he said. “There was a time when you couldn’t turn on a TV or open a newspaper without reading about this requirement, and I think it had to have a positive impact on voter education about this issue.”

Voters who may otherwise have failed to meet the requirement were more likely to hear or read something about it in the run-up to Election Day and recognize the importance of finding a witness, Whitmire said.

“It is strange that something that had the potential to create confusion also has this brighter side of drawing more attention to it and actually helping the situation,” he said. “I think it’s one of the more interesting stories of the 2020 general election.”

Court battle over SC’s witness signature requirement

U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs threw out the state’s witness requirement in September — just as she had done before the June primaries — citing the risk that interacting with others to obtain a signature during the COVID-19 pandemic posed for South Carolina’s most vulnerable citizens.

Within a week, a panel of three U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judges reversed Childs’ decision, effectively reinstating the witness rule. The panel’s decision lasted only two days, however, before the full 15-judge 4th Circuit Court nullified it and upheld Childs’ suspension of the requirement.

The contentious case then went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Oct. 5 ruled unanimously to reinstate the witness requirement. Any absentee ballots received without a witness signature after Oct. 7 — a two-day grace period permitted by the Election Commission — would be rejected and could not be corrected.

The swift reversal created a predicament for county elections offices, which in some cases had mailed voters instructions that their ballots didn’t require witness signatures.

One elections volunteer in Georgetown County told The State she processed more than 80 deficient mail-in ballots in a single day the week after the witness requirement was reinstated.

Virtually all of the deficiencies came from voters who were mailed ballots just before the Supreme Court decision with an insert stating a witness was not required, the volunteer said.

Ballot rejections spiked in some SC counties

While many South Carolinians apparently got the message in time, elections directors in counties where rejections were elevated this cycle attributed the higher number of disqualifications to voter confusion over the on-again, off-again requirement compounded by the inability of elections officials to legally permit voters to correct or “cure” their defective ballots.

Shirley Black-Oliver, the elections director in rural Clarendon, a county of about 34,000 people in the PeeDee, said voters who called her to ask about their rejected ballots often expressed confusion about the witness rule.

Clarendon rejected 79 ballots for lack of a witness signature this cycle compared to none in 2016, according to Election Commission data.

Black-Oliver said that in elections past her office would attempt to contact voters who mailed in deficient ballots and permit them to make corrections so their votes would count.

However, as a result of the prohibition on signature-related ballot curing this cycle, Clarendon officials were forced to disqualify all unwitnessed ballots returned after the Oct. 7 deadline.

“It was quite unfortunate,” Black-Oliver said. “But we have to follow the laws that are set forth.”

Aiken County ran into the same problem, elections director Cynthia Holland said.

While the county received dozens of deficient ballots in both 2016 and 2020, it rejected only two unwitnessed ballots in 2016, but disqualified 107 for witness issues in 2020, according to SEC data.

The stark disparity, Holland said, is explained by the county’s inability to offer voters a chance to correct their ballots this cycle, which resulted in a rejection rate 16 times higher than in 2016.

In Union County, where officials have never afforded voters an opportunity to cure ballot problems but rejected just a single unwitnessed ballot last year, elections director Darlene Pettit chalked up the jump in rejections this cycle to voters’ confusion about the changing witness requirement.

She said Union, which at 6.3% had nearly twice the witness signature rejection rate for mail-in absentee ballots of any other South Carolina county this cycle, received about half of its 45 unwitnessed ballots from an assisted living facility where the employees who helped voters complete and mail out their ballots presumably were not aware of the reinstated witness rule.

Other counties with significantly more ballots rejected for witness signature deficiencies this cycle than would be expected from increased absentee turnout alone include Beaufort, Cherokee, Georgetown, Greenville and Lancaster.

Clarendon, Laurens, Marion and Union counties were the only jurisdictions with witness signature rejection rates above 2.5% this cycle.

In 2016, five counties — including Laurens and Marion — reported witness signature rejection rates above 2.5%.

Witness requirement drove rejections

In addition to tracking ballots rejected for witness signature deficiencies, the Election Commission also compiles the number of ballots rejected for lack of a voter signature and those disqualified because they were returned late.

While ballots rejected due to missing witness signatures accounted for the majority of all ballots disqualified in both the 2016 and 2020 general elections, the proportion of ballots rejected for witness issues increased considerably between cycles.

Roughly 72% of all rejected ballots were disqualified for witness signature issues in 2020 compared to 53% in 2016. The shift is the result of a relatively smaller share of ballots being rejected for missing the return deadline in 2020 (18% of all rejections) compared to 2016 (38% of all rejections).

In total, 4,378, or 0.99% of all mail ballots, were rejected for any reason in the 2020 general election compared to 2,954, or 2.2% of all mail ballots in 2016, according to SEC data.

Ballot rejections by county

The table below shows the number of mail-in absentee ballots that were rejected in each county because they lacked a witness signature, the percentage of mail-in ballots rejected for lack of a witness signature and who each county’s total voters chose in the presidential contest, expressed by the percentage point margin the preferred candidate won.

Ballots rejected because they were not signed by voters or because they were returned late are not included in the figures below.

This story was originally published November 19, 2020 at 5:00 AM.

Zak Koeske

The State

412-334-2443

Zak Koeske is a projects reporter for The State. He previously covered state government and politics for the paper. Before joining The State, Zak covered education, government and policing issues in the Chicago area. He’s also written for publications in his native Pittsburgh and the New York/New Jersey area.