SC absentee voters need a witness. What happens when election mailers say otherwise?
An image of a Georgetown County absentee ballot insert containing outdated instructions regarding the state’s witness signature requirement caused a stir on social media, where it was widely shared over the weekend — underscoring the confusion among South Carolina voters that the recent back-and-forth court battle over the rule could cause.
The orange insert, which was mailed to absentee voters with their ballots, instructs voters — in all capital letters — that a witness signature is not required. According to the poster who shared the image on Twitter, Georgetown County had mailed the insert Wednesday, Oct. 7 — two days after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the witness rule — and a voter received it Friday.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the South Carolina Election Commission has instructed county elections officials to reject absentee ballots that lack a witness signature if they are received after Oct. 7.
Additionally, in a move that has raised alarms for voting rights advocates, the Election Commission has told counties they may not permit voters to correct or “cure” their ballots if they’re mailed back without a witness signature.
As a result, counties that had previously allowed voters to fix ballots mailed in without witness signatures must now reject them outright, which some voting rights advocates fear could lead to a spike in ballot rejections.
Georgetown County elections officials did not respond to The State’s requests for comment on the outdated ballot insert, but a spokesman for the S.C. Election Commission said the county’s elections director had confirmed to him that the mailer was authentic.
Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said the director told him that after the Supreme Court ruling, she had instructed her staff to black out the word “NO” on the inserts so that they instead read, “WITNESS SIGNATURE REQUIRED.”
He said she did not believe any inserts had been mailed out without the redaction, but that one may have slipped past staffers in an isolated incident.
“She says it’s possible one was missed, her people were very careful about it, and the ones she double-check(ed) were all correct with the ‘NO’ redacted,” Whitmire said in an email to The State.
He said the director told him that no one had called her office to report receiving an insert without the “NO” redacted.
The county has since begun including a new insert that reads, “The Supreme Court ruled that a WITNESS signature is needed,” Whitmire said.
However, it remains possible that absentee voters whose ballots were mailed out prior to the Supreme Court ruling, but who had not returned them immediately, may consult the now-outdated insert and be misled.
The State Election Commission provided counties a suggested ballot insert prior to the high court’s ruling that indicated the witness signature requirement could change and had advised voters online and in media interviews to obtain a witness signature just in case. However, Georgetown County’s orange insert does not include that context.
According to Whitmire, who spoke with the Georgetown election director, a separate blue insert mailed out with absentee ballots notes that the public would be notified of any changes to the witness rule, but does not say that changes are possible or advise voters to secure a witness signature to be safe.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh presaged confusion over the witness rule change in statements explaining the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of South Carolina’s witness rule.
He wrote that a federal judge had defied court principle and precedent in her September ruling prohibiting the S.C. Election Commission from enforcing the witness signature requirement.
“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election,” Kavanaugh wrote. “By enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court’s precedents.”
Will lack of ‘cure’ mean votes uncounted?
Lynn Teague, vice president for issues and action with the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, said her organization is concerned that the seesawing witness rule and the Election Commission’s decision not to allow voters to fix their ballots could result in more votes than ever being thrown out. -
“It’s disturbing any time that a technicality may cause the ballot of a legitimate voter to be rejected without any potential for cure,” she said.
With a far greater number of people expected to vote absentee-by-mail this year due to the coronavirus pandemic — many of them for the first time — the likelihood that ballots will be rejected is enhanced, Teague said.
“We can expect it, there will be more rejections than ever before,” she said. “And that is extremely unfortunate because there is just nothing more fundamental than the right to vote.”
Teague said the League of Women Voters is running radio ads about absentee voting in areas of the state with poor broadband access and advising voters who are able to vote absentee in-person to do so.
“If people are comfortable doing it and don’t have underlying conditions that make them vulnerable to COVID-19 and can vote in person, we’ve been telling them to give serious thought to doing absentee in-person rather than navigating issues around vote by mail,” Teague said.
She said that while she believes the back-and-forth over the witness rule may have confused voters, she supports U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs’ initial ruling throwing out the witness signature requirement and believes the court battle over the requirement was a worthy one.
“I think the things that were taken to court should have gone to court,” said Teague, whose League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed a legal brief in the case.
“It’s unfortunate that it was additionally confusing for voters,” she said. “But I don’t think it’s so unfortunate that you should argue it shouldn’t go to court.”