But there’s a peculiar twist to this story, too: the lawsuit was filed against Executive Director Andino of the South Carolina Election Commission. In a second letter written just days after the first one, Andino had walked back her proposals for safe voting.
The South Carolina Supreme Court heard this case on May 12, in what Chief Justice Don Beatty termed its “maiden voyage” at videoconferencing. (As it was for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, this new platform proved to be a daunting challenge for some of the South Carolina Justices.)
In this hearing, Justice Kaye Hearn asked a pointed question of the South Carolina Election Commission’s legal representation.
“I’m just wondering if you can explain to me the change of heart and the change of position of Ms. Andino from her original letter on March 30… when she was looking to identify solutions because of this pandemic and it seemed she did such an about-face in a matter of weeks when her pleading was filed. Can you help me with that?”
The counsel deflected with a promise to submit clarifying paperwork after the Court session. That may have answered the question for the Court, but those of us who were viewing the proceedings online were left mystified.
“That sits with the idea that the Governor probably signaled that this wasn’t going to work and he wasn’t going to go along with this,” surmised Dr. Robert Oldendick, executive director of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research and political science professor at the University of South Carolina. “It might have been better for her to backtrack.”
With over 40 years in the field of public policy research, Oldendick has developed some equanimity regarding the ongoing political fray. He says when it comes to concerns that all-mail balloting has the potential for fraud, there is solid research from the Brennan Center for Justice, a respected nonpartisan law and policy institute, that the risk of that is low.
“But as with many other issues that we’re faced with today, people have confirmation bias,” Oldendick said. “They’re going to believe what they want to believe. It’s very difficult given the increase of polarization over the last 20 years.”
That polarization was evident during this hearing as Democrats and Republicans sparred over what, in saner times, might have been considered simply a matter of public health.
Democratic counsel Bruce Spiva made his case for expanding the potential scope of South Carolina’s statute that allows voters to request an absentee ballot for “physically disabled” reasons. Noting South Carolina’s recently established social distancing precautions with regard to COVID-19, Spiva reasoned that in this extraordinary era of a pandemic, any registered voter who is abiding by such precautions should be eligible for an absentee ballot.
“All parties really agree on this point that COVID-19 will make it difficult to vote,” Spiva said.
Attorney Rob Tyson, representing the South Carolina Republican Party, quickly tried to put the brakes on that argument by accusing the Democrats of using the pandemic as an excuse.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina conducted its “maiden voyage” of videoconferencing at its May 12 hearing of the lawsuit regarding expansion of absentee balloting. – screenshot courtesy of the Supreme Court of South Carolina