844 S.E.2d 390
S.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (two Democratic primary candidates and parties) asked the South Carolina Supreme Court in original jurisdiction to construe the absentee-voter statute to treat voters practicing COVID-19 social distancing as "physically disabled persons," thereby allowing any registered voter to vote absentee.
- South Carolina absentee statutes permit absentee voting for certain absent or enumerated categories, including "physically disabled persons," defined as persons who "because of injury or illness, cannot be present in person" at their polling place.
- While the Court heard argument (May 12, 2020), the General Assembly enacted and the Governor signed Act No. 133 (May 13, 2020), temporarily permitting absentee voting for any qualified elector if the area is under a gubernatorial state of emergency and the election is within 46 days; the law expires July 1, 2020.
- The Legislature’s temporary change made Plaintiffs’ requested relief for the June 9 primary effectively provided by statute, rendering that claim moot.
- The majority concluded the Legislature’s temporary enactment and sunset shows the Legislature intended the pre-existing statute not to cover all voters during a pandemic; the Court dismissed the remaining claims as presenting a nonjusticiable political question (separation of powers).
- Justice Hearn (joined by Chief Justice Beatty) concurred in part and dissented in part: he agreed the primary claim was moot but would not treat the post‑July 1 issue as a political question; he viewed statutory interpretation (and attendant constitutional concerns about "free and open elections") as justiciable and would dismiss without prejudice as unripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "physically disabled person" in the absentee statute includes voters practicing COVID-19 social distancing | Bailey: social‑distancing voters are "because of ... illness" unable to appear and thus qualify for absentee voting | Election Commission/SCGOP: statute does not reach all voters; courts should not rewrite policy | Dismissed as nonjusticiable for post‑July 1 elections; June primary claim moot because Legislature temporarily granted the relief plaintiffs sought |
| Mootness of claim regarding the June 9 primary | Plaintiffs sought immediate relief for June; Court should decide statutory meaning now | Defendants pointed to intervening legislative change granting absentee voting for the primary | Claim relating to the June primary is moot because Act No. 133 already permits universal absentee voting for that election |
| Whether the Court may resolve statutory interpretation after the Legislature enacted and then sunset a temporary change | Plaintiffs: Court may and should interpret statute now to protect voting rights; constitutional avoidance may require expansive reading | Defendants: Legislative action demonstrates political resolution; judicial override would intrude on Legislature's authority | Majority: Legislature's contemporaneous, clear action makes the question a political one; Court will not substitute its judgment for the Legislature's policy choice |
| Whether the political question doctrine bars judicial decision on absentee‑voter scope for future elections | Plaintiffs: statutory interpretation (and constitutional avoidance) is judicially decidable | Defendants: matter involves policymaking and separation of powers; nonjusticiable | Majority: political question (separation of powers); decline to decide future applicability; Dissent: not a political question and should be reserved or declared unripe rather than finally dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ill. Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (voting is a fundamental right)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (importance of voting and representation)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political‑question doctrine framework)
- Key v. Currie, 305 S.C. 115 (1991) (standards for original jurisdiction in state supreme court)
- Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426 (1996) (court will dismiss non‑justiciable controversies)
- Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557 (2001) (mootness doctrine prevents courts from deciding academic questions)
- Alexander v. Houston, 403 S.C. 615 (2013) (judicial review appropriate for bona fide legal challenges to legislative action)
- Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 410 S.C. 619 (2014) (court’s role in interpreting constitutional and statutory questions)
- Anderson v. S.C. Election Comm'n, 397 S.C. 551 (2012) (election integrity and declaratory relief in original jurisdiction)