EAIElectoral Access Index

This section establishes the State Election Commission in statute with multiple procedural safeguards: fixed four-year terms, political balance requirements (at least one member from majority and one from largest minority party), and gubernatorial appointment. These independence protections are explicitly enumerated in the statute rather than left to administrative discretion. A dual-scholar test would find both progressive and conservative analysts agreeing that the statutory codification of these structural independence elements meets the procedural-clarity criterion.

“There is hereby created the State Election Commission composed of five members, at least one of whom shall be a member of the majority political party represented in the General Assembly and at least one of whom shall be a member of the largest minority political party represented in the General Assembly, to be appointed by the Governor to serve terms of four years and until their successors have been appointed and qualify.”

The statute explicitly grounds the age requirement in the state constitution (Section 4, Article II), delegating enumeration of the specific age to that constitutional provision rather than setting it in statute alone. Similarly, residency is addressed as a statutory requirement tied to constitutional disabilities, but the age requirement is directly constitutionalized. This satisfies the criterion that the minimum age requirement is set in the constitution.

“meets the age qualification as provided in Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (mental incompetence, imprisonment, felony conviction) and duration (end of sentence/probation/parole, or pardon), satisfying statutory grounding and enumeration. However, it does not establish a defined restoration procedure—it merely states that disqualification is removed by service or pardon, but does not specify how a voter initiates restoration, petitions for review, or obtains a determination that eligibility has been restored. The framework is statutory but procedurally incomplete.

“A person is disqualified from being registered or voting if he: (1) is mentally incompetent as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (2) is serving a term of imprisonment resulting from a conviction of a crime; or (3) is convicted of a felony or offenses against the election laws, unless the disqualification has been removed by service of the sentence, including probation and parole time unless sooner pardoned.”

The statute provides a statutory appeal procedure with a defined 20-day deadline and a restoration pathway when the board determines deletion was improper. However, the criterion asks for restoration of rights post-felony with automatic restoration where applicable. This section addresses only the appeal procedure for contesting a deletion decision—it does not codify an automatic restoration mechanism upon completion of sentence, expungement, or other triggering events independent of appeal. The cure path exists for contesting wrongful deletion, but not for the substantive question of when felony disqualification ends.

“Each elector whose name has been deleted has twenty days from the date the notice is mailed to appeal. The appeal must be to the county board of voter registration and elections from whose master file the deletion has been made. If the board determines that the elector's name should not have been deleted, it shall instruct the executive director to restore his name to the registration books; however, if the deletion is for conviction, the appeal must be to the Executive Director of the State Election Commission.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration agency procedures, forms distribution, and agency conduct—not voting identification requirements. It contains no language establishing, requiring, or exempting voters from identification requirements at the point of voting. The criterion asks whether ID requirements at voting are set in statute; this section does not address voting ID at all, only registration procedures.

The statute explicitly and exhaustively enumerates the acceptable forms of identification for electronic voter registration: a valid South Carolina driver's license or state identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. No discretion is granted to administrators to accept alternative forms or to modify the list. The requirement is set in statute and the acceptable IDs are enumerated without ambiguity.

“A person who is qualified to register to vote and who has a valid South Carolina driver's license or state identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles may submit an application for voter registration electronically”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 8-13-100 is a definitional section of South Carolina's ethics code addressing campaign finance and ethics regulations. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voter identification requirements, free state-issued ID, or voting procedures. This section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion being evaluated.

The statute establishes multiple enumerated cure procedures for voters without ID at the polls: (1) provisional ballot valid if ID is brought before certification; (2) provisional ballot with affidavit for religious objection; and (3) provisional ballot with affidavit for reasonable impediment. All procedures are defined in statute with clear paths for cure (ID submission, affidavit completion) and follow-up (county board determination per § 7-13-830). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion.

“If the elector cannot produce the identification as required in subsection (A), he may cast a provisional ballot that is counted only if the elector brings a valid and current photograph identification to the county board of voter registration and elections before certification of the election by the county board of canvassers. (2) If the manager disputes that the photograph contained on the required identification is the person presenting himself to vote, the elector may cast a provisional ballot. A determination of that provisional ballot must be made in accordance with Section 7-13-830. (D)(1)(a) If an elector does not produce a valid and current photograph identification due to a religious objection to being photographed, he may complete an affidavit under penalty of perjury at the polling place and affirm that the elector: (i) is the same individual who personally appeared at the polling place; (ii) cast the provisional ballot on election day; and (iii) has a religious objection to being photographed. Upon completion of the affidavit, the elector may cast a provisional ballot.”

No matching sections in corpus.

South Carolina Code § 7-5-330 sets the registration deadline in statute with clear, enumerated timelines for four distinct registration pathways (motor vehicle, mail, agency, and other). Each method specifies 'no later than thirty days before the date of the election,' providing the specific, statutorily-grounded deadline required by the criterion. No discretion is left to administrators to alter this cutoff.

“the valid voter registration form of the applicant must be completed at the Department of Motor Vehicles no later than thirty days before the date of the election”

This section describes one registration method (electronic/online) with clear statutory grounding and enumerated requirements. However, REG.2 requires exhaustive enumeration of ALL available registration methods statewide (in-person, mail, motor-voter, automatic, same-day, etc.). This section addresses only electronic registration and does not enumerate or reference the full universe of registration pathways available in South Carolina. The criterion cannot be satisfied by a single-method provision.

“(A) A person who is qualified to register to vote and who has a valid South Carolina driver's license or state identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles may submit an application for voter registration electronically on the Internet website of the State Election Commission.”

The statute provides a clear, enumerated cure procedure in § 7-5-155(a)(4): rejected applicants must be notified of the reason for rejection and explicitly informed of two pathways to cure—either by appearing in person or by submitting corrected information by mail. This is statutorily grounded and leaves no cure mechanism to administrative discretion.

“Any person whose application is rejected must be notified of the rejection together with the reason for rejection. The applicant must further be informed that he still has a right to register by appearing in person before the county board of voter registration and elections or by submitting the information by mail necessary to correct his rejected application.”

Section 7-5-230(C) explicitly codifies in statute the right of any person denied registration to appeal that decision to the court of common pleas and subsequently to the Supreme Court. This establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded appeal path for rejected applicants, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement.

“Any person denied registration or restoration of his name on the registration books shall have the right of appeal from the decision of the county board of voter registration and elections denying him registration or such restoration to the court of common pleas of the county or any judge thereof and subsequently to the Supreme Court.”

The statute explicitly defines criteria for removal from rolls (change of residence) with enumerated conditions: either written confirmation by the elector OR failure to respond to notice combined with non-voting over two general election cycles. The procedural requirements—notice content, timing (30 days), cure opportunity (responding or voting), and appeal mechanism (two election cycles for correction)—are all codified in statute rather than left to regulation. The statute also addresses inactive status placement (Section 7-5-330(E)(2)) with defined timelines (seven days).

“(F)(1) The State Election Commission may not remove the name of a qualified elector from the official list of eligible voters on the ground that the qualified elector has changed residence unless the qualified elector: (a) confirms in writing that the qualified elector has changed residence to a place outside the county in which the qualified elector is registered; or (b)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in item (2); and (ii) has not voted or appeared to vote and, if necessary, correct the county board of voter registration and elections record of the qualified elector's address, in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election that occurs after the date of the notice.”

The statute mandates that removal on grounds of changed residence cannot occur without first sending a notice (a postage-prepaid, preaddressed return card) and providing a cure period. The elector must either confirm the change in writing or be given an extended opportunity to vote (through two general elections) to affirm their address. This establishes both a statutory notice requirement and a defined cure mechanism before removal.

“The State Election Commission may not remove the name of a qualified elector from the official list of eligible voters on the ground that the qualified elector has changed residence unless the qualified elector: (a) confirms in writing that the qualified elector has changed residence to a place outside the county in which the qualified elector is registered; or (b)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in item (2); and (ii) has not voted or appeared to vote and, if necessary, correct the county board of voter registration and elections record of the qualified elector's address, in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election that occurs after the date of the notice.”

The statute imposes a general mandate that voter registration information be protected and requires the State Election Commission to consider federal security standards. However, the procedure is not exhaustively enumerated—'current best practices' is delegated to the SEC's discretion and to external federal standards not codified in statute. Critically, there is no statutory requirement for breach notification procedures, no mandated encryption specifics, no access-log requirements, and no defined cure or appeal path for security violations. The annual certification requirement provides minimal accountability.

“The State Election Commission shall ensure that voter registration information, the voting system, and electronic poll books are protected by security measures that meet or exceed current best practices for protecting data integrity.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly grants voters with disabilities the right to assistance and enumerates the permissible assistors: either (1) a manager plus a person of the voter's choice (with exclusions for employer/union agents), or (2) a family member or, for blind voters, any person the voter chooses. The rules governing who may assist, the mechanism for requesting assistance, and the restrictions on assistor identity are all codified in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“A voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write shall make the fact known to the managers. The chairman of the managers shall appoint one of the managers and a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union to assist the voter in preparing his ballot.”

The statute codifies eligibility for assistance and identifies illiteracy as a qualifying condition, satisfying statutory grounding. However, the section does not define the procedure for requesting or providing assistance, does not enumerate who may provide it, and does not establish safeguards protecting ballot secrecy during the assistance process. A voter and election scholar reviewing this section would find the eligibility criterion clear but lack procedural detail on implementation and secrecy protection.

“Only those persons who are unable to read or write or who are physically unable or incapacitated from preparing a ballot or voting shall be entitled to receive assistance of any kind in voting.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 7-13-1740 addresses sample ballots and voting machine instruction materials available at polling places. It contains no language regarding polling-place opening or closing hours, their statutory specification, or any procedural framework governing when polls must open or close. The section is wholly unrelated to the criterion topic.

The statute codifies mail-in registration application deadlines, legibility/completeness requirements, and rejection notification with a cure right (resubmission by mail or in-person registration). However, this section addresses mail-in REGISTRATION, not mail-in VOTING. The criterion asks about the full mail-in voting procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure). This section does not establish or reference a mail-in voting procedure itself—only mail-in voter registration. Signature verification and return procedures for actual mail-in ballots are not addressed. The cure procedure is limited to correcting incomplete registration applications, not to ballots rejected during signature verification.

“Any person whose application is rejected must be notified of the rejection together with the reason for rejection. The applicant must further be informed that he still has a right to register by appearing in person before the county board of voter registration and elections or by submitting the information by mail necessary to correct his rejected application.”

This section establishes absentee voting eligibility (qualified electors under UOCAVA), application procedures (federal postcard form or State Election Commission form), qualification requirements (military service or remote location), and ballot issuance (mandatory duty of county boards). All major procedural elements—who may apply, how and when to apply, what qualifies an applicant, and how ballots are issued—are codified in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

The statute sets the early voting period exhaustively by statute: Monday through Saturday for the two-week period immediately preceding an election (subsection E). Operating hours are enumerated by election type (subsection F), and location rules are statutorily mandated with specific criteria including geography, population, and ADA accessibility (subsection G). The statute delegates location selection to county boards but binds them with mandatory considerations and distribution requirements, leaving no pure administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies both the right to a provisional ballot and a complete adjudication procedure: (1) the right is explicit ('his provisional vote must be received'); (2) the procedure is statutorily enumerated—how the ballot is handled, sealed, and separated; (3) a defined review process is established—the board of voter registration and elections must hold a meeting at specified times; (4) an appeal/decision path is set forth—the authority hears evidence and makes a final determination. All procedural elements are grounded in statute, not administrative discretion.

“If the person insists that he is qualified and the challenge is not withdrawn, his provisional vote must be received and placed in an envelope on which must be written the name of the voter and that of the challenger. The provisional votes must be kept separate and apart and not counted but turned over to the board of voter registration and elections or other authority having supervision of the election. At the meeting specified in either Section 7-17-10 or 7-17-510, whichever is applicable, this authority must hear all objections to these votes, and when no person appears or offers evidence before the meeting to sustain an objection made at the polls, the ballot is no longer a provisional ballot. When the challenger appears or produces witnesses or evidence in support of the challenge, the authority in charge must proceed to hear and determine the question. Its decision is final.”