|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The South Carolina 2024 General Election ballot will have a constitutional amendment question that you must understand ahead of time in order to make a fully informed vote. Let’s break it down:
How It Started
On August 12, 2024, the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) released the constitutional amendment question that will be on all ballots in the 2024 general election for South Carolinian voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment question states the following:
“Must Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State, relating to voter qualifications, be amended so as to provide that only a citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law?”
Make sure you read this question very carefully before we look at the current South Carolina State Constitution…
Section 4, Article II of the SC State Constitution
With this information, Palmetto State Watch decided to take a look at the current Section 4, Article II of the South Carolina State Constitution. We found that it currently uses the exact same language proposed in the Constitutional amendment question EXCEPT changing “every” to “only”:
Why is the legislature asking voters to decide on a constitutional amendment when similar language is already in the State Constitution? Lets take a look at who decided to add this question to the SC 2024 general election ballot…
Who Decided to Add This Question on the Ballot?
In order to answer this question, I called the SEC and spoke with John Michael Catalano. Catalano said that the General Assembly votes on the questions added to the South Carolina ballot. For context, South Carolina has had 7 state constitutions and our current constitution (1895) has been amended 409 times. In this case, the General Assembly decided on this question by passing resolution S1126 that was sponsored by several Democrat and Republican Senators. On April 3, 2024 SC State Senators voted 40-3 to pass and the House voted unanimously on May 1st and May 2nd to pass this resolution.
Catalano pointed me to Section 7-13-2110 that explains proposed constitutional amendments and Section 7-13-2120 of the SC Code of Laws that created the Constitutional Ballot Commission. This Commission is composed of the Attorney General (Alan Wilson), the Director of the State Election Commission (Howard Knapp), and the Director of the Legislative Council (Ashley Harwell-Beach). According to the SC Code of Law, this Commission decides whether or not the question needs an explanation. In this case, it was deemed no explanation was necessary.
What’s the Importance of One Word Change?
I spoke with the main sponsor of this bill, Senator Josh Kimbrell. Kimbrell expressed that this is a move several states have made (namely Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado) to make sure that illegal aliens will not be allowed to vote. I decided to look into Florida and when they passed this amendment to their state constitution. It seems these ballot initiatives are being pushed by Citizen Voters, a nonprofit founded by former Missouri Senator John Loudon in 2018. Citizen Voters gave Florida Citizen Voters $8.3 million to pass this ballot initiative, which it successfully did on the 2020 Florida ballot. Similar support was shown in Colorado, Alabama, and North Dakota to pass the same ballot initiative during the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Why is the SC Ballot Different?
Every ballot initiative passed was changing the state constitution from “every citizen” to “only a citizen” that typically had a variety of explanations attached depending on the state. However, the same question that is posed on the South Carolina ballot has no explanation added. As we previously discussed, this decision would have been made by the Constitutional Ballot Commission, aka the Attorney General, Executive Director of the State Election Commission, and Director of the Legislative Council. Why has this commission declined to inform the voter on a question that pertains to what many citizens believe to be one of the biggest issues our country faces in 2024? I have a difficult time believing every voter will know exactly what they are voting on when they head to the ballot box, especially after personal observations in recent years at the lack of voter education. Personally, it took a conversation with the SC SEC and the main sponsor of this question to be able to understand the amendment and its implications myself. It seems that the Commission may believe that this ballot measure will be passed by SC voters without explanation, which is why the amendment was seemingly rubber stamped.
SC Voter Qualifications
Voter qualifications are a hot topic in 2024, especially among conservative voters, due to the influx of illegal aliens over the southern border. Let’s take a look at what is required for one to register to vote in South Carolina:
- Register Online: This requires a SC Driver’s License or DMV ID. If you have moved, you must first update your residence address with DMV.
- Driver’s License, Accepted forms of identification: When you’re getting a South Carolina beginner’s permit, driver’s license, or identification card for the first time, you must provide your social security number and present originals or government-issued copies of all of the following documents:
- Proof of identity, US Citizenship, and date of birth
- Proof of your current physical SC address (For a REAL ID beginner’s permit, driver’s license, or ID card, you will need two proofs of your current physical SC address)
- Proof of legal name change history (if applicable)
- If you’ve changed your name from what is printed on your birth certificate, you must bring in all supporting documents proving your legal name change, such as a marriage license, divorce decree, or court order issued by your county’s family court. You must bring in documents showing your complete name change history. If you have a US Passport or Passport Card with your legal name, you may use this in place of your name change document(s). The SCDMV will print the name that is on your passport on your license.
- The United States Citizens’ Checklist (SCDMV Form MV-93) outlines a complete list of accepted documents. If you’re an international customer, the requirements are different.
- If you’re from a US Territory, you must meet the same documentation requirements as any other US citizen. If your birth certificate or license must be translated, use the Translation Document (SCDMV Form DL-4030).
The topic of only registered citizens being allowed to vote in SC elections arose at a monthly State Election Commission meeting on August 2, 2024. Read the minutes summarizing this discussion on pages 3–4:
Our Thoughts
After an in-depth discussion with our team, it is our opinion that this amendment does clarify what is currently in the SC Constitution. The phrase “Every citizen of the United States and of this State…” could be interpreted by a liberal judge to include every citizen of the United States (and not just of this State) or possibly non-US citizen residents of the State. In fact, other states have ruled that in some localities, illegal aliens can vote in local elections. By changing the wording to “only”, South Carolina hopes to close this potential legal loophole.
What do you think about this amendment? Will the constitutional change matter, or is it merely an act to make voters feel like their vote is more secure? Should there have been an accompanying explanation on the ballot? Let us know what you think in the comments!
There may be other local questions on your ballot, so make sure to check out your sample ballot by going to SCVotes.gov before you cast your vote.
fyi…The link for “pages 3-4” is broken. If our legislators thought that there was a chance that non-citizens could be voting, they should have acted prior to the end of the session and should have passed many of the good election bills that were written – Instead, most of them ignored anything that would improve our elections. They fast-tracked this silly change through so they could claim they did something re: elections. I don’t see how this change will make the Constitution any stronger. All they have to do is redefine what a ‘citizen’ is and we will have illegals voting….or, they will change it (eventually) to ‘only citizens …AND working, non-citizen immigrants’…..it is a slippery slope…If we just enforced the current laws, we’d be fine…..
You raise fantastic points! It does feel like the “issue” could be handled more effectively through a true election integrity bill OR (even better) cleaning up and enforcing current laws. A huge problem seems to be liberal judges manipulating the law as well. Thank you for sharing you thoughts and letting us know about the link, I just updated the article with the full PDF. I highly suggest reading all the minutes, it is very interesting…
I’m more concerned with the fact that if they change this and approve this amendment without a full explanation and without clarifying citizenship. To me this is mission creeping. Our state political leaders have done many manipulative and deceitful actions to their constituents. This could very easily lead to another amendment, now changing the definition of “citizenship”. This is mission creeping, what is going to stop them down the road from defining citizenship as those born on American soil. That definition would literally preclude everyone that was Naturalized legally even after taking the Oath, and those that were born abroad of citizens. Read up, it specifically states that a non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States, but at no time will they ever be considered a “natural born” citizen (unless the code is changed in some way). I think this will morph into something nefarious down the road. If they are trying to say that this is to protect our voting rights then why don’t they change the laws instead to require a passport or citizenship Identification every time they vote (drivers licenses and ssn cards do not qualify as they can be altered too easily) our country hands our ID like candy. This is just a waste of taxpayer money and Kimbrell is just trying to make it look like he’s doing something for election integrity. They all need to get off their soap boxes and earn their pay. Their motives will always be in question when they put up these facades of caring about election integrity or anything else the constituents profess needs to be changed in name of fairness, justice, equality. Just my opinion. 2 years ago I warned that all the illegals that were being let in were going to eventually be used as pawns for a civil war after the election and blamed on MAGA and in the last 4 weeks that’s exactly what people have been talking about. The Bush’s and the Obamas have dumbed down two generations that can no longer critical think for themselves and they believe everything the govt tells them.
Government NEVER “solves” anything they only do things to make people FEEL good.
Proposed change is appropriate and should be accepted. john Ballantyne, john.ann229@gmail.com.
A few additional points:
1) There is more than just the one sentence in the SC Constitution that uses the term ‘every citizen’….Section 3. Electors also does. So, we will now have a discrepancy in that Section 4 could end up saying ‘only a citizen’ while section 3 remains as ‘every citizen’. There are also multiple references to ‘every citizen’ in the Code of Laws. I fear that they didn’t fully think this through.
SECTION 3. Electors.
Every citizen possessing the qualifications required by this Constitution and not laboring under the disabilities named in or authorized by it shall be an elector.
2) I think the Commission did a disservice to the voters in not providing the current text of the SC Constitution. It is pretty much a guarantee that it will pass because voters will assume there is no current language.
3) I have yet to hear something that really explains why the current language would not prevent a non-citizen from voting. PSW’s was the best explanation so far with this: “could be interpreted by a liberal judge to include every citizen of the United States (and not just of this State) or possibly non-US citizen residents of the State. ” …however, I think a liberal judge could also do the same with ‘only a citizen of the United States and of this state…’
I’m not saying to vote ‘no’ on it. I’m still wavering only because there is no good answer. I think it was a last minute decision to throw this on the ballot and it was not thought out well. It will pass in my opinion largely because the voter will not know what is currently in the Constitution. Unfortunately, this will result in significant inconsistencies which will be even better fodder for liberal judges and lawyers.
Thank you for all your work on researching this…it was very helpful.
I’ve found an error in the SC Constitution. They should have deleted a section when they changed the next section.
The current 6 says one from EACH county but 7 changes that to districts.
People say when I say “those educated in SC” that is mean, so I won’t say that here.
They need to hire Technical Writers and Proofreaders to review everything. That would remove the ambiguity.
§ 6. Senate.
The Senate shall be composed of one member from each County, to be elected for the term of four years by the qualified electors in each County, in the same manner in which members of the House of Representatives are chosen.
§ 7. Qualifications of members of Senate and House of Representatives.
No person is eligible for a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives who, at the time of his election, is not a duly qualified elector under this Constitution in the district in which he may be chosen. Senators must be at least twenty-five and Representatives at least twenty-one years of age. A candidate for the Senate or House of Representatives must be a legal resident of the district in which he is a candidate at the time he files for the office. No person who has been convicted of a felony under state or federal law or convicted of tampering with a voting machine, fraudulent registration or voting, bribery at elections, procuring or offering to procure votes by bribery, voting more than once at elections, impersonating a voter, or swearing falsely at elections/taking oath in another’s name, or who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to these offenses, is eligible to serve as a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives. However, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, this prohibition does not apply to a person who has been pardoned under state or federal law or to a person who files for public office fifteen years or more after the completion date of service of the sentence, including probation and parole time, nor shall any person, serving in office prior to the ratification of this provision, be required to vacate the office to which he is elected.
I agree, really all these overpaid politicians should be trying to figure out an identification card/passport that shows proof of citizenship that has to be produced EVERY time you vote. DL and SSN are too easily handed out by our govt without full verification of their identification.
When you say “every citizen” you imply that voting is a basic right and that the burden of proof is on the government to prove you are not a citizen. When you change the language to “only a citizen”, you imply that the burden of proof lies on the person to prove citizenship before voting. Think about requiring an individual to pass a test or pay a poll tax before being allowed to vote…Government should be encouraging all citizens, that is “every” citizen, to vote….
An interesting take.
All the other places where registering to vote is covered make it pretty clear that one needs to be a US citizen and reside in an SC precinct to vote in that precinct.
The Voting Rights Act (1967?) gave the Federal government oversight over SC elections. I’m betting a lot of the problem rests with the Feds who are Leftists.
From what I understand, it is up to each state to manage their own elections. The Federal govt did pass a law specifying you must be a citizen to vote in federal/national races but the states control state/local races. But yeah, for sure, most every problem rests with the federal govt! I agree!
I think the explanation is disingenuous. The constitution currently says “Every citizen of the United States AND this state”. It’s pretty clear as it is. Changing it to “only” instead of “every” can only do one thing with the meaning; change it so it can be interpreted that there are some citizens that do not qualify. I don’t see any other possible outcome.
I didn’t know you could be a citizen of a state. I thought that only applied to countries. “Resident”, yes….”citizen, no”. So to me the proposed change has erroneous language.
Technically, according to the US Constitution, the states are “independent” entities that can choose to disassociate from the other states.
aka State’s Rights
Would be a much longer discussion, but the states are technically their own “countries” that is why Senators were appointed like a country’s ambassadors NOT popularly elected. Neal Boortz explains that a Senator was supposed to be their state’s ambassador to the federal government.
Now Senators are just worthless and elected by mob rule.
I think an explantation would be helpful. I would also like to see the link to the court cases that we referenced in the second to last paragraph citing other localities that are allowing illegal aliens to vote.
A complete waste of taxpayer time and money.
BTW The change is more than just “one word.”
The word “every” would need to be replaced by “only a” or the word citizen changed to “citizens.”
As usual, the SC educated do a sloppy job of using English.
I’m not perfect, but they could easily find a Technical Writer that could provide accurate, unambiguous wording for all that they do.
And this could easily be changed by a bill (law? act? which term should I use?) to add a “definition to Title 7 to clarify this. NO expensive ballot measure necessary. Both chambers wasted time and then rubber stamped this.
This lengthy, liberal 2017 article promotes expansion of voting rights at the municipal/local level for 16-17 year olds, noncitizens, nonresident property owners, and felons. It further encourages that these changes lead to reforms at the state/national level. This article and the example court case below make the case that voting rights at the local level could be expanded if the state constitutions do not explicitly state the “ceiling” (only these people can vote) vs. the “floor” (at the very least, these people can vote). Since this is a liberal source, they clearly want this upward expansion of voting beyond the norm to occur.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1615&context=law_facpub
A California Court of Appeal upheld the city of San Francisco’s decision to allow noncitizen parents to vote in local school board elections after a lawsuit was filed to try to stop noncitizen voting. The California Constitution states “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this state may vote.” The city argued this sets only a “floor” (minimum) for voter qualifications, and does not prohibit expanding the electorate to noncitizens. The city noted that the CA Constitution could, but does not, state “only” a U.S. citizen may vote. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the city, essentially saying that since the CA Constitution doesn’t expressly prohibit it, the Legislature (and likewise San Francisco – a city that is governed by local laws) can expand the electorate to noncitizens.
https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Lacy-v-City-and-County-of-San-Francisco-Decision.pdf
Not trying to sway anyone one way or the other. I think it is a crappy question with no great answer but I think the info above is why they did it along with the fact that other states are also making the change. I don’t think they thought it through because there are other occurrences of that language and other states used better language. So if they had spent more time on it we wouldn’t have more potential loopholes.
One last thing….our Constitution prevents municipalities from making up their own election rules whereas San Francisco was granted that autonomy by CA….so less likely this would happen in SC. Not saying it couldn’t if we get more liberal judges.
I’m a NO!
They don’t do anything with a yes answer to this question.
Of course there should be more information presented in the ballot. It is not a topic that should be added through a one-liner, and with such haste and lack of information. My question is, why have the question in the first place, only true citizens should be able to vote, and only those with valid ID.
So it appears, at least in part, that this is about future implications regarding how courts in some states are ruling. Some are allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, regardless of the laws of that state.
Kimbrell tells WYFF News 4, “It doesn’t make it harder for a legal voter in the state to vote, but it does make clear in South Carolina we will not open ourselves up to lawsuits by groups that are pushing non-citizens to vote in elections anywhere in the state.”
He says the need for the change was born from several municipalities in other states granting non-citizens the right to vote in local elections.
https://www.wyff4.com/article/citizen-only-voting-amendment-sc-election-ballot/62697808
Lee explained non-citizens are already banned from voting in federal and state elections, but this referendum is meant to address municipal races.
“So we’re talking about cities, villages, townships, school boards,” he said. “If anybody who votes in November, votes ‘yes,’ what they’re doing is they are prohibiting legal non-citizens from ever voting in local elections.”
https://www.wisn.com/article/statewide-referendum-on-novembers-ballot-what-does-it-mean/62396753
I find this ridiculous and just one more way for the Right to exclude people and waste time! They are concerned about liberal judges? How about the 3 that took away women’s reproductive rights and the ones taking money and trips for “favors”! We will put this non-issue on the ballot but not let SC residents vote on reproductive rights!