Category Updates

BY Lucy Twinkle

Closed primary bills Part 2:

Bill H. 3695 was introduced by Brandon Newton, the State Representative who successfully shut down a closed primary bill debate in last year’s session. H. 3695 really is about Voter Registration and Party “Affiliation,” not closed primaries. There is only ONE PASSAGE relating to closed primaries, which states, “In no event may an elector registered as a member of a certified political party vote in the partisan primary election or advisory referendum of another certified
political party with which that elector is not registered.” So a Democrat couldn’t vote in a Republican primary and vice versa.

H. 3695 has the highest chances of passage of all the closed primary bills. You can tell by the number of State Reps who have jumped on the bandwagon to become sponsors. A week ago, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (where the bill currently resides), Wes Newton, added his name as sponsor. This bill is showing lots of activity. So, what is in this bill? And how is it different from the “Closed Primary” bills?

H. 3695 states that an elector must be registered as a member of a
certified political party or unaffiliated within 45 days of a “partisan
primary.” A party affiliation can be changed, but only in writing and on a form approved by the SEC. The voter application form must be changed to allow for a party preference to be noted.

CONCERNS: Under this bill, there is still a way for an unaffiliated voter to vote in a party primary. So although we exclude parties from crossing over to vote in their opposing party primary, unaffiliated voters would still be able to vote; so technically this is not a clean closed primary bill.

The second part of the bill deals with candidate qualifications. A new section will be added to the SC Code which states that the “State Executive Committee” of a certified party may establish party rules to require all prospective candidates to be registered as “affiliated” with that political party. Should the State Executive Committee have the authority to do this or should it be at the state convention? Is it appropriate for a state statute to mandate how a candidate is vetted or
approved by the party? Who should be able to make the “party rules?” The delegates at the State Convention, the State Executive Committee, Or? What does it mean to be “registered as affiliated with that political party?” Wouldn’t being registered with a certified political party be enough?

Will this provision result in qualified candidates being excluded from the ballot because they don’t meet qualifications of being “affiliated” spelled out in new rules? Look at the recent “loyalty oaths,” which prohibit House members from endorsing or supporting any candidate challenging a GOP incumbent. As stated in this article, the loyalty oath is really code for an “incumbent protection racket.” Those who
won’t sign are barred from attendance at the Republican Caucus, where most of the legislative deliberations take place. To be barred is to be deprived of access, hence power, the currency of politics.

Could this provision empower party leaders to enact party rules to exclude those candidates of whom the party establishment disapproves? Yep. Is that the main purpose of this legislation? Maybe. Will President Donald Trump be prohibited from being placed on the Republican ballot if he refuses to sign a GOP loyalty oath? Possibly. Are similar bills being introduced nationally? Will this provision have the effect of excluding Freedom Caucus members or America First candidates? Is there a difference between registering with the party and being “affiliated” with it? If you register, you are responsible for your
relationship with the party. If you are “affiliated,” do you need to be approved by the party to be associated with it? Are there party caveats? Will there be more requirements for entry into the party?

Finally, the bill states that the SEC must establish a voter education program concerning the provisions contained in this legislation. While a right idea, this provision is weaker than passages in the previous bills which require all electors to be contacted and informed of this new change to our voting laws…by a certain date.

In summary, where do we stand? It seems as if H. 3695 will be the bill brought to the House floor for passage. So here are some recommendations for how to make the bill stronger:

• Informing the public of the change: Section 4. The State Election
  Commission must establish a voter education program concerning the provisions contained in this legislation.
  AMEND AND ADD the following language from H. 3685 Section 1C. “Prior to January 2, 2024, the entity charged by law with registering qualified electors shall contact the qualified electors of that county, by whatever method it determines to be appropriate, informing them of partisan primary voting procedures…

• Changing voter registration party status – put in some time limits. DO NOT allow someone to change their party status right before a primary election and then back again before the general election: See Section 1C –
  It should be stated that changes can be made by affidavit or written
  authorization of the elector and that an elector is prohibited from making any changes to their registration 1 – 2 YEARS from the time of the change. Changes must be made 45 days prior to the primary election.
• Allow certified political parties the ability to decide for themselves
  whether or not they want to include unaffiliated voters. Done at the State Convention (as stated in the previous bills) not by State Executive Committee
• Candidates: change the vetting process as follows: Let the party decide how to handle candidate qualifications…or better yet eliminate Section 3 B from the bill and remove any mention of candidate qualifications. This would make the bill “cleaner” by establishing rules for the qualified electors not the candidates.

With these changes, the bill might be worth passing.

By Lucy Twinkle

Several pieces of legislation are currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee relating to Closing the Primaries. On the surface, it would seem that closing our political primaries would enhance the safety and security of our elections. But would it? Let’s examine the bills: (If you don’t want to read through the details of the bills, go to the bottom of this blog post and read SUMMARY.)

A couple of terms you need to know:
Elector – someone who is eligible to vote in the state of South Carolina
Unaffiliated voters – SC electors who are not affiliated with any recognized “certified political party”

Certified political party – Although there are hundreds of political parties in the USA, only certain parties are “certified” to be able to have their candidate names on election ballots. South Carolina recognizes 10 political parties: the Alliance, Constitution, Democratic, Green, Independence, Labor, Libertarian, Republican, United Citizens, and Working Families parties.

A candidate may choose to have another label other than a certified party next to his/her name on the ballot. This is called a “political party designation.” South Carolina does not allow candidates to use political party designations. What that means is if a candidate is part of a newly-minted party, such as the “Constitutional Patriot Party” (made up) or the “US Beijing Party,” he or she would not be able to appear on a SC ballot. For example, it was just reported that Governor Kemp of Georgia is creating a “new GOP Party” called the “Cherokee County Republican Coalition” which would have to be “certified” if it were in the state of South Carolina according to this law in order for any of its members to appear on the ballot. Same thing if President Donald Trump tried to start his own party. Something to keep in mind.

The Bills: An Analysis

H. 3161:
IN GENERAL: A SC citizen would not be allowed to vote in any “partisan” primary except that person has to register to be affiliated with that party, UNLESS the certified political party decides to accept unaffiliated voters. (There is no direction as to how the political party would arrive at such a decision. It’s left up to the party. If the party deems that unaffiliated electors CAN vote in the party primary,
the party would have 60 – 180 days to notify the State Election Commission (SEC).) The SEC is charged with working with the counties to come up with a form and process for registering electors by party. Such form would be open to public inspection (except for social security numbers). When voting in the primary, all electors are required to sign an affidavit affirming membership in that party conducting the primary.

CONCERNS:
Electors who have not registered with a political party would be unable to vote in that primary as they would be considered “unaffiliated voters.” This has not occurred before in recent years. For this “Close our Primaries” effort to be successful, there needs to be a massive awareness campaign waged so that South Carolinians who want to vote know they have to sign up with a single political party. There is a risk that thousands of South Carolinians will become disenfranchised voters in the 2024 Presidential election, because they are uninformed about the changes. What you could see in 2024 is many South Carolinians wanting to vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary, but being
unable to do so because they never registered with the Republican Party. Or vote for Robert Kennedy Jr. but can’t because they are not registered as a Democrat. (This bill tries to ameliorate this issue by allowing electors to register for a party at all primary elections before June 1, 2024, by having an elector submit an oath before an election official overseeing the election.)

Registering and being affiliated with the party: The state convention of a political party may add rules about qualifications for membership in the party, as well as eligibility for voting in the primary election. While it is understandable that the party would want to have a mechanism for vetting prospective electors, i.e., the Republicans don’t want closet Democrats signing up for the party and vice versa), we’ve also seen some recent party rules that have potentially disallowed whole groups of people from becoming affiliated with the party. This could adversely affect the American First movement, as well as others.

No provision for how the certified political parties would determine whether or not they would accept unaffiliated voters. Party State Convention? State Executive Committee?

Danger that incorrect records could lead to disenfranchised voters. We
know that the SEC has had many incorrect records relating to people’s voting records in past primaries. What makes us think that they will get an individual’s voting preference correct? If there is a mistake in the record, that elector could be prevented from voting in a primary.
There is no restriction on changing registered party status. That means, for example, I could register as a Democrat for the primary, but change my party affiliation to Republican for the general election.

H. 3472
This bill is almost identical to H. 3161 except for the following differences:

If an unaffiliated voter votes in a certified party primary, such voter
automatically becomes a member of that party for two years. This addresses the time limit question.

This bill also sets a time limit on when electors need to be made aware of this new requirement to register with a certified political party in order to vote in that party’s primary. Electors need to be notified before January 1, 2024.

H. 3685
This bill is also similar to the previous bills with some notable exceptions:
It is the state executive committee of a certified political party who
decides whether or not unaffiliated voters may vote in the primary election. Otherwise, in the previous bills, the state convention decides the qualifications for membership into the party and voting in the primary elections, which seems more democratic.

This bill addresses candidate party qualifications and states that a political party has the ability to require all persons wanting to appear on that party’s ballot to be registered as “affiliated” with that political party.
It also states that a party may not refuse to certify a candidate based on party affiliation who is registered as affiliated at the time of filing. This seems like a protection against party actions such as the time SCGOP censured and banned Greenville County GOP Chair Jeff Davis from attending SC State GOP meetings because while he was a “registered Republican,” the GOP State Executive Committee, led by State Party Chair Drew McKissick, declared him “unaffiliated” or not eligible to participate, based on some “charges.” Read the article and decide.
Finally, there is no time restriction for changing party registration.

SUMMARY

In summary, it appears that closing the primaries in the state would be a step forward in our quest for safe and secure elections, by eliminating our election process of potential outside interference. We want to ensure all of our elections reflect the will of the people. In this case, the success of this effort will hinge on the following:

A massive information campaign to inform the electors about this change and to prevent them from being disenfranchised from voting through an “unaffiliated voter status” by default.

A time limit placed on how soon an elector can change parties after
registering with one certified party. Attempts to “game the system” should be thwarted, i.e., changing party affiliations often needs to be not
discouraged, but prohibited.

The SEC must be held accountable for keeping accurate voter files, with
respect to electors registering with certified political parties
Any decisions – whether it be to include unaffiliated voters in a certified party election or to put candidates on the partisan ballot – should be made by the people within the party, and not at the centralized executive level. We want to ensure that all SC electors who want to participate in primaries are able to do so and all candidates be given a fair opportunity to be listed on election ballots.

Thank you to all the SC legislators trying to improve our election system.

In this video, Kershaw county resident Aleisa McKim discusses her experience checking her voter roll history prior to her county convention for reorganization. Her story will shock you.

By “Lucy Twinkle”

Last summer a group from SC Safe Elections met with some SC legislators to talk about election reform. We asked them this question: “What is THE MOST IMPORTANT election reform measure you’d like to see passed?
Their Answer: “Close our primaries.”

Why is this so important?
Because you can use open primaries to throw a primary election. Let me explain…

What are “open” versus “closed” primaries?
Right now, South Carolina has open primaries. An open primary is any primary election where a voter does not have to declare a specific party affiliation in order to vote in the primary. That means Democrats can vote in a Republican primary and Republicans can vote in a Democratic primary. A closed primary is one in which a voter can only vote in the primary with which he or she is registered/affiliated.

The problem with open primaries is that they can lead to dilution of the people’s vote and possible manipulation of outcome. Let me break that down. For example, let’s say you are a registered Democrat. Under an open primary system, you and your friends can go out to vote against the most viable Republican candidate in an effort to throw the primary election to the less viable candidate. The same thing would hold for Republicans. Under an open primary system, as a registered
Republican, you and your friends could go out to vote for the weakest Democratic candidate in order to increase the chances of this candidate winning the primary, thus improving the chances of the Republican candidate winning in the general election. This is particularly impactful when primary turnout is low–last year’s turnout was less than 20% statewide.

The potential for abuse is even more dire when you think of how political organizations could use the open primary system to their advantage. Here’s an example: let’s say there is a Republican candidate who spoke out in favor of a bill banning abortion in the state and this same legislator is now running in a contested primary. Planned Parenthood then mounts a campaign and mobilizes its members to get out the vote and to cast their vote against this incumbent Republican legislator in an effort to defeat him in the primary. These kinds of efforts thwart the will of the people. No one – no person or political
organization – has the right to employ a strategy to throw a primary election. Such efforts disenfranchise state voters.

We must close our primaries.

Our legislators know this. Last year there was an effort made to do this by offering an amendment to the omnibus “election integrity bill” that ultimately passed both houses. Unfortunately, just as this issue seemed to be gaining momentum on the House floor, the amendment was tabled after some impassioned debate and ended with an eloquent floor speech, given by Representative Brandon Newton, who shut the conversation down.

There are renewed efforts this year…stay tuned…

It has come to our attention that many of the voters are checking their voter history and finding inaccuracies. For example, their records states that they voted absentee when they always vote on election day in person. Or it shows a missing vote in a primary although they never missed an election in decades. This is important because the Republican party now requires that anyone who wants to run for a state delegate position must have voted in 2 of the last 3 primaries.

Post reorg, precinct delegates around the state who want to run for state delegate positions are asking their county board of registration and elections for their voting history and finding massive inaccuracies. This is disturbing since our voter rolls should be accurate. Garbage in Garbage out. If our voter rolls are inaccurate, what else is inaccurate?

In order to better analyze the extent of the problem we are asking that people fill out the following form if they find any inaccuracies of any kind. We will follow up for more information so that we can make our legislators, election commission and other state leaders aware of the issue so that it can be properly addressed.

Here is the link to the form:

In this clip from a recent Conservative Daily podcast computer experts discuss how easy it is to hack into a voting system; Mark Cook shows how it can be done in minutes with a simple flash drive. Scary stuff. Send to all those legislators who still think voting machines are a must.

Remember these cyber guys want to computerize everything but they insist the only way we can trust our vote is to go to a secure paper ballot system that is hand counted.

https://vimeo.com/816712447/a0930a8f22

💥💥💥💥IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT!!!! 💥💥💥💥

Bill 150 passed last year moved the needle in some instances but also took a few steps back especially by instituting two weeks of early voting. The 3 bills below focus on further enhancing SC election law so that the citizens of SC can trust elections again.

Here are the election bills that we want to support that Rob Harris and our group worked on.

H.4259 Hand Count Audit Act
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4259

This bill calls for a hand count audit of at least 5 races within 3 precincts of each county and should include one statewide office or question; one federal office; and one countywide or less than countywide office or question

It also allows a county or county chair of a political party to call for an audit up to 22 months after an election (hand count or forensic).

H.4260 Voter Access and Transparency Act https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4260

H 4260 calls for a return to paper poll books and gives full observation rights to every citizen to observe all phases of the election process and establishes chain of custody documentation to be recorded for all components of the election systems at all times.

It also removes the 65 and older provision for absentee voting thereby reducing the amount of mail in voting.

Most importantly, it establishes a pilot program for 2024 for at least 3 counties to cast votes on hand-marked paper ballots counted by hand.

H.4261 Clean Voter Roll Act https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4261

This bill makes the counties responsible for maintenance of the voter registration lists and ensures that SC qualified electors are able to receive and inspect at no charge essential voter registration and election reports such as voter registration lists, cast vote records, ballot review and reconciliation reports, chain of custody documents, incident reports, proof of citizenship verification, and signature verification.

Please read these bills and call the members of the Judiciary committee if they are your representatives. This is important. They pay attention to the people who live in their district.

Here is a list of the members of the judiciary committee.

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/housejudiciary.php

Wm. Weston J. Newton, Chairman
Wallace H. “Jay” Jordan, Jr., 1st V.C.
John Richard C. King, 2nd V.C.
William H. Bailey
Justin T. Bamberg
Beth E. Bernstein
Thomas C. “Case” Brittain, Jr.
J. Benjamin “Ben” Connell
Jason Elliott
Thomas Duval “Val” Guest, Jr.
Brandon Guffey
Rosalyn D. Henderson-Myers
Patricia Moore “Pat” Henegan
Jeffrey E. “Jeff” Johnson
Matthew W. “Matt” Leber
John R. McCravy, III
Cody T. Mitchell
Travis A. Moore
Robby Robbins
Seth Rose
Carla Schuessler

What is beautiful about our group SC Safe Elections is that we are nonpartisan. Many of our members have voted Democratic and Libertarian, as well as Republican.

This analysis was provided by a SC voter who participated in the 2020 democratic primary and did not vote for Biden.  This voter is suspicious of results that were so different from the previous trend. Why would South Carolina have such different results?

Detail by county

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South_Carolina_Democratic_presidential_primary#Results_by_county

Main page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South_Carolina_Democratic_presidential_primary#

Over the past 8 months data analysts have been investigating a money laundering operation nationwide that funnels small donations in large numbers through “smurfs.” Smurfs are unsuspecting individuals generally over 65, retired, white and liberal. But their names are allegedly being used for these “under the radar” donations. 

How is it done? Amounts are donated in very small amounts sometimes less than a dollar but there are several hundred to several thousand per smurf. For example, the top smurf in Florida contributed 10,445 times in 2022 for a total of $554,279.34 in federal donations. In addition, she had 452 state level donations totaling $10,844.27. By the way, she was 90 in assisted living and hadn’t voted recently. Based on a review of the database in our state, the top smurf in South Carolina is from Greenville and had 8,779 federal contributions in 2021-2022 totaling $375,066.70.

In addition to money laundering, this potentially amounts to ID theft and elder abuse. Note that many of these donations are going to liberal PACs such as ACT Blue, but other conservative PACs like Winred are also involved. It is suspected that there is cartel involvement as well as foreign involvement. There is a high correlation between the worst smurf states and those states with high fentanyl deaths/issues.   

Analysis is underway by a data team who is working through this and has been for 8 months.  This is still being investigated by multiple sources so stay tuned. Is this a database repording issue or something more?

In order to further investigate to see how legitimate this issue is you may want to check this to see if you or your loved ones are on the list. Do the campaign contributions make sense? Go to fec.gov; click on search campaign finance data and input your name or a family members name to see if you were affected under the “individual contributor name.”

Note: Campaign laws dictate that if any campaign donations were not acquired legally, they must be returned.

If you have been working on election integrity for the past 2 years plus you likely suffer from what I like to call ETB (Election Trauma Bond) an annoying, painful disorder that goes along with being in a toxic relationship with people who display signs of narcissism or other cluster B personalities. Anyone who has experienced a toxic relationship will readily recognize these signs. If you have experienced even a few of these phases you likely have ETB:

Fast courtship: In this stage, the agency officials act as though they are interested in your concerns. They attempt to address your issues while assuring you that they have everything under control. They provide a great “dog and pony” show that illustrates that the elections are “secure,” “done mostly right,” and that, “you have no reason to worry. They have it covered.”

But of course, in your gut you don’t trust them. Something seems off. There are red flags.  The facts seem to suggest otherwise which brings you to the next phase.

Gaslighting and control: During this stage, you are consistently told things that are contrary to what your own eyes are telling you—the voter rolls are clean. ERIC (the Electronic Registration and information Center) does a fine job of helping the state clean the rolls. Trump won so all is fine in South Carolina. The machines aren’t connected to the internet. That is all a conspiracy theory.

However, your team has personally gathered the evidence that proves otherwise. You knocked on doors where people hadn’t lived in years but somehow managed to vote from that address. You researched the obituaries of people who were able to magically vote post mortem. You drove past registered addresses that were not legal domiciles—graveyards, shops, vacant lots, post offices.  You have seen machines without security seals, sloppy election day processes, inconsistent adherence to election laws.

The county and state election officials and law enforcement reply that there may be fraud or irregularities; but it is not easy to prove and not enough to change any results. Hmmm. You start thinking you are the one who is delusional, but you know better. They try to judge your every move and control what you can see and how and when you can see it. You want to view the polls on election day? Sorry, you need to sit in this chair on the far side of the room where you can’t even view the process or machines. You want to observe the audits post-election? Wait in this room until we tell  you what the results are. Or maybe they tell you it starts at noon but you show up then and they have already finished their audit.

Abuse and Discard:  Just when you think you may have enough evidence to really convince your legislators or your state agency in charge of elections, they discard you. Suddenly, your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are ignored, delayed indefinitely, or they claim they don’t exist.  You apply to be a poll worker and are denied even though they are still looking for help. But wait, I am the one you want, you think. I have in depth knowledge of the processes and systems. I am most qualified. Nope. They are on to their next supply—the person who is naïve to their ways and knows as little as possible about their system.  Or perhaps they recruit nonprofits to “adopt a polling place” and put them in charge. Yes, that is a thing.

The Silent treatment: At this point you are pretty frustrated but still want to engage with your election agency. After all what are your other options? You need them. They are in charge. They are in control. You are powerless. They are now ghosting you and perhaps they respond to you occasionally just to keep you thinking they actually care or are adequately doing their job. They don’t. 

This is when you think you need to quit but you don’t. Why? Because the best revenge against the toxic partner or partnership is to win. To succeed.  You are not weak. You are not stupid. You know their game. So, you fight harder, stronger, and become the inner warrior you were always meant to be.  The truth is worth fighting for and it always has a way of coming to light.

I applaud all the election integrity grassroots volunteers out there.  I feel your pain. We have traveled this road for a long time and we fight for every vote—- for democrats and republicans, independents and libertarians, for young and old, voters of all races, religions.  You are the light; you are the answer, you are appreciated and you will prevail.

Elections are the foundation of our republic. There is no option to quit.  You are worth it and so is your state and your country.  You too can survive ETB. You deserve a better system, better legislators who listen and act, a better election agency who cares about the sanctity of your vote rather than preserving a flawed system, and an executive branch that truly cares about clean elections.

Let’s hope we can find new non-toxic partners in the future so we can finally have trust and confidence in our elections.