Categories
Updates

Challenging the voter rolls a firsthand account

I decided to volunteer with South Carolina Safe Elections in the spring of 2021. I was not political, but still felt I could add some value. I grew up in a family grocery business, studied abroad, lived abroad 16 years, worked in corporate America with a global company in the law department and am a green belt in Lean Six Sigma continuous improvement…Our state election system has a lot of things that
need improvement.


I started canvassing Charleston county with people from eight different counties in October 2021 and after two weeks moved on to Berkeley County from November 2021 – January 2022. As the Data /captain, I also entered all the canvassing data for Berkeley County. After conducting a data sort of the oldest people on the Berkeley voter roll I found people born as long ago as 1903. Of the 578 active registered voters that were 92+, I found 204 obituaries, having past as long ago as 1977, 1987, 1995 & 1999.


After the public reveal of our canvass findings in February 2022, I started working on planning and hosting voter awareness meetings in my area and supporting others in Berkeley County that were doing the same. I mailed or hand delivered 5000 invites to these events. This was
another form of canvassing especially as the post cards started returning “undeliverable.” I also knocked on countless doors and the person that was listed as living there on my list no longer did. This opened my eyes to the inaccuracy of the rolls. I wanted to do more about it.


After our reveal our findings were sent to the SEC and SLED, but they didn’t seem interested in doing anything with them. So the people in the counties we canvassed decided to submit the names of voters that were deceased, had voted but didn’t live at the registered address before
or after the 2020 general election. From the 5% that we canvassed of Berkeley County we have about 500 of those.
I initially sent a letter with 42 names stating that we were challenging the qualifications of these registered electors to vote based upon their residency status. This letter went out April 6, 2022. I received a response September 9, 2022 scheduling the hearing September 29, but then we had a hurricane…so it was rescheduled for October 13, 2022.

It is important that people understand that during this time we studied the South Carolina Election Laws. We took our guidance from them and abided by them in all that we did. For your reference I am attaching the section with reference to challenging voters on voter rolls.


SECTION 75-230.- Legal qualifications; challenges; proof of residency or domicile; appeals.
(A) The county boards of voter registration and elections to be appointed under Section 75-10 shall be the judges of the legal qualifications of
all applicants for registration. The board is empowered to require proof of these qualifications as it considers necessary.-
Once a person is registered, challenges of the qualifications of any elector, except for challenges issued at the polls pursuant to Sections 713-810, 7-13-820, and 7-15-420 -must be made in writing to the county board of voter registration and elections in the county of registration. The board must, within ten days following the challenge and after first giving notice to the elector and the challenger, hold a hearing, accept evidence, and rule upon whether the elector meets or fails to meet the qualifications set forth in Section 75-120.-
(B) When a challenge is made regarding the residence or domicile of an elector, the board must consider the provisions of Section 71-25(D).-
(C) 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 experience was a bit surreal. The first hearing on October 13, 2022 regarding 42 names I submitted back in April 2022, I had no idea what to expect. I, for sure, was not expecting to be attacked the way I was. The board stated it was not my place to suggest that people who voted
in the GE 2020 should have their votes questioned. To clarify, we are challenging the qualifications of these registered electors to vote based upon their residency status “pursuant to Article 7, Chapter 5, Section 230.”


Each time individuals on the BOE questioned me I referred to the SC Election Law, the board would then look to their lawyer…IMO to either back them up or verify that what I was saying was correct. Each time he would read what the law stated it supported what I said. One board
member even questioned if there wasn’t a statute of limitations on challenges, but yet we had gotten to the hearing per law so why make this question? To discredit me?


There were two electors that did appear to prove their residency. To these two gentlemen I apologized for any human error(one was renting residence during 2020GE and purchased the
same in February of 2021 but under wife’s maiden name) and inconvenience it may have caused them. But even the two electors that appeared questioned the BOE on updates to the voter rolls and they were referred to the state (SEC). Apparently changes to the rolls were not being done in a timely fashion.

After the hearing I received in the mail a letter stating that certified mail was returned “undeliverable” from 39 of the 42 voters and these names would be submitted to the SEC to be placed in a status of Inactive-Moved. To note: of the 39 to be placed on inactive status 4 have
been updated to new address, 2 were removed and 33 remain on voter roll as of 6/30/2022. Why is this even possible?


At that hearing on October 13 I turned in a new list of 200 voters to be removed based on the canvass of 2021. This is not what I would choose to do. It’s not fun. I do it because I feel it is important for two
reasons: One is to have tangible evidence of the corruption in our elections on the voter rolls that I can share with residents of Berkeley county and elsewhere. I am sure you have heard by now the saying, “You cannot tell them, you have to show them”. Second is that I believe we, at the grassroots level, are tasked to expose the corruption at the lower levels.

So, we continue forward.