Greene v. South Carolina Election Com'n, 24101
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 314 S.C. 449,445 S.E.2d 451 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24101,24101 |
| Parties | Douglas GREENE, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION, The South Carolina Board of State Canvassers, The Aiken County Election Commission, The Aiken County Board of Canvassers and Lawana R. McKenzie, Respondents. . Heard |
Page 451
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION, The South Carolina Board
of State Canvassers, The Aiken County Election
Commission, The Aiken County Board of
Canvassers and Lawana R.
McKenzie, Respondents.
Decided June 20, 1994.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 1994.
Page 452
James L. Leslie, Jr., Irmo, for petitioner.
[314 S.C. 450] T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Edwin E. Evans, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Treva G. Ashworth, Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondents S.C. Election Com'n and The State Bd. of State Canvassers.
Dwight F. Drake and Carey T. Kilton, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent Lawana R. McKenzie.
Robbin Stewart, Kansas City, MO, and David L. Floyd, North Augusta, for amicus curiae.
TOAL, Justice:
Douglas Greene ("Greene") appeals the decision of the State Board of Canvassers upholding the election results in the race for Aiken County Council seat for District 3. We affirm.
Greene was the unsuccessful Libertarian candidate for the Aiken County Council, District 3 seat. The official total vote was 628 votes to 623 votes. Greene lost the election by 5 votes.
Greene challenged the election results. A hearing was held before the Aiken County Board of Canvassers. At the hearing, eleven affidavits of registered voters were entered into evidence. All of the affidavits stated that the voters presented themselves at the poll but the poll manager did not allow them to vote in the District 3 County Council election. All of the voters were listed on the official voter registration roll as eligible to vote in District 2. None of the voters were listed as eligible to vote in the District 3 election. Several days after the election, the Aiken County Registration and Election Commission determined that at least 6 of the voters listed as eligible to vote in District 2 actually lived in District 3.
The Aiken County Board of Canvassers, finding no error in the conduct of the election, voted to sustain the result. Greene appealed to the South Carolina Board of Canvassers. The South Carolina Board of Canvassers found Greene failed to [314 S.C. 451] produce any evidence that the "voters when challenged insisted in voting in District 3 and were refused a challenged ballot." We agree.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The scope of appellate review of the State Board's order "is limited to corrections of errors of law; findings of fact will not be overturned unless wholly unsupported by the evidence." Knight v. State Board of Canvassers, 297 S.C. 55, 57, 374 S.E.2d 685 (1988); Simms v. Hamm [Sims v. Ham], 275 S.C. 369, 271 S.E.2d 316 (1980); Berry v. Spigner, 226 S.C. 183, 84
Page 453
S.E.2d 381 (1954). Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected the result of the election will not be allowed to overturn it.Fielding v. South Carolina Election Commission, 305 S.C. 313, 317, 408 S.E.2d 232, 234 (1991).
The facts are not in dispute. At least six qualified voters presented themselves at the precinct to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kendrick v. Kendrick
...retirement interest. In re Marriage of Mantei, 222 Ill.App.3d 933, 164 Ill.Dec. 870, 873, 583 N.E.2d 1192, 1195 (1991); Ball v. Ball, 445 S.E.2d at 451; Blumberg, supra, 2 Valuation & Distribution of Marital Page 928 Prop. § 23.02[c]. It also avoids the problems caused when the marital esta......
-
Broadhurst v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH ELECT., 25191.
...Such an interpretation would effectively disenfranchise a voter through no fault of his own. See Greene v. South Carolina Election Comm'n, 314 S.C. 449, 445 S.E.2d 451 (1994) (while recognizing mandatory language of statute requiring issuance of challenge ballot to every voter who questione......
-
Thornton v. Thornton, Appellate Case No. 2016-001177
...of the other assets is not affected by the award of the nonvested pension plan, its exact dollar value is not crucial." Id . at 447, 445 S.E.2d at 451. "Rather, the court must only determine the portion of the plan to which the spouse is entitled." Id . at 447–48, 445 S.E.2d at 451. While b......
-
Taylor v. TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH ELECTION COM'N, 25940.
...envelope. See S.C.Code Ann. § 7-13-830 (Supp.2003) (establishing procedures for handling challenged ballots); Greene v. S.C. Election Commn., 314 S.C. 449, 445 S.E.2d 451 (1994) (discussing challenged ballots); S.C.Code Ann. § 5-15-10 (2004) (municipal elections shall be conducted pursuant ......