Could a South Carolina voter enter a write-in candidate’s name on an electronic machine keypad in 1995?

Plain-English summary

In February 1995, South Carolina's election director asked whether spelling a write-in candidate's name on an electronic voting-machine keypad or touchpad satisfied the state's write-in statute. Assistant Attorney General Patricia Petway adhered to earlier AG opinions requiring the voter's handwriting or handwriting by an authorized assistant. She acknowledged changed technology but said the statutory wording had not changed and found no reason to declare the earlier interpretation clearly erroneous.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Election officials and voters

The letter treated handwritten entry as the interpretation of the 1995 write-in law. It applied the AG office's threshold for reversing earlier opinions: a prior conclusion had to be clearly erroneous. Technological change alone did not meet that threshold in the writer's view.

Common questions

Did the 1995 AG letter accept a keypad-spelled write-in vote? No. It retained the earlier handwritten-write-in interpretation of the statute.

Why did changed voting technology not change the answer? The writer said the statute itself had not been amended and did not find the prior reading clearly erroneous.

Could another person write in the name for a voter? The prior opinions as described in this letter allowed handwriting by a person duly authorized to assist the voter.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied §7-13-800 and referred to earlier AG opinions dated January 21, 1992 and May 6, 1986. It did not independently reproduce those opinions' reasoning. Its conclusion concerned a 1995 electronic voting proposal under then-unchanged statutory text.

Citations and references

• §7-13-800: write-in provision at issue.
• January 21, 1992 and May 6, 1986 AG opinions: earlier handwriting interpretation retained by the writer.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-16-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995feb16hendrix1.pdf

Original opinion text

..

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILOINO
POST OFHC6 BOX 11 S49
COWMBIA,S.C. 2921 l·IS49
TEU!PHONE: I03-734-mo
FACSIMILE: 803-25:>6213

ATIORNEY GENERAL

February 16, 1995

James F. Hendrix
Executive Director
State Election Commission
Post Office Box 5987
Columbia, South Carolina 29250
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Hendrix:

I

Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, which he has referred to me for response. Referencing S. C. Code Ann. §7-13-800, you have asked whether a write-in vote cast by means of spelling a candidate's name on a keypad or touchpad of an electronic voting machine would comport with the terms of the referenced statute. As you are aware, this Office has rendered several opinions which concluded that write-in votes must be cast in the voter's hand:writing or the handwriting of someone duly authorized to assist the voter. See Ops. Att'y Gen. dated January 21, 1992 and May 6, 1986, among others. The standard of review for reversing prior opinions of this Office is to determine whether the conclusion reached therein is clearly erroneous; such a result could be reached, for example, when a legislative act in the intervening time causes the conclusion to be erroneous.

It is my understanding that the law upon which the previous opinions were based has not been amended. While we acknowledge that technology has changed since the statute was adopted, nevertheless the language of the statute has remained unchanged. Our review of the statute and the previous opinions does not compel the conclusion that the interpretation is clearly erroneous. Thus, we adhere to the conclusions reached in the prev10us opm1ons. ·

Mr. Hendrix
Page 2
February 16, 1995

With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,

l'lliilia,JJ.~

I
I

l

~

I

Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General