Could a South Carolina election commission reject a 1996 voter form that changed the citizenship oath?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether Saluda County's election and voter registration commission had to accept an application when the applicant removed the United States citizenship declaration, changed the capitalization of that phrase, or supplied false answers. In 1996, the AG said the commission should reject the form in each of those situations. Removing the declaration left the commission unable to determine a constitutional voting qualification and omitted required oath language. The AG also read the then-prescribed oath literally, concluding that the changed capitalization did not match the statutory form.

The opinion placed the decision on an applicant's qualifications with the commission. It further said an application containing inaccurate or untruthful answers should be rejected and described the statutory perjury consequence for a fraudulent application. These conclusions describe the 1996 form and law, without assessing any later form or amendment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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.

Common questions

Could an applicant cross out the citizenship declaration and still be registered?

The AG said the commission should reject that application because it omitted the required oath language and did not establish the citizenship qualification.

What if the applicant only changed the capitalization of United States?

The AG took the view that even this alteration meant the oath no longer appeared exactly as the statute prescribed, and said the application should be rejected.

Who determined whether the application qualified?

The county election and voter registration commission made the qualification decision under the provision cited in the opinion. The AG gave its view on the particular alterations presented.

Background and legal framework

The opinion discussed the constitutional citizenship qualification and the written application and oath prescribed by § 7-5-170(2). It identified § 7-5-230 as assigning the registration decision to the commission. The letter was an informal view of the signing assistant attorney general.

Citations

• § 7-5-170(2); § 7-5-230.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-18-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96mar18spearman.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
('!!,\RLES N10LO'-:Y CO'.'\'DO'.\
xrr<)R'\,EY GE"ERAJ,

March 18, 1996

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Member, House of Representatives
335-D Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Spearman:
You seek an opinion from this Off ice regarding whether the Saluda County Elections and Voter Registration Commission (Commission) is required to accept a voter registration application when the applicant strikes the clause "citizen of the United States" from the application. In addition, you ask whether the Commission should accept an application when the applicant changes the clause "citizen of the United States" so that the words United States appear in lower case letters. Finally, you ask whether giving false information to certain questions contained in a voter registration application would be grounds for refusal of the application. The right to vote is derived from our state constitution. Article II,
§
3,
provides:
"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." Article II, § 4, provides: "Every citizen of the United States and this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered shall be entitled to vote . " Under Article II, § 8, the General Assembly is given the power to determine the administrative aspects of voter registration. Prior to being registered to vote, an individual must complete a written application. S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-170(1) (Supp. 1995). This written application for registration must be on a form prescribed and provided by the executive director of the State Election Commission. S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-170(2) (Supp. 1995).

h; 1 l
/

i)! "'""Hi q [);'-.1;
l

~-

-

•

Pn\T Oi'i'lCf Btl\ J 15.+9

•

(«11 i ~ml. S.C. ::tJ2l i-) :"-19

•

Ti U.P!lO\L: :-l03- 73.+-_<070

•

F.\C\l!!U

:\U.'--253-(-._2;{~

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Page 2
March 18, 1996
The application must contain, among other things, an oath in which the applicant must " solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
[applicant] am a citizen of the United States . . . . " Id. When an applicant for registration strikes out the portion of the application in which the applicant swears or affirms to be "a citizen of the United States," the application, as modified, fails to provide information regarding the citizenship of the applicant. Since United States citizenship is a qualification for voting, if the applicant strikes this information, the Commission is unable to determine whether the applicant is qualified to vote. Thus, the application should be rejected. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-170(2) contains a specific oath which all applicants are required to take. By striking the language in the oath pertaining to United States citizenship, the applicant submits an application that fails to include the specific language required by statute to be contained in the application. Consequently, an application altered in such a fashion is not in accord with the statutory dictates and, therefore, should be rejected. In a situation where an applicant alters the application by rewriting the clause "citizen of the United States" with the words United States appearing in lower case letters, the applicant has submitted an application that does not contain the specific language required to be present in the application by s.c. Code Ann.§ 7-5-170(2). As previously noted, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 7-5 170(2), the application must contain an oath in which the applicant swears that "I [applicant] am a citizen of the United States . . . . " Consequently, if the application is altered so that the oath does not appear exactly as it does in the statute, the application is not in accord with the statutory dictates and, therefore, should be rejected. Finally, it is axiomatic that an applicant must give truthful and accurate answers to all questions contained in the application. Unquestionably, South Carolina has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the electorial process and preventing voter fraud. Storer v Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344 (1993). Accordingly, if when completing the application, the applicant fails to answer the questions truthfully and accurately, the application should be rejected. In the event that an applicant is found to have fraudulently applied for registration, the applicant is guilty of perjury and is subject to the penalty for that offense. s.c. Code Ann.§ 7-5-170(2). In conclusion, a decision regarding whether an applicant possesses the legal qualifications to be registered to vote rests

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Page 3
March 18, 1996
with the Commission. S.C. Code Ann.§ 7-5-230 (1976). However, in my opinion, should the Commission receive a voter registration application which the applicant has either struck the clause "citizen of the United states," or altered so that "United States" appears in lower case letters, the Commission is not obligated to accept the application. Furthermore, in my opinion, if an applicant gives inaccurate or untruthful information when completing the application, the application should be rejected. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. Sincerely yours,

!Zt ,t1/ lie{

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General
PMK/fg