How many emergency paper ballots did South Carolina machine-voting precincts have to keep in 2008?

Short answer The AG said the amended law set a ceiling of ten percent of registered voters, not a fixed minimum. Election officials chose the number, but had to ensure ballots remained available for qualified voters.
State
South Carolina
Opinion
2008-october-16-2008-1
Issued
October 16, 2008
Issued by
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Requested by
The Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter and the Honorable James E. Smith, Jr., Members, House of Representatives

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2008. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.

Disclaimer: This is an official South Carolina Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Two legislators asked how many emergency paper ballots a South Carolina precinct using voting machines had to keep. The Attorney General's office explained in 2008 that an amendment had replaced a fixed amount equal to ten percent of registered qualified voters with a number not exceeding ten percent. That left election officials discretion within the statutory ceiling, so the office could not give one exact number for every precinct.

The opinion also emphasized that ballot availability remained essential. It pointed to a separate subsection requiring managers to provide substitute ballots without undue delay if official ballots ran short, and said qualified voters should not be turned away because ballots were unavailable. It urged election authorities to consider experience at each polling place when selecting an emergency stock.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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

Was the ten-percent figure a required exact count?

No. The opinion contrasted the old fixed-count language with the amended ceiling and said election officials had discretion over the number below that ceiling.

Could officials let voters leave because emergency ballots ran out?

The AG said qualified voters should not be turned away for lack of ballots and quoted the rule requiring managers to provide near-official substitute ballots without undue delay.

Did the AG provide a new minimum ballot number?

No. It said no absolute number could be given under the amended text, while emphasizing sufficient preparation based on past local experience.

Background and statutory framework

S.C. Code Ann.§ 7-13-430(A) distinguished precincts using voting machines from those that did not. For machine precincts, the amendment replaced a requirement for ballots equal to ten percent of registered voters with a maximum of ten percent. The opinion also quoted Section 7-13-430's separate response when official ballots were insufficient: managers had to supply ballots close in form to the official ballot, treated as official for election-law purposes.

Citations and references

  • S.C. Code Ann.§ 7-13-430(A): paper-ballot quantities at voting places.
  • Section 7-13-430: substitute ballots when official ballots are insufficient.

Official title

October 16, 2008 (1)

Requester

The Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter and the Honorable James E. Smith, Jr., Members, House of Representatives

Source

Original opinion text

H ENRY M CMASTER
ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

October 16, 2008

The Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
The Honorable James E. Smith, Jr.
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0 . Box 11867
Colmnbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Cobb-Hunter and Representative Smith:
In a letter to this office you requested an opinion regarding S.C. Code Ann.§ 7-13-430(A) which regulates the placement and number ofemergency paper ballots available in precincts utilizing voting machines. Such provision states:
[t]here must be provided for each voting place where voting machines are not used as many ballots as are equal to one hundred ten percent of the registered qualified voters at the voting place. There must be provided for each voting place where voting machines are used a number of ballots not to exceed ten percent of the registered qualified voters at the voting place. The authority responsible for conducting an election must provide to each poll manager the appropriate number of ballots according to the provisions of this section. Formerly, such provision stated that: (A) There must be provided for each voting place where voting machines are not used as many ballots as are equal to one hundred ten percent of the registered qualified voters at the voting place. There must be provided for each voting place where voting machines are used as many ballots as are equal to ten percent of the registered qualified voters at the voting place. The authority responsible for

REMBERT C . DENN IS B u1LDJNCi

•

PosT OFFICE Box 1!549

• Cowivm1A. SC 292JJ -1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 •

FAc~JMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter
The Honorable James E. Smith, Jr.
Page2
October 16, 2008

conducting an election must provide to each poll manager the appropriate number of ballots according to the provisions of this section. (emphasis added). Generally, when interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971 ). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). As is obvious, the recent amendment to subsection (A) deleted the requirement that in circumstances were voting machines are used, as many ballots as equal to ten percent of the voters at the polling place were to be available. Such provision now requires only that there must be provided at the polling place "a number of ballots not to exceed ten percent" of the qualified voters. As a result of the amendment, this office cannot provide an absolute number of emergency ballots that must be available at a particular polling place. The number of emergency ballots made available is within the discretion of election officials. We can only emphasize that caution is in order and a sufficient number of emergency ballots must be made available based upon experiences of past elections at a particular polling place. Such mandate is consistent with the requirement of subsection (B) of Section 7-13-430 which states that
[w]hen a sufficient number of official ballots are not available for all qualified electors present at the polling place to vote, the managers of election without undue delay shall provide ballots made as nearly as possible in the form of the official ballot to those electors for whom official ballots are unavailable, and for all purposes of the election laws of this State these ballots are the same as official ballots. A manager of election who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars. Therefore, election authorities must act wisely to make assurances that a sufficient number of emergency ballots are ready at the polling place as would be necessary in order to preserve the

The Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter
The Honorable James E. Smith, Jr.
Page3
October 16, 2008

integrity of the voting process. At no time should ballots not be available on election day and at no time should voters be turned away because of the excuse of unavailable ballots. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

d ., ("'/Vf. !Ii ,j; Jl.,___
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

I

Deputy Attorney General

Gz_.

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2008. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace