THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Jeffery Wilder, Appellant,

v.

Charleston County Board of Voter Registration & Elections, Charleston Count y Democratic Party, Dorchester County Board of Voter Registration & Elections, Dorchester Count y Democratic Party, SC Democratic Party, South Carolina Election Commission, Deon Tedder & Deon Tedde r, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001232

Appeal From Charleston County R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Mem orandum Opinion No. 2020-MO-012 Submitted October 29, 2020 – Filed November 2, 2020

AFFIRMED

Tiffany R. Spann-Wilder, of Spann Wilder Law, LLC, of North Charleston, for Appellant.

Samuel W. Howell, IV, of Howell Linkous & Nettles, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent Charleston County Board of Elections and Vote r Registration; James Todd Rutherford, of The Ruthe rford Law Firm, LLC, ofColumbia, for Respondent Deon Terrell Tedder; Colleen T. Condon, of Condon Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, for Respondent South Carolina Democratic Party and Respondent Charleston & Dorchester County Democratic Parties; Harrison D. Brant, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Election Commission; Mark Andrew Peper, Sr., of The Peper Law Firm, P.A., of Charleston, for Responde nt Deon Terrell Tedder.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Jeffrey Wilder file d the present action seeking a declaratory judgment that Respondent Deon Tedder is not constitutionally qualified to serve as a candidate for offi ce in South Carolina House District 109. Appellant is appealing the circuit court' s order dismissing the case. We affirm.

Appellant 1 originally filed an action challe nging Tedder's qualifications as a registered voter in South Carolina Hous e District 109, alleging Tedder was not a resident of the district. The Charle ston County Board of Voter Registration & Elections (the Board) held a hearing and found Tedder was not a resident of House District 109, and, therefore, not a qualif ied voter under S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-230 (2019 & Supp. 2019) (setting forth the aut hority and process by which a party may challenge an individual's voter qualificati ons). Both parties presented evidence on the issue of whether Tedder resided in Hous e District 109. Tedder introduced into evidence an affidavit attesting to his re sidency, a recent pa y stub, his current driver's license, and a copy of his reside ntial sublease. The Board found Tedder's purported residence in the district did not meet the basic definition of "domicile" under S.C. Code Ann. § 7- 1-25 (2019) (defining "dom icile" for the purposes of South Carolina election law). On app eal, Circuit Court Ju dge Markley Dennis reversed the Board and found Tedder was a qualified voter in House District 109. Judge Dennis based his ruling on evidence in the record showing Tedder resided in the district. Judge Dennis found Tedder resided in House District 109 pursuant to factors outlined in S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-25(D) (2019) (s etting forth factors a court may consider in determining a person's inte ntion regarding his or her domicile for the purposes of South Carolina election law, and providing domicile may be

1 Tiffany Spann-Wilder filed the initial action challenging Tedder's qualifications as a registered voter in House District 109, and the circuit cour t granted Appellant's motion to intervene.established by, among other things, the a ddress on a voter's driver's license and legal and financia l documents).

Appellant appealed Judge Dennis's order, and we dismissed the appeal on the ground that Appellant lacked standing to appeal from an order of the Board pursuant to section 7-5-230, which allows only the voter to appeal. Tedder v. Bd. of Voter Registration & Elections for Charleston Cty. , S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Oct. 9, 2020.

Appellant filed the present declaratory ju dgment action asking the circuit court to declare Tedder was not a properly qualified candidate to run for office in House District 109 at the time he filed his St atement of Intention of Candidacy (SIC) because he was not a legal resident of the district at the time of filing as required by article III, section 7 of the South Carolina Constitution ("A candidate for the Senate or House of Representa tives must be a legal resident of the district in which he is a candidate at the time he files for the office."). Tedder filed a motion to dismiss.

Following a hearing on Tedder's motion to dismiss, Circuit Court Judge Ferrell Cothran issued an order adopting the find ings of fact and conclusions of law contained in Judge Dennis's order and dismissing the case. Judge Cothran further concluded the doctrine of co llateral estoppel barred Appe llant from re-litigating the issue of Tedder's domicile because that i ssue was litigated before Judge Dennis. See Shelton v. Oscar Mayer Food Corp. , 325 S.C. 248, 251, 481 S.E.2d 706, 707(1997) (holding collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was actually and ne cessarily litigated and determined in a prior action).

We affirm Judge Cothran's order dismi ssing the case. Evidence in the record supports the lower courts' determination that Tedder resided in House District 109 at the time he filed his SIC. See Gantt v. Selph , 423 S.C. 333, 341– 42, 814 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2018) (adopting the "any evidence" standard of review to analyze the factual and legal basis for a circuit court's ruling in a declaratory judgment action challenging the residency of a candidate for office); see also S.C. Const. art. III, § 7.

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEAR N, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.