THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT 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 County Democratic Party, 

Dorchester County Board of Voter Registration & 

Elections, Dorchester County Democratic Party, SC 

Democratic Party, South Carolina Election Commission, 

Deon Tedder & Deon Tedder, LLC, Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2020-001232 

Appeal From Charleston County 

R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum 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 Voter Registration; James Todd 

Rutherford, of The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, of 
 

Columbia, 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 Respondent Deon Terrell Tedder. 

PER CURIAM: Appellant Jeffrey Wilder filed the present action seeking a 

declaratory judgment that Respondent Deon Tedder is not constitutionally 

qualified to serve as a candidate for office in South Carolina House District 109. 

Appellant is appealing the circuit court's order dismissing the case. We affirm. 

Appellant1

 originally filed an action challenging Tedder's qualifications as a 

registered voter in South Carolina House District 109, alleging Tedder was not a 

resident of the district. The Charleston 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 qualified voter under S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-230 

(2019 & Supp. 2019) (setting forth the authority and process by which a party may 

challenge an individual's voter qualifications). Both parties presented evidence on 

the issue of whether Tedder resided in House District 109. Tedder introduced into 

evidence an affidavit attesting to his residency, a recent pay stub, his current 

driver's license, and a copy of his residential 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 "domicile" for the purposes of 

South Carolina election law). On appeal, Circuit Court Judge 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) (setting forth factors a court 

may consider in determining a person's intention 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 court granted Appellant's 

motion to intervene. 
established by, among other things, the address on a voter's driver's license and 

legal and financial 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 judgment 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 Statement 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 Representatives 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 findings of fact and conclusions of law 

contained in Judge Dennis's order and dismissing the case. Judge Cothran further 

concluded the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Appellant from re-litigating the 

issue of Tedder's domicile because that issue 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 necessarily litigated and determined in a 

prior action). 

We affirm Judge Cothran's order dismissing 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, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.