Opinion ID: 1315029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges

Text: S.C. Code Ann. § 7-13-810 (Supp. 1990) which establishes the procedure for challenging votes, provides that any elector, watcher, or manager may challenge the vote of any person suspected of not being a qualified voter. Although this must be done before the person is handed the ballot or enters the voting machine, the statute further provides that votes may be challenged based on evidence discovered after the vote is cast. See Hill v. South Carolina Election Comm'n , ___ S.C. ___, 403 S.E. (2d) 309 (1991). Moreover, the Poll Manager's Handbook for Conduct of General Elections [2] sets out the procedure by which poll managers lodge a vote challenge based upon illegal assistance. Merrill complains that egregious vote-buying occurred at McClellanville 2 precinct; however, not a single challenge was made to any vote allegedly bought or sold. When asked why challenge was not made, the poll watcher testified if you challenged every ballot, every questionable ballot in McClellanville 2, the election would last a week. As to the charges of illegal voter assistance at Wadmalaw Island precinct, again no challenges were made. The poll manager testified she failed to follow the procedure for challenge because [w]e would have never voted everyone that day. It is noted that those responsible for making appropriate challenges at both precincts assign excessive time consumption as the reason for failing to do so. Nothing in the case law of this Court, in statutory law, or in the Poll Managers Handbook holds that a slowdown in the electoral process brings about a waiver of the requirement to challenge. To the contrary, the making of a challenge is essential to the preservation of an adequate record upon which appellate review can be had.