吃瓜大本营

The groups are challenging a state requirement that forces people who vote absentee to have a third-party witness signature on their ballot envelope, as well as an 鈥渆xcuse鈥� requirement that fails to provide an accommodation to allow all eligible voters to vote absentee during the pandemic.

Even if voters are allowed to vote absentee 鈥渂ecause of injury or illness鈥� that keeps them at home, election officials have rejected the view that this currently 鈥渋nclude[s] self-isolating due to a pandemic.鈥�

Requiring voters to be physically present at their traditional polling places during the COVID-19 outbreak 鈥� where they will be congregating and waiting in line with others in order to vote 鈥� is contrary to the advice of public health experts. In addition, in the midst of a pandemic, the witness requirement also puts people鈥檚 health at risk.

鈥淣o one should be forced to choose between their life and their vote. It is a false choice. South Carolina can simultaneously keep the public safe and protect democracy, but is refusing to do so. Removing these requirements in the middle of a pandemic is a common-sense solution that protects people鈥檚 health and their right to vote,鈥� said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, a staff attorney with the ACLU鈥�s Voting Rights Project.

The groups are asking the court to block the state from enforcing the requirements while COVID-19 transmission is occurring; issue guidance instructing local election officials to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing a witness signature for South Carolina鈥檚 primary and general elections in 2020; and conduct a public information campaign informing voters about the elimination of the witness and excuse requirements at this time.

The lawsuit, Thomas v. Andino, was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbia, S.C.