Governor's Office For Atlantic Beach Election

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

THOMAS A. LIMEHOUSE, JR.


CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL

January 10, 2024 WM. GRAYSON LAMBERT


CHIEF DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL
SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL

VIA EMAIL ONLY


ERICA W. SHEDD
Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., Esquire DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL
Richardson Plowden & Robinson, P.A.
1900 Barnwell Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
jdickey@richardsonplowden.com

RE: November 7, 2023 Town of Atlantic Beach Municipal Election

Dear Mr. Dickey:

On behalf of the Office of the Governor (“Office”), thank you for your January 5, 2024
letter, in your capacity as counsel for the Town of Atlantic Beach (“Town”), requesting that
Governor McMaster take certain action in connection with the above-referenced matter. Please
allow this correspondence to serve as the Office’s response to your letter and the Town’s request.

Based on a review of your recent letter, the Town is requesting, with the consent of counsel
for the two mayoral candidates, that Governor McMaster direct the State Election Commission
(“SEC”) “to take over the administration of the November 7, 2023 Town of Atlantic Beach
Municipal Election proceedings,” based on “irregularities that have occurred leading up to the
November 7, 2023 Municipal Elections, and continuing to date.” According to your letter, “[t]hese
irregularities include, but are not limited to, allegations of voter fraud, alleged illegal and improper
conduct by a municipal election official, and various legal actions that are now pending before the
Supreme Court of South Carolina.” Your letter notes that “[a]ll of these issues have impacted the
perceived integrity of the election process and the Town only seeks to move forward ethically,
legally, and without reasonable doubt.” To that stated end, your letter submits that “it is the Town
and interested parties’ collective opinion that having the SEC intervene to administer the
certification of the November 7, 2023 Municipal Election and all subsequent proceedings related
to that election will provide assurance and confidence to the Town, the candidates, and the citizens
that election integrity will be maintained and that the Town of Atlantic Beach can continue to be
Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., Esquire
Page 2
January 10, 2024

committed to fair, honest, and legitimate operations moving forward.”

As an initial matter, the Town of Atlantic Beach’s complicated history with conducting
municipal elections is, unfortunately, well documented. See, e.g., Cole v. Town of Atl. Beach
Election Comm’n, 393 S.C. 264, 267 & n.1, 712 S.E.2d 440, 442 & n.1 (2011) (“This Court has
unfortunately become familiar with the Town of Atlantic Beach’s municipal elections, and the
disputes that inevitably accompany them.” (collecting cases)); Exec. Order No. 2012-03 (Mar. 16,
2012) (“These controversies have highlighted problems in the Town’s electoral process . . . .”).
The Town’s repeated inability to conduct such elections in compliance with South Carolina law is
equal parts embarrassing and inexcusable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the distinct reasons
detailed below, the Governor cannot direct the SEC to “take over the administration” of this
election or otherwise intervene in the ongoing election dispute at this time.

First, neither the South Carolina Constitution nor the South Carolina Code of Laws
authorizes the Governor to intervene in (or direct the SEC to assume control of) an uncertified
municipal election. Indeed, your recent letter does not suggest otherwise or cite any legal authority
to justify the stated request for gubernatorial action. The closest provision is section 7-13-1170 of
the South Carolina Code of Laws, but that section grants the Governor the authority to “order an
election or a new election to be held” only when: (1) “any election official of any political
subdivision of this State charged with ordering, providing for, or holding an election has neglected,
failed, or refused to order, provide for, or hold the election at the time appointed” or (2) “if for any
reason the election is declared void by competent authority.” S.C. Code Ann. § 7-13-1170. Only
in those specified circumstances, when such “facts are made to appear to the satisfaction of the
Governor, he shall, should the law not otherwise provide for this contingency, order an election or
a new election to be held.” Id.; see also Att’y Gen. Op., 2018 WL 5096184, at *5 (S.C.A.G. Oct.
4, 2018) (“With respect to Section 7-13-1170, . . . it must be determined whether there was
‘neglect’ or ‘refusal’ in failing to hold the election . . . or there must have been a declaration ‘for
any reason’ that any election was declared ‘void’ by ‘competent authority.’”); Att’y Gen. Op., 1979
WL 43260, at *2 (S.C.A.G. Oct. 16, 1979) (“Therefore, there has been no refusal or failure to hold
an election that would authorize the Governor to call an election pursuant to § 7-13-1170.”). Based
on the information provided to the Office, neither statutory prerequisite to gubernatorial action
applies with respect to the Town’s November 7, 2023 election. The Town held an election, and
no competent authority has declared it void. Absent additional information or subsequent
developments, for the Governor to direct the SEC to intervene at this stage would violate his
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of this State. See S.C. Const. art. IV, § 15.

Second, it is the Office’s understanding that one of the mayoral candidates recently filed a
petition for original jurisdiction and motion for emergency relief, which asked the South Carolina
Supreme Court to address the Town’s November 7, 2023 municipal election. See David v. Town
of Atl. Beach, No. 2023-001778 (S.C.). Although the South Carolina Supreme Court apparently
declined to exercise original jurisdiction and review this matter in the first instance—denying the
petition and motion in a brief order earlier today—one or more of the parties may file the same or
similar lawsuit in circuit court (if they haven’t already done so) or contest a future decision by the
Town’s municipal elections commission. See Rule 245(a), SCACR (“The Supreme Court will not
entertain matters in its original jurisdiction when the matter can be determined in a lower court in
Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., Esquire
Page 3
January 10, 2024

the first instance, without material prejudice to the rights of the parties.”). In view of the respect
due a coequal branch of government and the constitutionally mandated separation of powers, see
S.C. Const. art. I, § 8, the Governor will not usurp the Judicial Branch’s authority or interfere with
pending or anticipated proceedings involving an election dispute. Just as the Governor does not
have the authority to order a new election, the Governor does not have the authority to assume a
judicial role and effectively decide (or direct the SEC to assume control of) a contested matter that
is the subject of ongoing litigation.

I understand and appreciate your client’s apparent desire to resolve the outstanding issues
and lingering uncertainty associated with the Town of Atlantic Beach’s recent municipal election.
I trust you will understand, however, that the Office cannot accommodate your request for
Governor McMaster to end this embarrassing episode (and litigation related to the same) by
resorting to a procedure that is not authorized by state law. The Office will continue to monitor
any relevant judicial proceedings. If and when gubernatorial action is necessary and appropriate,
Governor McMaster will promptly consider the same. Regardless, going forward, absent the
General Assembly addressing this issue on a statewide level, the Town should transfer the
authority for conducting municipal elections to the Horry County Board of Voter Registration and
Elections pursuant to section 5-5-145 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. The residents of
Atlantic Beach should have confidence in the Town’s ability to conduct municipal elections, and
unfortunately, the Town has not been able to provide it.

Very truly yours,

Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr.


Chief Legal Counsel

cc: Mr. Howard Knapp, Executive Director


State Election Commission

Thomas Nicholson, Esquire, General Counsel


State Election Commission

Kenneth Davis, Esquire


Counsel for Mayoral Candidate Josephine Isom

Ian Duggan, Esquire


Counsel for Mayoral Candidate John David

You might also like