League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Andino

Ahead of the 2020 election, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, South Carolina expanded eligibility for absentee ballots. South Carolina law required voters to apply for an absentee ballot from their county’s board of voter registration and elections. When returning the ballot in a return-addressed envelope, the voter was required to sign under the Voter’s Oath and have a witness provide their signature and address. South Carolina gives its State Election Commission (“Commission”), through its executive director, controlling authority over county boards on the interpretation of state laws. The Commission decided that under state law, county boards were required to reject any unsigned ballots and were not mandated to provide voters an opportunity to correct this mistake. The Commission also declared that county boards could not reject timely mailed and properly signed absentee ballots through signature matching.

On October 2, 2020, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina (“LWV of South Carolina”), The Family Unit, and two individual plaintiffs sued Marci Andino in her official capacity as executive director of the Commission and its other members. The plaintiffs alleged that South Carolina was failing to provide absentee voters with notice and an opportunity to cure signature deficiencies before rejecting their ballots, and that some counties’ election officials were applying signature matching requirements without legal authority. The plaintiffs asserted these actions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On October 9, 2020, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop county boards from engaging in signature matching and to provide notice-and-cure procedures.

On October 20, 2020, Andino stated in a declaration that she was unaware of any county board conducting signature matching. The court ordered Andino to survey the county boards to verify this and determine if they had procedural safeguards for affected voters. In a further declaration, Andino then informed the court that at least nine counties were practicing signature matching with varying procedural safeguards. Andino issued a directive to all 46 county boards ordering them to cease signature matching. The court then issued a preliminary injunction forbidding county boards from using signature matching without notice-and-cure procedures absent court approval.

The defendants subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the injunction because the directive had already remedied the issue of signature matching.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court was not given time to consider the issue of mootness due to the directive’s timing, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court. Subsequently, on April 23, 2021, the parties agreed to dismiss the case. The League was represented in this matter by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of South Carolina, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP.