COLUMBIA — South Carolina’s senior citizen-friendly rules about mail-in voting unconstitutionally discriminate against voters under 65, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week, potentially forcing changes to the state law.
At issue are the requirements for who can vote absentee, which are different for older and younger voters in the state.
Generally, South Carolinians have to meet certain criteria to cast their ballot by mail, such as being disabled, caring for a sick person, having to work or being out of their county during the regular and early voting window.
But voters 65 years old and older don’t have to meet any of those requirements; state law says they can vote by mail regardless of their circumstances.
A group of younger Charleston residents sued the S.C. Election Commission over that discrepancy in 2023 arguing their limited access to mail-in voting violated the 26th Amendment, which in 1971 set the national voting age to 18 and barred any limitations on the right to vote “on account of age.”
A district court dismissed their argument, but a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit agreed with them on appeal, ruling Aug. 18 that the 65-and-older section of the law is unconstitutional.
“By granting voters aged sixty-five and older unconditional access to absentee-by-mail voting while conditioning that same option for younger voters on eligibility categories, documentation, and a rigid deadline, the state allocates voting opportunities unequally based solely on age,” U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the order.
The decision sends the case back to the district court, which Gregory said can determine how to fix the issue — either everyone gets no-exception absentee voting or nobody does, he wrote.
That step may not happen immediately, or at all, as the state can still appeal the panel’s ruling to the full 4th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s where some onlookers think the question will eventually end up, since other federal appeals courts previously have ruled the opposite way, such as a 5th Circuit decision from 2022 that found a similar Texas law to be constitutional.
