In November 2003, I announced my intention to run for Senator in SC District 30. My decision surrounds my desire to impact what is best for the people of Dillon, Florence, Marion, and Marlboro. I have campaigned for more, and better paying jobs, improved funding for education and healthcare, and the need for strong, new leadership in District 30.
I have invited you here today, to share my response to the SC Supreme Court actions filed by Mr. Williams and Ms. Glover. I have filed a response to their complaints and i want to share my response with the people of District 30 and the Pee Dee.
Let me review the facts with you:
When all the votes were counted on June 8th I was the winner over Kent Williams by 7 votes and would be the successful candidate to face Senator Glover in a run off that was to be held on June 22nd.
On June 10th, two days later, after 5 hours of discussion in all four counties, the results of June 8th were certified. Although the numbers had changed, I was still declared the winning candidate to face Glover. The results were sent to the state for certification. The state certified the results on Saturday, June 12th and declared the need for a re-count to be conducted "forthwith", or in layman terms "immediately." By statute the recount should have taken place immediately on Saturday June 12th, but was not completed until Monday, June 14th.
According to statute, a candidate has until noon on Monday, following the canvas (or counting) of the votes, to protest election results, provided that there is sufficient evidence, including the need to prove injury or harm, and provide evidence that the issues under protest would have likely changed the outcome of the election.
Contrary to the statute, the recount was not conducted "forthwith." Rather, the recount was delayed until Monday morning (June 14th). The results of the final canvas were not reported until after noon, Monday June 14th. In fact, it was not until after 3 p.m. that I was informed that the recount had produced a third set of numbers. Due to some 25 un-tabulated votes in Marion County, Mr. Williams was recognized as the leader by 7 votes, and declared the second candidate eligible to face Glover in the run off.
At this point, not only had the canvassing of the votes produced 3 different sets of numbers, in addition, Mr. Williams had filed a protest against the results of the election, swearing to his knowledge of, and I quote from Mr. Williams protest, some of his assertions:
"numerous irregularities, errors, problems, and illegalities that did effect the election’s results."
"numerous illegalities regarding the absentee ballot process."
"serious irregularities in the Marion County primary returns and vote tabulations."
Senator Glover as well, had made public comments about her concern regarding the fairness of the election.
With both camps concerned about the fairness of the election and having three different sets of canvas results regarding an extremely marginal victory, we began our thorough investigation to get to the bottom of what really happened on June 8th.
What we found was not acceptable for the people of District 30. Our evidence was overwhelming and included:
Many voters failing to sign the registered voter’s list;
Many times where the poll manager did not initial, or verify supervision of the person who had voted (the initial is the verification that the poll manager has verified the individuals right to vote);
The failure to require proper identification, led to the opportunity for felons, who were ineligible to vote, to cast their ballot freely;
Absentee ballots were secured fraudulently from the sick and the feeble, where ballots were never received by the applicant, or the ballot was completed by the sponsor, not the voter;
Incidents where an absentee ballot had been processed, yet the absentee voter was allowed to vote a second time at the polls;
Curbside ballots were not signed, supervised, and recorded correctly;
Poll managers failed to indicate whether the voter had voted in the democrat or the republican primary;
Many instances where the name was simply written in on the registered voter list, with no reference to proper id or verification of the individual’s right to vote.
In just the 48 hours that we had to investigate over 17,500 voter entries, we found 677 examples that clearly invalidated any faith in the fairness of this election result. I moved forward with these findings, and as is my right, I filed a protest with the SC Democrat Executive Committee. At the Hearing of the Democrat Executive Committee, I fought for, and was granted the opportunity for a new election that would serve the needs of all of the people in District 30, Dillon, Florence, Marion and Marlboro.
Now, because of the self serving actions taken by both of my opponents, I continue this fight for what is best for the Pee Dee.
Mr. Williams, on the other hand, continues to serve only his political aspirations. When he was behind after the first tally of the vote, he claimed that the election result was questionable. When he continued to be behind, after the Thursday certification, Williams filed a protest of the results claiming his personal knowledge of election wrong doing. After the final recount, when he realized that the new set of numbers had put him ahead by 6 votes, he had no more interest in a fair result and withdrew his protest. This flip-flop was a self serving choice to ignore his knowledge of the unfairness and perhaps fraudulent activity regarding this election in order to promote his personal goals. Again, and under oath, at the Norwood protest hearing, Mr. Williams swore to his knowledge of some of the very issues that I presented to the State Democratic Committee. Yet, to this day, Williams refuses to act responsibly regarding his knowledge and belief that many irregularities and illegalities caused the result of the June 8th Primary Election to be unreliable. He is concerned only with himself, for himself, and certainly not in the best interest of the people of District 30.
After we proved the case against the reliability and fairness of the election in front of the SC Democratic Executive Committee, and won an 18 – 3 decision, Mr. Williams and Ms. Glover continue to take legal steps all the way to the SC Supreme Court, to block the opportunity for a fair and reliable election result. Williams has flip-flopped back and forth regarding his knowledge about the failures regarding this election since the June 8th primary, for no other reason than to further his own political aspirations.
As for the SC Supreme Court actions filed by Williams and Glover, regarding the timeliness of my protest, my attorneys, with the advice of the SC Election Commission officials, and in agreement with the standards set by the SC Election Statutes, filed my protest in strict compliance with the statutory requirements.
Section 7-17-560 of the SC Election Statutes clearly states:
"any protest must be filed not later than noon on Monday following the canvassing of the votes"
Since I was not informed of the results of the final recount until after noon on Monday June 14th, by statute, I was allowed until the following Monday, June 21st to file in accordance with the statute. My attorneys filed on Wednesday, June 16th and the protest was heard by the democratic committee on Thursday, June 17th. For Mr. Williams and Ms. Glover to claim otherwise is both absurd and wasteful.
Their claimthat my protest was untimely was argued in front of the Democratic Committee by the attorneys for all three candidates before my protest was allowed to proceed. The Democratic Executive Committee voted; Mr. Williams and Ms. Glover lost this argument in a 20 – 1 decision. We are confident that the SC Supreme Court Justices will see the same absurdity regarding their claim.
If Williams and Glover are successful with their argument to the Supreme Court, the result would force every candidate, particularly primary candidates, to expend time, money, and other resources, researching, preparing, and filing protest documents simply as a protective measure in the event that a recount could change the outcome of an election.
Under these ridiculous circumstances, a candidate would simply have to guess at all the things that might be wrong with any election or might go wrong with any recount, including them in a speculative, protective protest, in spite of their knowledge that no actual, factual basis might exist for their speculative protest allegations.
One of the key components of a proper protest (according to the Statute) is the ability (of the protestant) to prove that the bid for office or opportunity to win the election had been harmed in some way (by factors outlined in the protest). While I was declared ahead of Williams in the election count, I had no grounds to file a protest, since I could prove no harm or injury as a result of the count totals. It was only after the count changed, that we could meet the burden of the Statute that requires that a protest can be filed only when injury or harm can be proven.
The final key to a valuable protest is the need to demonstrate that the result of the election would likely have been different had the protestant’s claims not been a factor in the result.
When my protest was filed, it was neither absurd, nor speculative. Its evidence was both factual and overwhelming. The Statute requires the protest to meet its burden regarding three key components:
It must be proved that the "wrong doing", either procedural or fraudulent, had caused a questionable result;
The "wrong doing" must cause harm or injury;
The "wrong doing" must have had the likelihood of changing the result of the Election.
The Norwood Election protest met the burden on all three counts. It alone has protected the people of District 30 from an unfair result, with the probability being high, that SLED will be investigating further and bringing any fraudulent activity to justice. It is my hope, that we now have an opportunity to move forward to clean up this lax, and very likely, fraudulent atmosphere, and begin to restore the people’s faith in one of our fundamental rights, that is, a right to fairly elect our governing representatives.
These are the things that I continue to fight for... a far better Pee Dee than the one that Senator Glover is leaving behind. These are the ideals that my opposition is willing to trade to further their own personal agenda.
As for Ms. Glover’s claims that she was not represented in the Norwood protest proceedings, this claim is also without foundation or factual basis. She has made repeated public claims that she was not informed of, or represented at the protest hearings. Our response is clear on this point. Ms. Glover’s attorney, Mr. Glenn Gray’s presence was recognized at the beginning of the protest hearing. He was given ample opportunity to argue on behalf of Ms. Glover; Gray openly took part in every argument that he chose to involve himself in regarding the statutes and their interpretation. Mr. Gray was afforded the opportunity to cross examine witnesses; he objected to evidence presented; he presented his closing argument. In addition, Mr. Gray argued for the appropriate relief based on his representation of Ms. Glover. At no time, throughout some 5 or 6 hours of litigation, did Mr. Gray enter any objection based on any consideration, on any basis, regarding the lack of service or lack of notice regarding Ms. Glover (his client). We believe Ms. Glover’s complaint to have no basis in law, or foundation in the truth and have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss her allegations.
Ms. Glover’s contention and statements regarding a conspiracy to disenfranchise the voters of District 30 is plainly a self serving attempt to delay and derail the opportunity for a new and reliable election. The apathy that has developed in the democratic process is only too evident when only 30% of our registered voters exercise their right and duty to vote on Election Day. My protest and the resulting new election will not have a disenfranchising effect, but rather, I believe that it will restore the people’s confidence in the process and renew their belief that every person’s vote counts.
Not only are we here to share our response to the litigation initiated simply as a flip-flopping, delaying, and derailing tactic of our opposition, we are here today, to recognize a new movement that is taking root all over the district. We have organized and initiated the Pee Dee Fighters... a grassroots organization of folks gathering from all over this district who have decided to join with the supporters that we have established in our campaign and further the fight for, not only fair and reliable elections, but to replace "the good ol’ boys and politics as usual" with strong new leadership providing better government, and a brighter future throughout District 30, in Dillon, Florence, Marion, and Marlboro and in the Pee Dee.
This is a fight that I am proud to lead on behalf of the good people that have joined with me. This is a fight that is important to the future of democracy in the Pee Dee. This is a fight that, together, we can win... It is a fight that we must win.
