Latest: Witness signatures not required on absentee by mail ballots in 2020 election

COLUMBIA, SC (WOLO)– In the most recent development over whether witness signatures are required for absentee by mail ballots, a court ruling has determined that witness signatures are not required for the 2020 election.

Back on September 15, the South Carolina House of Representatives followed the Senate’s lead in passing a bill that allowed all South Carolina voters the chance to vote absentee for the general election. Governor Henry McMaster (R-SC) promptly signed that bill the next day.

However, even as thousands get ready to cast their ballots in the lead-up to the November 3 general election, one part of the election process still hangs in the balance: a witness signature requirement for absentee ballots.

“The witness signature is something that was created to prevent people from voting, especially for those people who don’t have the opportunity to have easy access to get the application to request it, and then find someone to sign it,” said Trav Robertson, the Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party (SCDP). 

Back on September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Michelle Childs ruled that the state should not require a witness signature if someone chooses to vote absentee.

After this ruling, several Republican lawmakers and the State Election Commission filed an appeal.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel with the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Childs’ ruling, siding with Republicans and the State Election Commission by requiring the signature. 

In response to this decision, South Carolina Republican Party (SCGOP) chairman Drew McKissick praised the decision by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying in part:

“We’ve fought hard for the witness requirement because it protects the integrity of our elections and so has the General Assembly. We’re pleased the Fourth Circuit rejected the Democrats’ latest effort to try to change the law through the courts and create voter confusion on the eve of a presidential election.”

However, just one day later, a majority of the judges on U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the previous decision, meaning the signature is not required for now.

Still, the State Election Commission says it’s the safest option to have a witness signature in case it becomes required again. 

ABC Columbia reached out to the SCGOP to comment on this new decision, but a spokesperson said they could not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

Hans von Spakovsky, who heads the Election Law Reform Initiative for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says having a witness signature is a good way to insure voter integrity.

He points to how voter fraud took place in a Congressional election in North Carolina, and how South Carolina’s electioneering laws (which prevent people from actively campaigning right before someone votes) do not go beyond 100 feet of a polling place.

“Unfortunately, electioneering laws don’t apply to your home, so if you’re going to vote at home, you’re more vulnerable to coercion and pressure by folks showing up at your front door trying to push you to vote a particular way,” von Spakovsky told ABC Columbia.

Robertson said he stays in contact with the party’s attorneys every day regarding updates on the decision, saying if a witness signature is put back in place, then it could disenfranchise thousands of voters.

“That’s the overarching goal is for every single person to the ability to vote  without fear of risking their lives,” Robertson said.

If South Carolina reinstates the witness signature requirement for the November election, then they would join eight other states in having this provision in place. The other states include Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

The State Election Commission says the case is ongoing and still subject to change.

Additional updates and information can be found at scvotes.gov.