Gecy v. Bagwell

Supreme Court of South Carolina
372 S.C. 237, 642 S.E.2d 569 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A vote cast in a precinct where the voter no longer resides is an illegal vote that must be invalidated. If the invalidation of such votes renders the outcome of an election doubtful, a new election must be held.

Facts:

Tammy Bagwell and Robert Gecy were candidates for a Ward IV seat on the Simpsonville City Council in an at-large election.
The initial certified result declared Gecy the winner with a vote tally of 480 to Bagwell's 427.
An investigation following the election revealed that at least two illegal votes had been cast and counted.
One illegal vote was cast by a person who had moved from her registered precinct to a different precinct within Simpsonville but voted in her old precinct.
Another illegal vote was cast by a person who voted in a precinct where his former business was located, not where he resided.
Both voters failed to update their voter registration information to reflect their new addresses before the election.

Procedural Posture:

Following a municipal election, the Simpsonville Election Commission certified Robert Gecy as the winner over Tammy Bagwell.
Bagwell filed a protest with the Commission, alleging illegal votes were cast.
The Commission found at least two illegal votes, invalidated the election results, and ordered a new election.
Gecy, as appellant, appealed the Commission's decision to the circuit court (a state trial court).
The circuit court overturned the Commission's decision and reinstated Gecy as the winner.
Bagwell, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's order to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a voter casting a ballot in a precinct where they are no longer a resident constitute an illegal vote that must be invalidated, thereby requiring a new election if its invalidation renders the original result doubtful?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A vote cast in a precinct where a voter is not a resident is illegal and must be rejected, and if this rejection makes the election's outcome doubtful, a new election is the proper remedy. The court reasoned that compliance with election statutes governing precinct-based voting is not a mere technicality but an essential element of the election process. The statutory scheme, which requires voters to be residents of the precincts in which they vote, is fundamental to the integrity of the election. Disregarding these statutes is more than a mere irregularity and requires the invalidation of the improperly cast votes. Since subtracting the two illegal votes from Gecy's total meant he no longer had a majority, the result of the election was rendered doubtful, necessitating a new election.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the fundamental importance of the precinct system in South Carolina's election law, even in at-large elections where all city residents vote for the same candidates. The court established that voting in the wrong precinct is not a minor, excusable error but a substantive violation that can void an election. This ruling empowers election challenges based on voter residency and places a strict obligation on voters to maintain accurate registration. It also clarifies that candidates do not have a due diligence requirement to discover such issues before an election, as the governing statute explicitly allows such challenges based on 'after-discovered evidence.'

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gecy v. Bagwell (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature