Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
Feb. 4
The Post and Courier on the voting process during the Iowa Democratic caucuses:
Contrary to the impression you’ve gotten if your life revolves around social media and cable “news,” the world did not come to an end because the results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed.
But the delay did provide some valuable reminders to us here in South Carolina, and to people across the country who are grappling with how (or whether) to bring voting into the instant-gratification-smartphone era.
First and most obviously, delayed results give critics (and who isn’t a critic these days?) an easy opening to trash the state where the delay occurred - and ammunition to argue that the state doesn’t deserve any special status.
That’s certainly a concern to partisans in South Carolina, whose first-in-the-South presidential primaries are always under attack from other states. And this year, we’re particularly vulnerable, because we face the chance of a delay in our own results in the Feb. 29 Democratic primary. (There’s less risk for Republicans because they decided to forgo a GOP presidential primary this year.)
The problem isn’t that this will be the first large test of South Carolina’s new paper-based voting system; municipal elections in November went off well. The problem is that a state law written for electronic voting machines means it’ll take a long time to count the new paper absentee ballots. If there’s heavy absentee voting like in previous elections, we might not know who won until the next day.
S.867 would fix that problem, by allowing election officials to remove absentee ballots from sealed envelopes beginning the morning before voting, so it’ll be a quick matter of feeding them into counting machines on primary day. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill a week ago, but it still has to clear the full Senate, and a House subcommittee, and full committee, and the full House. In the 11 legislative days before Feb. 29.
That’s something that needs to happen. There are reasons to question whether Iowa, New Hampshire and, yes, even South Carolina deserve their early voting status. But if we lose that status, it should be based on considerations about the fairest and most effective way to conduct the primaries, not because of a completely avoidable, self-inflicted wound.
The Iowa delay - dubbed by at least one publication - also reminded us of how dangerous it is to assume that new technology is always an improvement. It appears that there were several problems in Iowa, but many of them involved a new mobile app that Iowa Democrats selected in an effort to make it quicker and easier (and, no doubt, more “modern”) to report caucus results. Oops.
Maybe it was simply a coding issue. Maybe the program was poorly designed. Maybe the problem was that caucus leaders didn’t follow instructions to download and practice on the program in advance. Whatever the cause, the program didn’t work like it was supposed to - which means it clearly wasn’t vetted and tested like it should have been.
It’s unlikely that something like this would happen in South Carolina because we don’t allow political parties to run the presidential primary elections. The poor judgment shown by Iowa Democrats just adds to the mountain of reasons our Legislature was right a dozen years ago to stop relying on the parties and turn the presidential primaries over to the State Election Commission.
Now, lawmakers just need to give the Election Commission the legal authority it needs to count the votes in a timely manner.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/
___
Jan. 30
The Index-Journal on curbside alcohol delivery services:
Pumping the brakes is understandable when discussing legislation that would take beer and wine to drivers - especially in South Carolina, which The Zebra reports has the third highest number of drunken driving fatalities per capita in the country.
State lawmakers are contemplating how to do just that without increasing the risk to the public.
As stores are offering services that allow customers to order groceries online and pick up those goods curbside, legislators have to weigh whether to allow alcohol to be sold that way, too.
The current bill would not allow something akin to a brew-thru, which has attendants handing drivers their favorite chilled intoxicant. Instead, employees trained to spot intoxicated drivers would cart out any beer or wine - which would come out room temperature - and stores found to be lax would see their license to sell such beverages revoked.
This bill tries to balance the changing behavior of consumers with the public’s safety. And we understand there are benefits to allowing curbside pickup, with retailers potentially adding sales and residents who might have difficulty going into a store finding an easier time making such transactions.
Still, we hope lawmakers will take a sober look at what such a law could do. If South Carolina goes this route, we need to have safeguards to ensure we aren’t adding or enabling dangerous drivers and measures to hold errant sellers accountable. Our crumbling roads seem unsafe enough without passing laws to aid and abet drunken driving.
Before the Judiciary Committee passed the measure so the full state Senate can weigh the bill, state Sen. Dick Harpootlian told his fellow lawmakers: “This idea that somehow there’s going to be enforcement is fantasy.” That stark observation should give us all pause.
Online: http://www.indexjournal.com/
___
Jan. 29
The Times and Democrat on voter registration by party:
The issue usually gets more focus ahead of primaries for state and local offices, but it’s on the table again as South Carolina counts down to the Democratic presidential primary on Feb. 29.
South Carolina does not have voter registration by party. That means a voter can choose whether to cast a ballot in either the GOP or Democratic primary — one but not both on a particular day.
The rub in this presidential race is that Republican leadership in the state, solidly behind President Donald Trump, has decided not to conduct a presidential primary in 2020. That leaves the hotly contested Democratic primary race as the only game in town.
And no one can predict just how many people planning to vote for Trump in November are going to decide to participate in the Democratic primary. While candidates are spending much of their time courting traditional Democratic constituencies, as well as independents, those calling themselves Republicans are a wild card.
They could play a role in deciding who wins the Democratic race here if significant numbers decide to participate. They could be sincere in voting for the candidate they deem the best Democrat or they could be up to so-called political mischief by trying to help a candidate they believe is the easiest for Trump to defeat in November.
There is no electoral downside to anyone participating on Feb. 29 as voting that day does not bind you to a party or primary when June and state and local primaries come around.
Before labeling the system a bad one, consider that the state Republican Party wants to take away the choice on primary day. The GOP wants voter registration by party, meaning a voter could cast ballots only in the party he or she chooses when registering. Democrats have not pushed such but don’t think they wouldn’t consider the same if their political position in the state were stronger.
Though some would advocate further opening the primary process by allowing people to choose individual races in both primaries on any given day, such would in effect make the primary day a general election.
We find unappealing either party trying to force a person to decide at registration whether he or she is a Democrat or Republican. A voter’s independence is something to be cherished, even encouraged. Giving voters the option of choosing a party primary should remain, no matter their motive for voting.
Online: https://thetandd.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.