Skip to page content
Power & PoliticsUnited States edition
My Hub
Voting history · South Carolina

South Carolina

A dated list of changes to how Americans vote: district maps, polling places and drop boxes, voting laws and rules, and courts and election officials. Each entry says who did what and when, shows what became of it, and links to the page it rests on. Attempts that failed are listed as failed. Entries that rest on a news report name the outlet.

This is the state view: events recorded for South Carolina, then national events that apply here. See the national timeline.

Congressional districts in South Carolina

Choose a district to see the events tagged to it. A number after the district is how many events name it.

Kind of event
Decade

In South Carolina

1989

  1. Jul 18, 1989 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Beaufort County: Method of staggering terms (county council)

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated July 18, 1989, to Beaufort County. The list describes the change as "Method of staggering terms (county council)." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1988

  1. Sep 23, 1988 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Richland County: Provisions which require the resignation of full-time and part-time county employees running for office

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated September 23, 1988, to Richland County. The list describes the change as "Provisions which require the resignation of full-time and part-time county employees running for office." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1986

  1. Dec 29, 1986 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Bamberg County: Special primary election

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated December 29, 1986, to Bamberg County. The list describes the change as "Special primary election." The list links the objection letter.

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

  2. Feb 24, 1986 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a change in Batesburg (Lexington and Saluda Counties): Majority vote requirement

    The Justice Department's list of Section 5 objections for South Carolina records an objection letter dated February 24, 1986, to Batesburg (Lexington and Saluda Counties). The list describes the change as "Majority vote requirement." The list links the objection letter.

    Counties: Lexington County, Saluda County

    Source last checked Oct 24, 2026

1985

  1. Jun 28, 1985 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the candidate qualifying period for the March 1983 Hampton County school trustee special election

    In a letter of June 28, 1985, the Justice Department addressed the procedures for the March 15, 1983 special election for school district trustees for Hampton County School Districts 1 and 2, received April 29, 1985. It recounts that Act No. 549 (April 9, 1982) abolished the county board of education and provided for election of the two local boards, that the Attorney General objected on August 23, 1982 and withdrew the objection on November 19, 1982, and that the county then called a special election. The letter states that the restriction on candidacies "adversely affected the opportunity of black voters to elect candidates of their choice," that the county had given no compelling justification for failing to provide a new candidate qualifying period, and "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the holding of the special election under those conditions."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1984

  1. Sep 11, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to South Carolina's Act R522 on assistance to voters

    In a letter of September 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R522 (1984), which amends section 7-13-770 of the 1976 South Carolina Code to bring the state into compliance with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows a voter who needs assistance because of blindness, disability or inability to read or write to be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice other than the voter's employer or union agent. Under the Act, a voter could receive assistance from anyone chosen except that a manager selected by the chairman of the managers must accompany the voter and helper into the voting booth unless the helper is a family member. The letter states that the Department's view is that the provision "contravenes Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act" and "therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to Act No. R522 (1984)." A later letter in the same file, answering the state's request for reconsideration, said its analysis had "disclosed nothing which would warrant a change in our previous determination."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Sep 10, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the Newberry County Board of Education election and appointment acts

    In a letter of September 10, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R1400 (1966), which provides for a seven-member County Board of Education with three members appointed by the Governor and two elected from each of two double-member districts to four-year staggered terms, and Act No. R1008 (1972), which changed the method of election to four single-member or multi-member districts, with submissions received in 1972, 1983 and July 12, 1984. It notes that Newberry County was 31.6% black, that no black had ever been elected to the board, that the double-member districts in the 1968 districting plan were "severely malapportioned," and that the county had not provided the information requested in 1972. The letter concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the provisions of Acts Nos. R1400 (1966) and R1008 (1972)."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  3. Aug 31, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department declines to withdraw its Barnwell staggered-terms objection and objects to a majority-vote requirement

    In a letter of August 31, 1984, the Justice Department answered the city's request to reconsider its March 26, 1984 objection to Act No. 960, R117 (1966), which provides four-year staggered terms, and reviewed the city's initial submission of a majority vote requirement for mayor and aldermen, received July 2, 1984. It found "no basis for altering the conclusions that led to the initial Attorney General's decision" and so declined to withdraw the objection. On the majority vote requirement, it noted the city was 37.7 percent black with racially polarized voting and that the only legally enforceable method of election was at large with a plurality vote and concurrent terms, and stated "Implementation of the majority vote requirement, coupled with the at-large method of election and in the context of racial bloc voting, increases the likelihood of 'head-to-head' contests ... thus diminishing the opportunity that would otherwise exist for blacks to utilize single-shot voting," concluding "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the majority vote requirement."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  4. Aug 10, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the proposed special-election schedule for South Carolina's new Senate plan

    In a letter of August 10, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Senate Bill No. 1093, R626 (1984), which establishes a new Senate reapportionment plan and a proposed schedule for implementing it in special elections that year, received August 9, 1984. It says "The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the voting changes to be occasioned by the senate reapportionment plan embodied in Senate Bill No. 1093," but, as to the schedule for implementing the plan, "although I am compelled to enter this objection, we are willing to assist the State in its efforts to devise an alternate schedule which meets the requirements of federal law." It suggested qualifying August 14 through 28, a first primary on October 9 and a second on October 16, with the general election on November 6, and said that about sixty days before the first primary was the minimum time for a racially fair primary election.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  5. Jun 11, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the at-large, residency-district council elections in Edgefield County under Act 1104

    In a letter of June 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 1104, R1357 (1966), which provides for a three-member county council elected at large from residency districts by plurality vote for two-year nonstaggered terms in Edgefield County, received April 11, 1984. It recalls its February 8, 1979 objection to implementing home rule in the context of the at-large election system, and states "Under these principles and in view of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of the provisions of Act No. 1104 (1966)."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  6. Jun 11, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms and a majority-vote requirement for the Elloree council

    In a letter of June 11, 1984, the Justice Department addressed an April 5, 1984 referendum election, four-year staggered terms for councilmembers, four-year terms for the mayor, and a majority vote requirement for councilmembers and water commissioners in the Town of Elloree, Orangeburg County, completed April 10, 1984. It interposed no objection to the referendum or the four-year term for mayor. It notes blacks were 34.43 percent of the town's population and that "in the context of the racial bloc voting patterns that seem to exist in Elloree, a change from concurrent elections by a simple plurality to staggered terms and a majority vote requirement adversely affect the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice," and states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the change to staggered terms for councilmembers and a majority vote requirement for election to the town council and water commission."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  7. Apr 27, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to further staggered terms for the Lancaster County school boards in Act R282

    In a letter of April 27, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R282 (1984) on the method of selecting the county board of education and electing members to the four area boards of trustees in Lancaster County, submitted February 27, 1984. It recalls objections to staggered terms of July 30, 1974 and August 26, 1983, so that "the use of staggered terms in trustee elections has been legally unenforceable throughout this period," and says "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to any further use of staggered terms as provided for in Act No. R282 (1984)." It asked the state to report within fifteen days what course Lancaster County planned to take.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  8. Mar 26, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to four-year staggered terms for the Barnwell mayor and aldermen

    In a letter of March 26, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act No. 960, R1117 (1966), which provides four-year staggered terms for the mayor and six aldermen of Barnwell, with an initial submission received August 11, 1983. It notes the city was 37.7 percent black, that aldermen are elected at large, and that "although black candidates have run for the position as alderman in seven of the last nine elections, none has ever been elected." It states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of Act No. 960." The letter also notes the city appeared to be implementing a majority-vote feature that had not been submitted for Section 5 preclearance.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  9. Mar 26, 1984 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to four-year staggered terms for the Jefferson town council

    In a letter of March 26, 1984, the Justice Department addressed the increase in the length of terms for the mayor and councilmembers of the Town of Jefferson, Chesterfield County, from two to four years and the adoption of staggered terms for councilmembers, completed January 27, 1984. It notes that the one black candidate who had been elected to the council came third of eleven in 1976, fourth of seven in 1980 and third of eight in 1982, and that under staggered terms "only the candidates who place first or second will be elected; this likely would eliminate the black representation that has existed." The letter concludes "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the implementation of Ordinance No. 8 (1983), which provides that councilmembers be elected to four-year, staggered terms."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  10. Mar 20, 1984 State Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to the 1984 State Senate primary schedule in Act R321

    In a letter of March 20, 1984, the Justice Department addressed Act R321, the schedule for the 1984 primary elections for the South Carolina Senate, submitted March 13, 1984. Under the resolution the state would begin implementing a reapportionment plan (Act 257), then the subject of a Section 5 declaratory judgment action, State of South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. No. 83-3626); candidates would qualify under the proposed plan from March 16 through March 30, 1984, and the primary would move from June 12 to July 24, 1984. The letter states "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose a Section 5 objection to the election schedule established by R321," adding that "we stand ready to review promptly a schedule for the conduct of elections as soon as a plan is precleared."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

1983

  1. Aug 26, 1983 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to staggered terms for the Lancaster County board of education and area trustees

    In a letter of August 26, 1983, the Justice Department addressed the method of electing members of the Lancaster County board of education and the area boards of trustees (Act No. R700 of 1976), along with Act Nos. R304 (1977), R767 (1978) and R528 (1982), received complete June 27, 1983. The Attorney General interposed no objection to Acts R304, R528 and R767, but states "I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the use of staggered terms, which is provided for in Act No. R700 (1976)." It notes the Department had analyzed similar changes in 1974.

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Jan 12, 1983 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to shrinking the Richland County Council

    In a letter of January 12, 1983, the Justice Department addressed a proposed change in the number of Richland County Council members from eleven to seven, scheduled for a referendum on January 18, 1983. The letter states that "on behalf of the Attorney General" the writer was interposing an objection to the proposed change.

    Source last checked Oct 20, 2026

1982

  1. Dec 27, 1982 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to a majority-vote requirement in contested elections in Lancaster

    In a letter of December 27, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Lancaster Ordinance No. 1-74 (filing fees and staggered terms), Ordinance No. 76-15 (a Municipal Election Commission, candidate qualification procedures and a majority vote requirement in judicially contested elections) and Ordinance No. 82-14, completed October 25, 1982. The Attorney General did not object to the changes "except for the use of a majority vote requirement in contested elections." It recalls the September 19, 1978 objection to majority vote requirements in Lancaster elections and says "the bases for the objection ... would appear to be applicable," concluding "on behalf of the Attorney General I must object to the majority vote provision described in Ordinance No. 76-15."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

  2. Aug 23, 1982 County Laws and rules Blocked by federal objection

    Justice Department objects under Section 5 to ending the Hampton County board of education; objection later withdrawn

    In a letter of August 23, 1982, the Justice Department addressed Act No. R398 (1982), which abolishes the county board of education and superintendent of education and changes the method of selecting the boards of education for Districts 1 and 2 from appointive to elective in Hampton County, received June 22, 1982. It found that the change for the District 1 and 2 boards had neither the purpose nor effect of discriminating, but said the county board "has been particularly responsive to the interests and needs of the black community" in a county that is 52 percent black, and concluded "on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to Act No. R398 (1982)." A later letter in the same file, pursuant to the reconsideration guidelines, stated that the objection to the changes affecting voting in Act No. R398 "is hereby withdrawn."

    Source last checked Oct 21, 2026

Nationwide

1986

  1. Aug 28, 1986 National Laws and rules Enacted

    Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act becomes law

    Public Law 99-410, dated August 28, 1986, may be cited as the "Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act." Its subject is voting in federal elections by members of the uniformed services and by citizens living overseas.

    Related: Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act becomes law

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

1982

  1. Jun 29, 1982 National Laws and rules Enacted

    Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 become law

    Public Law 97-205, dated June 29, 1982, rewrote Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to bar any practice "imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." It also provided that a section 4 provision expires "at the end of the twenty-five-year period following the effective date" of the 1982 amendments.

    Related: Voting Rights Act reauthorized and amended in 2006 · Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles · Supreme Court decides City of Mobile v. Bolden · Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais

    Source last checked Oct 29, 2026

How this timeline is built

Every entry rests on at least one source that was opened and read, and that source states the date and the fact. Courts, legislatures, election offices, the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, the Federal Register and Congress.gov come first. A news report is used only when no official page states the fact, and it is labeled with the outlet's name. Encyclopedias are not used as sources. History starts in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. County names come from the Census Bureau's 2024 Gazetteer. Congressional district numbers are those in use for the 2026 election; an event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district.

When a later event changes an earlier one, such as a law later struck down, both entries are listed and point to each other. This page does not predict outcomes or say which party a change helps. U.S. House maps for 2026 · How people voted in past elections, by county · Back to the 2026 voting center.