We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
|1868||107,538||Ulysses Gran||62,301||57.9||Horatio Seymour||45,237||42.1|
|1872||95,452||Ulysses Gran||72,290||75.7||Horace Greeley||22,699||23.8|
|1876||182,683||Rutherford H||91,786||50.2||Samuel Tilden||90,697||49.8|
|1880||169,793||James Garfie||57,954||34.1||Winfield Scott||111,236||65.5|
|1884||92,812||Grover Cleve||69,845||75.3||James Blaine||21,730||23.4|
|1888||79,997||Benjamin Ha||13,736||17.2||Grover Cleveland||65,824||82.3|
|1892||70,504||Grover Cleve||54,680||77.6||Benjamin Harrison||13,345||18.9|
|1896||68,938||William McKi||9,313||13.5||William Bryant||58,801||85.3|
|1900||50,698||William McKi||3,525||7||William Bryant||47,173||93|
|1904||55,890||Theo. Roose||2,570||4.6||Alton Parker||53,320||95.4|
|1908||66,379||William Taft||3,945||5.9||William Bryant||62,288||93.8|
|1912||50,403||Woodrow W||48,355||95.9||Theo. Roosevelt||1,293||2.6|
|1916||63,950||Woodrow W||61,845||96.7||Charles Hughes||1,550||2.4|
|1920||66,808||Warren Hard||2,610||3.9||James Cox||64,170||96.1|
|1924||50,755||Calvin Coolid||1,123||2.2||John Davis||49,008||96.6|
|1928||68,605||Herbert Hoo||5,858||8.5||Alfred Smith||62,700||91.4|
|1932||104,407||Franklin Roo||102,347||98||Herbert Hoover||1978||1.9|
|1936||115,437||Franklin Roo||113,791||98.6||Alfred Landon||1,646||1.4|
|1940||99,830||Franklin Roo||95,470||95.6||Wendell Will||4,360||4.4|
|1944||103,382||Franklin Roo||90,601||87.6||Thomas Dewey||4,617||4.5|
|1948||142,571||Harry Truma||34,423||24.1||Thomas Dewey||5,386||3.8|
|1952||341,087||Dwight Eisen||168,082||49.3||Adlai Stevenson||173,004||50.7|
|1956||300,583||Dwight Eisen||75,700||25.2||Adlai Stevenson||136,372||45.4|
|1960||386,688||John F Kenn||198,129||51.2||Richard Nixon||188,558||48.8|
|1964||524,779||Lyndon John||215,723||41.1||Barry Goldwater||309,048||58.9|
|1968||666,978||Richard Nixo||254,062||38.1||Hubert Humphrey||197,486||29.6|
|1972||673,960||Richard Nixo||477,044||70.8||George McGovern||186,824||27.7|
|1976||802,583||Jimmy Carter||450,807||56.2||Gerald Ford||346,149||43.1|
|1980||894,071||Ronald Reag||441,841||49.4||Jimmy Carter||430,385||48.1|
|1984||968,529||Ronald Reag||615,539||63.6||Walter Mondale||344,459||35.6|
|1988||986,009||George Bush||606,443||61.5||Michael Dukais||370,554||37.6|
|1992||1,202,527||Bill Clinton||479,514||39.9||George Bush||577,507||48|
|1996||1,123,145||William Clint||495,458||44.11||Bob Dole||564,387||50.25%|
|2000||1,382,717||George W B||785,987||56.8||Al Gore||565,561||40.9|
|2004||1,617,730||George W B||937,974||58||John Kerry||661,699||40.9|
|2008||1,909,681||Barack Oba||862,449||45.2%||John McCain||1,034,896||54.2%|
Voting in South Carolina
Voting policies are enacted and enforced primarily at the state level. These policies, which include voter identification requirements, early voting provisions, online voter registration systems, and more, dictate the conditions under which American citizens cast their ballots in their individual states.
This page includes the following:
- , including methods of registering and requirements , including identification requirements, poll times, and primary election type rules Ώ] rules report list list list
History of the South Carolina Presidential Preference Primaries
As the South Carolina primary approaches, we’re taking a step back from our typical election blog fare (i.e., the legal mumbo jumbo) and looking at the practicalities of the South Carolina presidential primaries. Today, we’ll start with the basics.
South Carolina Presidential Preference Primaries South Carolina law permits the Republican and Democratic parties to hold presidential preference primaries. The South Carolina Election Commission “conduct[s] the presidential preference primary” and “a registered voter may cast a ballot in only one presidential preference primary.” Each party sets the date and filing requirements associated with the primary, including a certification fee. Each party is required to certify that each candidate meets “the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules.” Each political party must pay a filing fee, not to exceed twenty thousand dollars (paid by the candidate), to the State Election Commission to be used for conducting the presidential preference primary.
History of the GOP Presidential Preference Primary The South Carolina primary commenced in 1980, the result of the SC Republican Party’s efforts to increase its importance in the nomination process. At that time, South Carolina was swinging from a “Democratic state” to a “Republican state” and the party leaders sought to enhance its grassroots effort by hosting the so-called “First in the South” primary.
Typically, the South Carolina primary comes after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Both of these states represent a small glimpse of the Republican Party, whereas the State of South Carolina generally provides a more cumulative and balanced electorate. The primary usually has been held on Saturday to make it easier for people to vote.
The South Carolina Republican primary historically has been an accurate predictor of the Republican nominee for president. Since its inception, the winner of the SC Republican primary has gone on to become the Republican nominee for president every time except in 2012 (sorry, Newt). Therefore, Republican candidates for years have made South Carolina “their home” in the months leading up to the primary election. Candidates hold numerous rallies, both large and intimate, which provide voters many opportunities to interact with the candidates. Also, given its significance in choosing the Republican nominee, it isn’t unusual for campaigns to turn personal and for supporters to crank up their efforts to attack opposing candidates. For example, in 2000, a made-up telephone survey falsely intimated a white candidate had fathered an African-American child out of wedlock. And in the 2008 election cycle, campaign materials suggested a candidate who was Mormon endorsed polygamy.
What’s at stake? The contest is for 50 delegates. These delegates are selected by the most votes garnered in the Congressional districts, at-large delegates, and the Republican Party leadership.
History of the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary The South Carolina Democratic Party has had a long history of elections and caucuses. South Carolina generally was a “Democratic state” until the early 1980’s. At that time, the number of voters in the Democratic primary became less than those of the Republican primary.
In recent presidential elections, the South Carolina Democratic primary has become pivotal. The South Carolina Democratic primary generally has been held early in the primary circuit. Iowa and New Hampshire, states that have primaries before South Carolina, do not have diversity among their voters that is representative of the national Democratic Party. However, South Carolina does. Having an electorate more like the national Democratic Party, the South Carolina primary has taken on major significance in electing the Democratic nominee for President.
What’s at stake in the Democratic primary? Candidates will be chasing 53 delegates based on votes and 6 unpledged (“Super-Delegates”).
Clyburn offers Manchin history lesson to clear Senate path for Biden reforms
Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, said on Sunday he intends to give Joe Manchin a lesson in US history as he attempts to clear a path for Joe Biden on voting rights and infrastructure.
Manchin, a moderate Democratic senator from West Virginia, has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president’s ambitious proposals by insisting he will not vote to reform or end the Senate filibuster, which demands a super-majority for legislation to pass, to allow key measures passage through the 50-50 chamber on a simple majority basis.
His stance has drawn praise from Republicans: Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, hailed Manchin as the politician “almost single-handedly preserving the Senate”.
But Democrats appear to be losing patience – and none more vociferously than Clyburn.
“I’m going to remind the senator exactly why the Senate came into being,” Clyburn, from South Carolina, told CNN’s State of the Union, refreshing criticism of Manchin that has included saying he feels “insulted” by his refusal to fully embrace voting rights reform.
“The Senate was not always an elective office. The moment we changed and made it an elective office [was because] the people thought a change needed to be made.
“The same thing goes for the filibuster. The filibuster was put in place to extend debate and give time to bring people around to a point of view. The filibuster was never put in place to suppress voters … It was there to make sure that minorities in this country have constitutional rights and not be denied.”
Clyburn has assailed Manchin for promoting a bipartisan approach to voting rights and refusing to endorse the For the People Act, a measure passed by the US House and intended to counter restrictive voting laws targeting minorities proposed by Republicans in 47 states and passed in Georgia last month.
“You’re going to say it’s more important for you to protect 50 Republicans in the Senate than for you to protect your fellow Democrat’s seat in Georgia? That’s a bunch of crap,” Clyburn told Huffpost this month, referring to Senator Raphael Warnock’s 2022 re-election battle that supporters feel has become much harder due to the new voting laws.
On Sunday Clyburn also reached into history to repeat his contention that the Georgia law is “the new Jim Crow”, a claim repeated by Biden but which Republicans say is unfair.
“When we first started determining who was eligible to vote and who was not,” Clyburn said, “they were property owners. They knew that people of colour, people coming out of slavery did not own property.
“… And then they went from that to having disqualifiers. And they picked those offences that were more apt to be committed by people of colour to disqualify voters.
“The whole history in the south of putting together those who are eligible to vote is based upon the practices and the experiences of people based upon their race. So, I would say to anybody, ‘Come on, just look at the history … and you will know that what is taking place today is a new Jim Crow. It’s just that simple.”
Senator Joe Manchin removes his mask to speak. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Despite the urging of Clyburn and others, Manchin remains steadfast in his belief bipartisanship is Biden’s best path to implementing his agenda. In a CNN interview last week, the senator said the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol “changed me”, and said he wanted to use his power as a swing vote in the 50-50 Senate “to make a difference” by working with Republicans and Democrats.
“Something told me, ‘Wait a minute. Pause. Hit the pause button.’ Something’s wrong. You can’t have this many people split to where they want to go to war with each other,” he said, of watching a riot mounted by supporters of Donald Trump seeking to overturn his election defeat on the grounds it was caused by voter fraud – a lie without legal standing.
Manchin said he had a good relationship with the White House and wanted to meet Warnock and Georgia’s other Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff, to discuss voting rights.
The Voting Rights Act required states to make adjustments to their voting and registration systems if the state employed a literacy test and if the voter turnout or registration was less than fifty percent by November 1, 1964. [ citation needed ] This was known as the preclearance requirement and affected mostly southern states, making them seek approval from the U.S. District Court for any changes to their voter registration and voting system.
In South Carolina, the state attorney general, Daniel R. McLeod filed a complaint directly with the Supreme Court attacking the constitutionality of the act and asking for an injunction against enforcement by the attorney general of the United States, Nicholas Katzenbach. McLeod challenged the Voting Rights Act as an unconstitutional encroachment on states’ rights, as a violation of equality between the states, and as an illegal bill of attainder which is legislative punishment enforced without due process of law. 
South Carolina was joined on its attack on the Voting Rights Act by other southern states. Meanwhile, the twenty states that filed in support of the act's provisions and powers mainly consisted of northern and western states. While other states did not file suit, many southern states supported South Carolina's actions.  The case took on an even wider significance than normal state challenges to a new federal law because it dealt with both state sovereignty and the power of the legislative branch. 
The decision represents a rare instance of the Supreme Court exercising its right of original jurisdiction, as the case was filed directly in the Supreme Court by the state of South Carolina, rather than being appealed from a lower court. The court intentionally heard the case prior to June of 1966 so their decision would be in effect for South Carolina's primary elections that year.
In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the Voting Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power under the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Warren cited the enforcement clause of the 15th Amendment which gave Congress full powers to stop discrimination in regards to voting. He also stated that the Voting Rights Act was necessary to remedy the evil of racism.  Additionally, the historical record showed that the 15th Amendment was not strong enough on its own since voter discrimination had continued despite the amendment.  The Voting Rights Act provided sterner and more enforceable measures to ensure equal voting opportunities to all citizens. 
The only dissent in the ruling came from Justice Hugo L. Black who opposed the legislation because he felt it exceeded the textual reach of the constitution. In his dissent, he explained, “There is no reason to read into the Constitution meanings it did not have when it was adopted and which have not been put into place.”  While he would have sustained most of the law, he would have struck down the Section 5 preclearance provisions.
Section 5, by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless. One of the most basic premises upon which our structure of government was founded was that the Federal Government was to have certain specific and limited powers and no others, and all other power was to be reserved either 'to the States respectively, or to the people.' Certainly if all the provisions of our Constitution which limit the power of the Federal Government and reserve other power to the States are to mean anything, they mean at least that the States have power to pass laws and amend their constitutions without first sending their officials hundreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to approve them. 
Through the court's majority decision, the Voting Rights Act was upheld and able to be implemented without any barriers. This allowed for over 800,000 African Americans to register to vote between 1964 and 1967.  This case was also used as a precedent in other judicial challenges to the Voting Rights Act. According to Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, the case served as an example of a firm interpretation of the 15th Amendment, which granted Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent any racial discrimination. Fuentes-Roher also stated that the case was also an example of the Supreme Court giving more power to Congress by allowing them to create legislation on a topic usually reserved for the States. Opponents of the ruling cite this as an example of judicial activism on steroids, implying this was an overreach of the Supreme Court's powers. They argue the case was decided by the judges' personal beliefs and motives instead of the law and judicial precedent. 
This ruling was a massive win for the Civil Rights Movement, allowing for over 800,000 African Americans to register to vote between 1964 and 1967.  The success of the Voting Rights Act allowed President Johnson to continue with the civil rights reform, including legislation such as the Fair Housing Act. This act provided equal housing opportunities regardless of race, religion, or nationality.  This case was also used as precedent in other judicial challenges to the Voting Rights Act such as Allen v. State Board of Elections and Beer v. United States. 
The significance of South Carolina v. Katzenbach diminished in 2013 with the decision of Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court struck down provisions in the Voting Rights Act 5-4 because it was based on decades-old data, making it no longer applicable to present laws and regulations. 
South Carolina Election Results
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has won a fourth term. He faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Jaime Harrison, a Democrat and former lobbyist who also served as chairman of the state Democratic Party. Read more
Mr. Graham recently presided over the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and in recent years, he has remade himself into a vocal defender of Mr. Trump. And Mr. Harrison’s financial support has been eye-popping: From July through September, he raised a staggering $57 million, the largest quarterly haul for a Senate candidate in U.S. history.
President Trump also won the state and its nine electoral votes in South Carolina. — THOMAS KAPLAN Read less
South Carolina and the 19th Amendment
State of South Carolina in gray – indicating it was not one of the original 36 states to ratify the 19th Amendment. CC0
Women first organized and collectively fought for suffrage at the national level in July of 1848. Suffragists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott convened a meeting of over 300 people in Seneca Falls, New York. In the following decades, women marched, protested, lobbied, and even went to jail. By the 1870s, women pressured Congress to vote on an amendment that would recognize their suffrage rights. This amendment was sometimes known as the Susan B. Anthony amendment and became the 19th Amendment.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United State or by any state on account of sex."
After decades of arguments for and against women's suffrage, Congress finally passed the 19th Amendment in June 1919. After Congress approved the 19th Amendment, at least 36 states needed to vote in favor of it for it to become law. This process is called ratification.
On January 28, 1920, South Carolina voted to reject the 19th Amendment. But by August of 1920, 36 states ratified the Amendment, ensuring that in every state – even in South Carolina--the right to vote could not be denied based on sex.
On July 1, 1969, South Carolina showed its support for women’s suffrage by officially ratifying the 19th Amendment.
South Carolina state flag. CC0
South Carolina Places of Women’s Suffrage: The Pickens-Salley House
In the late 1920s, noted suffragist and businesswoman Eulalie Chafee Salley purchased a historic house and had it moved to Aiken County. Salley preserved the home and was one of the first women actively involved in historic preservation in South Carolina. She was also well known for her dedication to women’s rights. Salley joined the South Carolina Equal Suffrage League of Women Voters and founded a local group called the Aiken County Equal Suffrage League. She also led the unsuccessful campaign to persuade South Carolina to ratify the 19th Amendment. Salley was so dedicated to the cause that she took a ride on one of the state’s first airplanes and scattered suffrage pamphlets from the air.
Discover More Places of Ratification
The Pickens-Salley House is an important place in the story of ratification. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
South Carolina History: Civil War
Credit: Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbour, 12th & 13th April 1861, pub. by Currier & Ives (colour litho), American School, (19th century) / Private Collection / The Bridgeman Art Library
The Charleston Zouave Cadets of the Confederate Army, 1861 (b/w photo)
From Bridgeman Images: Peter Newark American Pictures
Credit: The Charleston Zouave Cadets of the Confederate Army, 1861 (b/w photo), American Photographer, (19th century) / Private Collection / Peter Newark Military Pictures / The Bridgeman Art Library
Notice announcing that South Carolina will leave the United States, published in the Abbeville Banner Extra, 1860 (litho)
From Bridgeman Images: Peter Newark American Pictures
Credit: Notice announcing that South Carolina will leave the United States, published in the Abbeville Banner Extra, 1860 (litho), American School, (19th century) / Private Collection / Peter Newark American Pictures / The Bridgeman Art Library
The War in America: The Federals shelling the city of Charleston, contemporary illustration from 'The Illustrated London News' (engraving)
From Bridgeman Images: Peter Newark American Pictures
Credit: The War in America: The Federals shelling the city of Charleston, contemporary illustration from 'The Illustrated London News' (engraving), English School, (19th century) (after) / Private Collection / Peter Newark American Pictures / The Bridgeman Art Library
The number of contested elections in the House increased dramatically in the late 19th century. The majority of these election cases originated in the former Confederacy because of several variables. At the time, the United States was nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Elections were so close that congressional majorities flipped five times between 1870 and 1900. Contested elections featured prominently during Republican-controlled Congresses. One scholar speculates that when Republicans held the majority in the House they encouraged their candidates to challenge elections ostensibly won by Democrats because southern states universally disenfranchised black voters. As the majority, Republicans in the House would oversee each contested election case, and they viewed those cases as an “institutional equalizer,” helping to send southern GOP Representatives to the House to strengthen their majority. 52
As loyal Republicans, African-American candidates frequently and successfully contested their Democratic opponents’ victories before a GOP-controlled House during this period. John Langston and Thomas Miller won their seats in the 51st Congress (1889–1891) by contesting their elections. George Murray successfully contested his opponent’s victory in the 54th Congress (1895–1897). 53 Contesting elections, however, was time consuming. Murray spent the entire third session of the 53rd Congress (1893–1895) preparing to contest his opponent’s election before the House, leaving him little time to legislate as he gathered and submitted a massive amount of testimony to prove election fraud the paperwork was reported to be nearly a foot thick. 54
Changes to Your SC Voter Registration
If you change your name or move within the same county, you can update your SC voter registration in several ways:
- The SC Online Voter Registration system IFyou have:
- A South Carolina driver's license or ID card.
- Already changed your name or your address with the SC DMV.
- By mail.
- By fax.
- By e-mail. You'll need to scan the form and send it as an e-mail attachment.
If you move to a different county, you must complete a new voter registration application. See the section above entitled Register to Vote in South Carolina for details.
Watch the video: South Carolina Senate Election Voting History Class 3 (May 2022).