NO. 75
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 10:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
II Chronicles 9:22
Holy Scripture reminds us that in the ancient world: "King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth."
Let us bow in prayer, please: Truly, O glorious Lord, I feel confident that not any of us would be bold enough or arrogant enough to declare that we -- like King Solomon of old -- possessed his grandiose level of wisdom, much less his wealth. Still, hardly a day passes when we do not thank You, O Lord, for the collective wisdom and the profound wealth of talent that these Senators and their staff aides all bring to their roles here in the Senate of South Carolina. And, as these leaders together take on issue after issue and problem after problem, we all are indeed grateful that they share their gifts on behalf of everyone here in our State, striving unfailingly to conscientiously make life better for all. With grateful hearts dear Lord, we so pray. Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
Senator PEELER moved that a Call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the Call:
Adams Alexander Allen Bennett Blackmon Bright Campsen Cash Chaplin Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Devine Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Graham Grooms Hembree Hutto Jackson Johnson Leber Massey Matthews Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Turner Verdin Walker Young
A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.
Senators OTT and KIMBRELL recorded their presence subsequent to the Call of the Senate.
On motion of Senator PEELER, the Senate agreed that if and when the Senate stands adjourned today, it will adjourn to meet tomorrow Sunday, May 24, 2026, at 2:00 P.M.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Bennett Blackmon Bright Campsen Cash Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Johnson Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Turner Verdin Young
Allen Chaplin Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Massey Matthews Ott Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Walker
The motion was adopted.
On motion of Senator JACKSON, at 10:14 A.M., Senator WILLIAMS was granted a leave of absence for today.
Senator JACKSON rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT and members of the Senate. All due respect to my leader, Chairman of Finance, who I certainly do respect, very highly -- I want to stand and just say what we've just decided to do -- this is my 33rd year in the Senate, Senator RANKIN and I came in together. Before we were here Senator PEELER was here, shortly after our president joined us, and Senator HUTTO.
In 33 years in the Senate, we have never been here on a Sunday. Now, let me tell you what has happened between those 33 years. We had a thousand-year flood. We didn't come on Sunday. We had the removal of the flag, we had a massacre in Charleston, we came, guess what, we did not come here on a Sunday. We've had droughts, my friends that are farmers across the country, in which our economy, in fact, in 2008, our economy literally began to tank. We did not think it was necessary to come here on the Lord's Day, we waited.
Tell me why we decided for the first time in my 33 years to come here on a Sunday to pick up at best one congressional seat and, at worst, a hyper-partisan activity and situation that we are doing? So, I need you all to explain it to me, because this Sunday, I have three services, one at 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. And if I'm going to miss the one at 2:00 p.m., please explain to me how do I explain to a church that I'm visiting that is celebrating over 100 years of existence, why I'm going back to the Senate for nothing but a partisan activity to, at best, gain one seat; and please don't take this the wrong way simply because one person asked for it.
A month ago, it wasn't on your radar. Three weeks ago, it wasn't that important to talk about. Don't tell me it is because of the Supreme Court decision, because Senator MASSEY, Senator HUTTO and others have done a masterful job telling you why our districts were not racially gerrymandered. The courts have done that. We have a case in the name of our beloved PRESIDENT, who has done a great job, the Alexander case that the court says it is not racially gerrymandered. So, the only reason we are going to come here on Sunday, and look, surprisingly enough, if one of my dear friends in this Body, Senator CASH, I know what you and your family do, you told me. Your wife invites your children and your grandchildren over on Sunday afternoons to have brunch or lunch -- to celebrate each other and the Lord's Day. So I need someone to help me understand why in such a hyper-partisan situation, not a thousand year flood, not a crashing economy, not a drought that our farmers in Darlington and others are staying up at night wondering how they're going to survive, not a massacre in Charleston in which innocent people lose their lives, but because one individual says I want one congressional district in South Carolina, we are going to do something that we haven't done in 33 years. Yesterday I asked the Clerk to tell me when do you remember the last time anybody even recorded us coming in on a Sunday? And the only thing we could think of as a possibility was years ago doing maybe a reapportionment with all the districts. But guess what? That Body, if I am not mistaken, probably were all Democrats. And it was led by super tightened democratic leaders whose names are on buildings on this campus right now. Guess what they were also doing in the Chamber at the time -- they could drink in the Chamber. They could smoke cigars in the Chamber, okay. They can do all kinds of other things in the Chamber. But we pride ourselves in becoming better, and yet we've done something, and this really does bother me, because at the end of the day, if I can't explain it to a child, and they understand why, if I can't go back and say they ask me, not Senator Jackson, but Pastor Jackson, why are you going back to the State House today? If I can't explain to them that it makes sense why are we doing this?
I hope you guys can live with yourselves. I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. I hope you can go and face your grandchildren and face your children and members in the community and say the one time in over 40 years that the Senate has convened on a Sunday, is for a partisan gerrymandering that could net possibly only one seat. Does anyone in here think that Congress is going to be won and lost by one seat? I have never seen a wave, whether it be a red wave or blue wave, that was a one seat margin. That's not a wave. And what is perhaps going to happen in November is that this exercise that we're doing, missing Sunday dinner with your family and Memorial Day weekend, is going to end up for nothing.
On motion of Senator CASH, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator JACKSON were ordered printed in the Journal.
Senator RANKIN rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO H. 5683 -- REDISTRICTING OF U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICTS
H. 5683 (Word version) -- Reps. Rankin, Pace, C. Mitchell, Cromer, Gilreath, Bustos, Magnuson, Edgerton, Burns, Oremus, Bailey, Guest, Brittain, Chumley, J.E. Johnson, Haddon, Jordan, Lawson, Lowe, McGinnis, B. Newton, W. Newton, G.M. Smith, White, Willis and McCravy: A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 7-19-35 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE ELECTED; AND BY REPEALING SECTION 7-19-45 RELATING TO ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WERE FORMERLY ELECTED.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senators HUTTO, JACKSON, SABB, WILLIAMS, ALLEN, MATTHEWS, TEDDER, DEVINE, GRAHAM, OTT, SUTTON and WALKER proposed the following amendment (LC-5683.AHB0083S), which was withdrawn:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
SECTION X. In conducting the 2026 Congressional Redistricting, notwithstanding any other provision of law, any implementation of changes to congressional district boundaries shall be undertaken in a manner that allows sufficient time to avoid voter confusion and ensure orderly election administration.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator CAMPSEN spoke on the amendment.
It is critically important that this Body recognize the role we have to play here -- a very important role. Under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and a corollary provision in our state constitution, we are the ones who control elections. We are the ones who decide whether we will do reapportionment and when we will do it. If we abdicate that responsibility to another entity, we do our State and our citizens a great disservice.
It would also be a great disservice to discard a congressional map that members of this Body spent significant time developing. We fought very hard, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and we won. We set a precedent. The case is Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, and our current congressional plan is that precedent. To simply throw that away, after spending millions of dollars to defend it, leaves us exposed to litigation. We could be sued and the court could strike the new plan down. In fact, there is no question in my mind that our state supreme court will strike this down because there is a process that must be followed to do reapportionment properly. It took us more than six months to do it right.
We learned only recently that the presentation made to the House Judiciary Committee explaining the new plan was seven minutes long. Seven minutes. I spent hundreds of hours -- easily 700 or more -- doing reapportionment the right way. This is doing it the wrong way. We had one Judiciary Committee meeting on this plan in the Senate, and we did not even have a map in front of us. There were no VTDs, no granular data. We could not understand the maps at even the most basic level. We still do not. Why? Because normally our cartographer works with us over a six-month period, as was done previously. This time, nothing.
I also want to note how difficult this will be in practical terms. Using the 2020 census, which is already outdated due to significant population growth, approximately two million South Carolinians will be placed in new congressional districts. Two million, affecting 1.4 million registered voters across some 900 precincts. To get all of this right in a matter of days is not a realistic expectation. Many have already cast absentee and military ballots, and we are going to have in person voting in three days.
Why am I convinced the state supreme court will strike this down? It will be because of the process and the outcome as well. I want to read from the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Kittredge and Justice Hill, issued in League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander. In that case, our current congressional plan was upheld. Justice James was the primary author of the majority opinion, but what follows is from the Kittredge and Hill concurrence: "I have no hesitation in concurring with the majority opinion . . . I do not, however, read the Court's decision as creating a categorical rule that all future claims of excessive partisan gerrymandering are beyond judicial review. I construe today's decision as cautious judicial deference, not indifference. It remains conceivable that a future challenge may present more fully developed constitutional violations with a discernable nexus to manageable judicial standards, thereby warranting judicial intervention."
And in a footnote, Justice Kittredge noted: "To its credit, the South Carolina Legislature has drawn our congressional district lines to virtually ensure the current minority political party has representation in Congress, unlike some other states."
Well, we are about to get like other states. We are about to upset that very cautious judicial deference. My greatest concern all along has been this -- we have a signed, sealed and delivered, constitutionally sound congressional plan, one that is unassailable, and we are on the verge of discarding it in favor of something that cannot withstand legal scrutiny. I implore you -- do not throw our congressional plan away.
On motion of Senator CASH, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator CAMPSEN were ordered printed in the Journal.
Senator CAMPSEN spoke on the amendment.
Senator GROOMS spoke on the amendment.
At 1:04 P.M., Senator GROOMS moved under the provisions of Rule 15B that debate on the entire matter of H. 5683 be brought to a close.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Blackmon Bright Cash Chaplin Climer Corbin Cromer Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Johnson Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Peeler Reichenbach Rice Stubbs Turner Verdin Young
Allen Bennett Campsen Davis Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Massey Matthews Ott Rankin Sabb Sutton Tedder Walker Zell
The motion was adopted.
At 1:09 P.M., on motion of Senator GROOMS, the Senate receded from business.
At 2:17 P.M., the Senate resumed.
Senator OTT asked unanimous consent to proceed to Amendment No. 26A.
Senator OTT proposed the following amendment (LC-5683.HDB0139S), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 4, by adding a subsection to read:
(I) Any person who votes in the June statewide primary or runoff election for one party shall not vote in the August special primary for a different party.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator OTT explained the amendment.
Senator GROOMS moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Bennett Blackmon Bright Campsen Cash Chaplin Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Hembree Hutto Johnson Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Massey Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Stubbs Turner Verdin Young Zell
Allen Devine Graham Matthews Ott Sabb Sutton Tedder Walker
The amendment was laid on the table.
Senator SUTTON asked unanimous consent to proceed to Amendment No. 9A.
Senator SUTTON proposed the following amendment (LC-5683.HDB0136S), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 4, by adding a subsection to read:
(I)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 15, Title 7 of the S.C. Code, any voter who casts an absentee ballot in the June statewide primaries must be issued absentee ballots for the special primaries and special primary runoffs without being required to submit additional absentee ballot applications or otherwise comply with any additional requirements.
(2) Each county board of voter registration and elections shall issue absentee ballots for the special primaries and special primary runoffs to the same address each voter requested to receive an absentee ballot for the June statewide primaries unless a voter timely specifies a different address.
(3) The absentee ballots issued to each voter under this subsection must be for the same political party's special primary and runoff as the voter participated in during the June statewide primaries unless the voter timely requests to receive an absentee ballot for another party's special primary and runoff.
(J) The State Election Commission shall transmit with overseas ballots for the special primaries held on August 18, 2026, for the seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to be voted on in the November 3, 2026, general election a notice that explains why the recipient is receiving an additional ballot and that a vote the recipient cast previously for U.S. House of Representatives in the June primary election was not counted.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator SUTTON explained the amendment.
Senator GROOMS spoke on the amendment.
Senator GROOMS moved to lay the amendment on the table.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Blackmon Bright Cash Chaplin Climer Corbin Cromer Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Johnson Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Peeler Reichenbach Rice Turner Verdin Young Zell
Allen Bennett Campsen Davis Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Massey Matthews Ott Rankin Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Walker
The amendment was laid on the table.
On motion of Senator MASSEY, with unanimous consent, the Senate agreed that all amendments currently on the desk were withdrawn; that after a successful roll call vote on second reading, the provisions of Rule 26B were waived for third reading; that the Senate would meet under the provisions of Rule 1B on Sunday, May 24, 2026, and Monday, May 25, 2026, with those days counting as statewide session days for debate on H. 5683; and further, that the Senate would meet in statewide session on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.
The question then was second reading of the Bill.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Alexander Blackmon Bright Cash Chaplin Climer Corbin Cromer Elliott Fernandez Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Johnson Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Peeler Reichenbach Rice Stubbs Turner Verdin Young Zell
Allen Bennett Campsen Davis Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Massey Matthews Ott Rankin Sabb Sutton Tedder Walker
There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.
On motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate agreed to stand adjourned.
At 3:24 P.M., on motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M., under the provisions of Rule 1B.
This web page was last updated on Monday, July 27, 2026 at 12:12 P.M.