NO. 78
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 11:00 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:
Acts 2:1-2
For many of us just a couple of days ago in worship I daresay we heard these lines spoken: "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting."
Bow in prayer with me, if you will: Dear Lord, as the hours and days continue to fall away, we fervently urge You to enable the power of Your Spirit to roar through this Chamber, as it did long ago on the day of Pentecost. And we pray, O blessed Lord, that by Your grace You touch each Senator here with a renewed awareness of Your presence in this place, and fill them and their aides together with a bold sense of Your gracious wisdom and Your unfailing love. And as a result, O God, may these leaders, working together, discover themselves finally able to determine the best course and the wisest decisions that will genuinely and fairly benefit and bless all of the residents of this State we love. May it be so, dear Lord. In Your loving name we humbly 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 Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Graham Grooms Hembree Jackson Johnson Kennedy Leber Massey Ott Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Turner Verdin Williams Young Zell
A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.
Senator KIMBRELL recorded his presence subsequent to the Call of the Senate.
At 11:16 A.M., on motion of Senator PEELER, the Senate receded from business.
At 1:00 P.M., the Senate resumed.
Senator CHAPLIN rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
Mr. PRESIDENT, I am here for our daily "250th Moment" in the South Carolina Senate. Sitting at my desk these past few weeks listening to you all talk and listening to other members speak, we have heard eloquent stories of battles, of Patriots versus Loyalists going back and forth, and of British troops versus Continentals. This really had me thinking about what exactly was going on in my home area -- what was going on around my district at that time.
Society Hill, which was founded in 1736, is one of the oldest towns in South Carolina. It is not as old as Camden, but it is still relatively old. What was going on there? I started doing some research on it, and something became quite clear. Being located in that portion of the backcountry of South Carolina, the American Revolution was not as clear-cut as it was across the rest of the State and the rest of the colonies. Back there, it was truly a brother-versus-brother war. Individuals and households split apart, going against each other for what one side saw as patriotism and the other side clearly saw as treason. Neither side was able to forgive the other. They also took this opportunity to get vengeance on their neighbors for past wrongs where they felt they had been slighted. It was truly a civil war taking place in the backcountry, in Darlington and Marlboro counties.
One of the stories I want to tell you all today is the murder of Colonel Abel Kolb. You see, the Colonel was under the command of Francis Marion, working all throughout the Upper Pee Dee. The area he covered was Marlboro, Marion, Darlington Counties and that Upper Pee Dee Chesterfield district. Now, during this time, when people think about the "Swamp Fox," they think about Mel Gibson's, The Patriot -- men running around in the woods doing as they pleased and harassing Redcoats every opportunity they got. But that was truly not the case. The areas were divided up into certain commands, and the Pee Dee region, for the most part, fell under the jurisdiction of the Swamp Fox, while the Upper Pee Dee fell under Colonel Abel Kolb. Well, even back then, in the beginning of our country's birth, there were a lot of political squabbles going on -- people posturing, trying to get the better of each other and trying to get ahead. There was a captain who sent a letter to Colonel Kolb directing him to send forth troops to assist him in a command under Thomas Sumter. Thomas Sumter technically outranked the Swamp Fox, Francis Marion; one was a brigadier general and the other was a lieutenant general, if memory serves. Well, there was this big squabble going back and forth. The captain could not tell the colonel what to do, but the captain had orders from a lieutenant general. In the midst of this confusion, while Colonel Abel Kolb ended up being correct in his decision not to send his men, several of his troops slunk off to participate in the fight anyway. Because of this, the Colonel saw that his commission was coming to an end; he had made too many enemies during this dispute. So, during that campaigning season, he proceeded to go out and root out as many of the Tories in his area as he could. It was a hard-fought, long campaign extending throughout Marlboro County and modern Darlington County. Believe it or not, most of the fighting took place in the winter, not in the spring.
In late April, he returned home. He returned to his house on the Pee Dee River, located right outside of Society Hill, accompanied by two of his men. On the night of April 27, 1781, about 40 Tories -- Pee Dee men who were born, raised and spent their entire lives in the Pee Dee region-- neighbors of Colonel Kolb -- met in Marion. They proceeded to ride hard for some twenty-odd miles up the Pee Dee River to Society Hill. There, they surrounded Colonel Kolb in his home, demanding his surrender. Colonel Kolb came out to give up his sword. At this point, the historical accounts of what happened get a little strange. Some stories say that as he was coming out to surrender his sword, he was shot and killed instantly. Others say that the Tories allowed everyone to come out, burned the house down, and then shot and killed him along with his two men in front of his wife and two daughters. But what is known from multiple records -- including accounts from his daughters who witnessed this with their own eyes -- is that before the night was over, even though their father had surrendered, turned over his sword and decided he was going to leave the conflict as all good gentlemen were supposed to do under the rules of war, he was still killed directly in front of them. His house was still torched right before their eyes, leaving their mother a widow and his two daughters homeless. Why? Because this was truly a backcountry war of brother versus brother, neighbor versus neighbor.
It was not as clean, and it was not as tied up in a bow, as it was in the rest of the country, or as it was in Charleston and Camden where lines of red and blue faced each other. In the Pee Dee region, it was truly murderers being masked by soldiers. I just wanted to share that with you today. Our American Revolution is not nearly as clean as it is often portrayed in the history books. Thank you.
On motion of Senator GRAHAM, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator CHAPLIN were ordered printed in the Journal.
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 third reading of the Bill.
Senator CASH spoke on the Bill.
Thank you Mr. PRESIDENT. I come to the well today to explain why I and a number of others can no longer support this effort to move the date of our congressional elections to August, while also redrawing congressional maps. I come as one who has cast at least five votes since last Wednesday to move H. 5683 forward. But I can no longer support the passage of this Bill for one simple reason -- South Carolina citizens are going to the polls today, and neither my conscience nor my common sense will allow me to stop an election that is already underway.
For me, the practical deadline for passing this Bill was yesterday, Memorial Day. But because of the rules that we operate under, the earliest we could pass this Bill would be tomorrow or perhaps even Thursday, two or three days into the voting process. Also, there are one hundred thirty nine amendments on the desk, and if we were to amend this Bill in any way, even to correct a mistake, the House would then have to reconvene and vote again, pushing the passage of the Bill even farther out. The deadline has passed; voting has begun; it is time to conclude the matter.
Now, I know there is going to be a lot of anger and frustration that we did not get the job done. I get it. Many of us are also frustrated and disappointed at what is a very unsatisfying outcome, but we need to face it, the time clock for getting this done ran out when the time clock for in person voting started at 8:30 this morning. As of noon today, over 26,000 votes have already been cast, which is over twice as many votes as were cast in the entire first day of early voting in 2024. I realize that there are many, who in good faith, believe that we should forge ahead and pass this Bill anyway and let the courts determine whether it is legitimate to change an election date and redraw maps even after voting has begun. Obviously, I disagree. But one thing I think we can agree on is that we are at a pivotal point in this process. Fellow South Carolinians, the men and women in this Chamber take our responsibilities seriously. We are acutely aware of both the importance and urgency of this matter, and the strong feelings that exist on both sides of this redistricting debate.
I am on the Judiciary Committee and last Wednesday we listened to six hours of public testimony. So, for the sake of those who are engaged in this issue, for the sake of those who want further understanding and clarity, I want to give a brief review of how we got to this point. On April 29, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the Callais decision, which prohibits racially-based gerrymandering. This was the catalyst for the effort to redraw South Carolina congressional maps. About a week later, on May 7, H. 5683 was filed in the South Carolina House to postpone congressional elections and redraw the maps. About a week after that, on May 13, H. 5683 passed the House Judiciary Committee. This was now two weeks after the Callais decision. The next day, Thursday, May 14, was the last day of our regular legislative session. When the legislature adjourned at 5:00 p.m., Governor McMaster immediately called us back into extraordinary session. The House debated the Bill and it eventually got second reading on May 19, and then third reading on Wednesday, May 20, and sent the Bill to the Senate. On that very same day the full Senate Judiciary Committee met at 2:00 p.m. and took public testimony well into the evening. It should be noted the Senate moved expeditiously, bypassing completely the normal subcommittee process and going straight to full committee. It should also be noted, however, that the Judiciary Committee heard from every single person who showed up to testify on H. 5683. In fact, the Chairman of Judiciary, Senator RANKIN held the sign-up for testimony open until 5:00 p.m. to ensure that everybody who wanted to be heard was heard. Judiciary passed the Bill Wednesday night and the Senate convened at noon on Thursday, May 21, to take up the Bill. Now, this was the point at which the Senate rules dictated the pace at which the Bill could proceed. Because H. 5683 is a redistricting Bill, Senate Rule 15 required it to be under debate for two days before a motion to cloture debate could be made, effectively making Saturday the earliest possible day to vote on the Bill and get what is called "second reading." The only way to get around Rule 15 was to vote by a two-thirds majority to suspend the rule. On Thursday, the same day the full Senate got the Bill, Senator GROOMS gave notice of his intention to make a motion to suspend Rule 15. That would allow the Bill to move forward a day faster.
In that regard, please understand that Senate Rule 43 requires a one day notice before the motion to suspend Rule 15 can be made. So on Friday, May 22, Senator GROOMS made the motion to suspend Rule 15 and speed the process up. This motion was made on two separate occasions, but it required a two-thirds majority, and we were five votes short of suspending the rule. So, on Saturday, May 23, after the Bill had been under debate for two days, a cloture motion was passed to bring debate to a close and then the Bill received a favorable second reading. Absent the suspension of Rule 15, that was the fastest that the Senate could obtain a second reading. The Senate then adjourned to meet on Tuesday, while allowing perfunctory session to continue on Sunday and Monday and counting those as statewide legislative days. And you might wonder, why did we do that? Because once again, Rule 15 required that the Bill be under debate for two more days before a motion to cloture debate could take place in the third reading process. The cloture motion is the motion we would shortly be voting on. If the motion was successful, then following cloture each of the forty-six Senators are allowed a total of up to one hour each to speak on any amendments. Furthermore, all amendments must be disposed before a final third reading vote can take place. Because of the time all of that will take, a conservative estimate is sometime on Wednesday before the speaking and voting can be completed. At which point we will be completing the second day of early voting, when tens and tens of thousands of votes have been cast by our constituents going to the polls.
So, in summary, without the necessary votes to suspend the rules, the fastest that the Senate could pass H. 5683, which it received one week ago on May 20, would be Wednesday, May 27. That's the fastest it could be done. I understand the anger and frustration that we could not pass a redistricting Bill any faster, but the rule of law is a bedrock principle of our Constitutional Republic, and I will emphasize, it is also a bedrock principle of conservatism. Now someone might say, "Y'all should have done redistricting back in January", and then we wouldn't be in this mess." Again, I get it. But as I said earlier, the catalyst for this current Bill was the Supreme Court decision handed down on April 29.
I understand the Senate is going to get blamed for this failure, but the calendar and the rules would not allow a Bill that was received on the floor on Thursday, May 21, to be passed any faster than tomorrow, Wednesday, May 27. Which brings us to the pivotal moment of whether you believe it is wise, whether you believe it is right, whether you can in good conscience and by common sense reasoning, pass a Bill that changes the election date and redraws the maps, when voting is already underway.
We're in the South, so I want to digress for a moment and talk about a football game to illustrate my point. Imagine if you will, two power house football teams that have a scheduled game. And yet one team has decided that they want to reschedule the game to a different date and play a different school. And so the school administration tries to make that happen in a compressed time period, with game day drawing near. Meanwhile, word of a possible game change gets out. Fans are wondering what's going on. But also in the meantime, all the routine preparations are taking place, which involve a lot of people and a lot of work. Now, everyone knows that if the game is called off, even the day before the game, people will adjust accordingly, although not without a lot of wasted time and effort. But can anyone imagine the administration finally making the deal to reschedule the game date and the opponent after the fans are in their seats, after the game has already started? Would that make sense to anyone, is that reasonable, is there any precedent for handling a football game that way once it has begun?
Yesterday was Memorial Day, a solemn day of remembering the ultimate sacrifice made by some so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty. It is a fitting time at which to have this debate, to ponder the choice that is before us, because we know by long experience that a free and fair election is not some insignificant event that we should take for granted. It is an essential element in the fabric of our Constitutional Republic. I will close by saying this. I have looked, and I have had staff do some research. As far as I can tell, there is no historical precedent for a legislature to change the date of an election and redraw the maps once the voting has begun. No precedent, not in the history of South Carolina, not in any state. Many of us, myself included, do not want to be a party to creating such a precedent. Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT. I will be voting "No" on cloture.
On motion of Senator CAMPSEN, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator CASH were ordered printed in the Journal.
Senator GROOMS spoke on the Bill.
At 1:28 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 Chaplin Climer Corbin Elliott Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Reichenbach Rice Turner Verdin Young
Allen Bennett Campsen Cash Cromer Davis Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Johnson Massey Matthews Ott Peeler Rankin Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Walker Williams Zell
Having failed to receive the necessary vote, the motion failed.
Senator DAVIS spoke on the Bill.
Senator DAVIS moved to continue the Bill.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Adams Allen Bennett Campsen Cash Cromer Davis Devine Graham Hembree Hutto Jackson Johnson Massey Matthews Ott Peeler Rankin Sabb Stubbs Sutton Tedder Turner Walker Williams Zell
Alexander Blackmon Bright Chaplin Climer Corbin Elliott Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Kennedy Kimbrell Leber Reichenbach Rice Verdin Young
The motion was adopted.
The Bill was continued.
On motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate agreed that if and when the Senate stands adjourned today, it will adjourn to meet Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 12:00 Noon.
Senators BRIGHT, KENNEDY, LEBER, GARRETT, CORBIN and REICHENBACH desired to be recorded as voting against the motion.
On motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate agreed to stand adjourned.
Senators BRIGHT, KENNEDY, LEBER, GARRETT, CORBIN and REICHENBACH desired to be recorded as voting against the motion to adjourn.
On motion of Senator RANKIN, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Jay Holbert of Conway, S.C. Jay was a graduate of Conway High School and as an avid outdoorsman, he was a co-founder of the Conway High School Bassmasters. He was a member of the Conway Bassmasters and the Carolina Anglers Team Trail. Jay was a fourth-generation accountant with his family business, Holbert Company, Inc. Jay enjoyed hunting, fishing, running dogs and spending time with his family. Jay was a loving husband and devoted father who will be dearly missed.
At 1:50 P.M., on motion of Senator MASSEY, the Senate adjourned to meet Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 12:00 Noon.
This web page was last updated on Monday, July 27, 2026 at 12:18 P.M.