Scarborough loses challenge
COLUMBIA — Democrat Anne Peterson Hutto claimed victory Wednesday when the State Election Commission denied former Rep. Wallace Scarborough's request to toss out the results of the House District 115 race.
Scarborough's attorney, Butch Bowers of Columbia, was unable to persuade the five-member panel during the nearly three-hour hearing that 365 voters improperly cast ballots in a race that Peterson Hutto won by 211 votes.
The commissioners did not offer any explanation for the basis of its denial.
"The voters spoke on Nov. 4, and I'm pleased that what they said has been upheld," Peterson Hutto said. Her supporters circled around her in celebration when the decision was announced.
The district is made up of James Island and Folly Beach.
Previous story
Scarborough challenges election results, published 11/13/08
Peterson Hutto, 41, an attorney and political newcomer, had attended a two-day organization session in the House this week but was unable to participate until the outcome of the hearing was settled.
She said helping to make public schools stronger is her top priority.
Scarborough, a 49-year-old insurance company vice president, served the district since 2000. He said after the hearing that hopes to stay active in the community and wants his challenge to result in stronger election laws for the state.
"I am very thankful for the years I could serve our community," Scarborough said.
Bowers argued that a review of voting records crossed-checked with tax and driving records revealed that at least 365 voters did not live in the precinct in which they voted.
He asked the commission to call for a new election, which would have cost roughly $12,000.
"I also believe the people who voted legitimately should not have their votes diluted," Bowers said.
Peterson Hutto's attorney, Truett Nettles of Charleston, said that to throw out the election results would be to disenfranchise voters.
"We have not heard convincing preponderance of the evidence that 365 people voted illegally and fraudulently," Nettles said.
Scarborough's loss means one less seat for Republicans, but the GOP still has a strong majority locked in.
Scarborough said he would consider appealing the decision. He has 10 days to do so.
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 18 comment(s)
Posted by EqualityB4theLawThinkAgain on December 4, 2008 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was Scarborough the same guy that pulled a gun on 2 black SCANA workers at his parent's home a year or 2 ago & had Grahm Altman defend him? If so, good for the voters of this district to finally wake up and give this guy the boot.
Posted by islandbenzbc on December 4, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did 365 people vote improperly or not?
Posted by laurasmorris on December 4, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to your question islandbenzbc, Mr. Scarborough failed to make a case that anyone voted improperly. As the article correctly states, they merely cross checked voting records against tax and drivers license records and made no attempt to contact the 365 voters. Ms. Hutto and her attorney did attempt to reach them and emailed the list around in an effort to secure assistance from the public in locating as many as possible. What they found from those they were able to reach is that some had failed to change an address on their drivers license, some were students who had a license in the state they attended college but maintained their voting residence, and some had given a mailing address rather than a residence(sometimes a business or post office box address)for tax purposes. Poll workers in the questioned precincts had already assured Mr. Scarborough that noone was allowed to vote without a current voter registration card or other proof of residence. It's a real stretch to believe 365 persons in that small an area would have been able to slip through. The "list" was all over the place in email and is readily available to anyone who cares enough to check it out.
Posted by wjhamilton3 on December 4, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You're not required to have the exact same address on every government record to vote. Voters are allowed to select their place of legal residence, provided they live there. People move a lot and all their identifications seldom catch up with where they sleep at night.
A coordinated system of registration with a binding election of where one wishes to have their legal residence, that updates across state and federal government's records and is proved by an updated identification record and cord proving residence and citizenship would be a very good idea, but it's expensive and has opposition from conservatives who claim its "big brother" government.
Most of Europe registers it's population this way, some with universal fingerprinting. People just register when they move their primary legal residence. The result is a secure, national database of who is a citizen and where they live that supports voting, immigration control, taxation and other issues.
That concept has been really unpopular here. What we're left with is a government who doesn't know who lives where, who is a citizen or where they're legal residence is.
We've had a lot of elections messed up due to errors in where people are allowed to vote. The legislature has a lot or responsibility for this. District lines divide precincts and neighborhoods everywhere. Overlap that with county districts, municipal government and two congressional districts and you have a huge mess to keep track of.
I know plenty of voters who go to the polls, present their ID and vote in the districts they're told they can vote in. I went one year and discovered our street had been moved to a new house district or had been corrected to conform with the district. Nobody could say why.
Candidates have the opportunity to check registration rolls and ballots before the election. Scarborough should have checked the books before people voted. He had years to check the registration rolls. Since legislators create our redistricting mess, they should be checking their own districts.
Posted by blaze on December 4, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to the first poster - Yes, Scarborough was the Lowcountry originator of the Glock handgun maneuver recently dubbed "The Plaxico".
Only Scarborough didn't shoot himself in the thigh; he shot a hole in his parents' back porch.
Posted by SCHoser on December 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Voter fraud??? No way...really???...typical. Win any way ya can is the new motto for democrats. This is not an original story by any means. ACORN is here to stay!
Posted by hightide on December 4, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SC Hoser - good grief! ACORN had NOTHING to do with Hutto defeating Scarborough. Obviously, the people of James Island and Folly Beach wanted him gone, so WE made ourselves heard, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by Picky on December 4, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live on Folly Beach.
The person who owns the house to the East of mine lives in Downtown Charleston. He voted here.
I don't know where the person who owns the house across the street from me lives, but he voted here.
The family that owns a house to the West lives in Summerville. They voted on Folly.
Nearly everyone who actually LIVES on Folly can tell you about neighbors who do not live here but do vote here. Just ask a resident.
I'd guess that there are about two hundred home owners on Folly Beach who live elsewhere but vote here. But I'm a Democrat, so I guess I shouldn't complain this year. But I am disappointed with the State Election Commission for failing to act on the issue.
Posted by SCHoser on December 4, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hightide-you miss the point completely, along with the sarcasm. Not only did the people of JI and Folly speak, but others from Summerville, Hanahan, Charleston, Goose Creek and surrounding areas as well. I don't give a rats patootie who wins frankly, but it is a disturbing trend with voter fraud for democrats. Like I said, win at any cost. Legal or not. I am not saying that Hutto cheated, but I am saying it appears others did to her benefit. You have your woman-ENJOY! and lighten up some, that rage will age you horribly.
Posted by hightide on December 4, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No rage here. You must read rage in any post that doesn't agree with yours. That sarcasm you have will age you as well, so lay off of it :)
Posted by hightide on December 4, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will say that I think it's pretty atrocious for people to vote outside of their true home district. Those of us native to Folly & James Island can speak for ourselves!
Posted by SCHoser on December 4, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So hightide, you agree with me but don't like my stance ont he issue??? Strange, but oh well. Lots of people use sarcasm, but few understand it. I would respond to Jim, but why? If you start calling names, you lose. If you best argument starts with "you are a _____', you lose. Get the picture? Peace!
Posted by hightide on December 4, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hoser, I don't agree with you. I don't think anyone won "any way" that they could.
I agreed with Picky, who lives on FB and knows of people with homes there that live in other areas of the lowcountry but still voted on FB. Maybe some of those people voted for Scarborough - ever think about that?
Not that it matters. Hutto still won!
Posted by The_Bone on December 4, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This isn't a fraud issue. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're Dem or Rep. And it's not unique to this area. There's always a small number of people that move just before the election, own two homes, etc. It only got brought up in this case b/c Scarborough lost by a couple hundred votes and was desperately trying not to lose. In the process, he basically called a bunch of us criminals.
I guarantee that this occurred in just about every precinct in the country, and has so as long as we can remember. Based on his logic, we should toss out every other election result that included precincts where this occured. So, I guess the whole country needs to have a do-over.
That's how dumb his argument is.
Posted by Crab_Legs on December 4, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The_Bone,
Well stated!
Picky,
Just for the record, Scarborough won one of the precincts on Folly.(Maybe he cheated?)
The Commission did act. They acted correctly. Were you at the protest hearing or are you guessing?
Hightide,
You're just an idiot.
Maybe Wallace is just a sore-loser and should stop accusing everyone around him of cheating; including the good citzens of 115.
Posted by hightide on December 5, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excuse me, crab legs?
I don't think you read my posts correctly. I, in fact, think that Wallace is a sore losesr - didja even read my posts? You must be the idiot. I'm a James Island resident who voted for Hutto, so get over yourself already.
Posted by blaze on December 5, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SCHoser, you are a tookusplug.
I guess I lose. Darn it.
Posted by Crab_Legs on December 5, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
High-Tide,
I apologize!
It's SCHoser that's the idiot!
High-Tide, I appreciate your comments.