darkoshi | Entries tagged with south carolina

Reading this proposed amendment confused me at first, as the qualifications it lists match the current ones as far as I'm aware:

2024 SC Constitutional Amendment Question

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Question:
Must Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State, relating to voter qualifications, be amended so as to provide that only a citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law?

Indeed, the current constitution seems to say the same thing:
Current South Carolina Constitution

ARTICLE II
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
...
SECTION 4. Voter qualifications.
Every citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law.

I found this page which explains the proposed change:
Panel decides citizenship question on SC ballots needs no explanation

The Legislature voted earlier this year to put the question on the ballot. It asks if the state constitution’s guaranteed right to vote should change from “every” to “only a” citizen who’s at least 18 and properly registered.

Proponents said it will prevent any future court ruling that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections in South Carolina. Democrats called it completely unnecessary, though most voted for it anyway.

Upon reflection, the "Every citizen" wording feels empowering to me. It seems to guarantee a right. The "Only a citizen" working feels restrictive; it seems to restrict a right.

(That seems typical of Republicans to me; wanting to take away people's existing rights.)

The existing constitution doesn't however guarantee the right to all citizens mentioned in Section 4. Sections 6 and 7 already provide for some restrictions:

SECTION 6. General Assembly may require demonstration of literacy.
The General Assembly may require each person to demonstrate a reasonable ability, except for physical disability, to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled to vote.

SECTION 7. Disqualifications by reason of mental incompetence or conviction of crime.
The General Assembly shall establish disqualifications for voting by reason of mental incompetence or conviction of serious crime, and may provide for the removal of such disqualifications. Persons who are confined in any penal institution under the judgment of a court shall not be entitled to vote.

So it doesn't seem like the wording change would really change anything. But considering that many people in power in that State House would probably gladly take away my vote to right, I'd rather not give them any extra means to do so. I will vote NO on that question.

Ah, I now see an extra detail in the above explanation (emphasis added):
...that would allow non-citizens to vote in LOCAL elections...

The question "needs no explanation", they say. Hah.

The SC House of Representatives today passed a horrible bill, #4624, banning gender affirming care for minors and requiring teachers to "out" trans children to their parents. It still has to pass the Senate.

Per Ballotpedia:
South Carolina has a Republican trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
The House has a Republican majority of 88-36 (71% Rep, 29% Dem).
The Senate has a Republican majority of 30-16 (65% Rep, 35% Dem).

Also according to Ballotpedia, those majorities increased in both 2020 and 2022.
In 2020, the House had a Republican majority of 78-45 (63.4% vs 36.6%),
and the Senate had a Republican majority of 27-19 (58.7% vs 41.3%).
I wonder if those increases were due to redistricting.

In the 2020 Presidential election, Trump got 55.11% of the SC vote compared to 43.43% for Biden.
In the 2022 SC gubernatorial election, the Republican candidate got 58% compared to 41% for the Democratic candidate.

So the ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the legislature is much more skewed than in the overall population, without even taking into account how people who haven't voted in the elections are more likely to skew Democrat.

In other news, the SC state legislature is getting ready to completely outlaw abortion here. I am so disgusted. I have started contemplating the possibility of moving somewhere else.

For various reasons, California came to mind. But with all those wildfires, and what else was it? Weren't there some other big disasters there lately, why can't I remember...

And then also the cost of living. While I'm rather well off here, I might not even be able to afford it over there.

Problems frustrate Richland County voters

Lines get longer as machines break down

It seems I was lucky only having to wait 2.25 hours in line to vote. In some places, there were waits of 5 to 6 hours!

As Qiao is in a wheelchair due to his foot, he got to go to the head of the line. Apparently if I had gone up with him, they would have let me vote right after him. But the poll worker who lead him ahead didn't say anything to me, so I decided to stay in line. I would not have felt uncomfortable cutting ahead of everyone else, anyway. After voting, Qiao waited on the side while I stood in line for my turn.

The poll worker who addressed us all at one point about the low number of voting machines said that they had expected a large turnout and had asked for more machines, but had been refused. He told us that we could/should make complaints to the Election Commission. He also urged us to be patient, and above all, to make sure we stay and vote in spite of the frustration, and regardless of who we intended to vote for. That part of the speech almost made me teary-eyed. I was thinking, he's probably a pastor; it seems everyone around here who is good at public speaking is a pastor. Sure enough, near the end of his little speech, it turned a bit religious, in terms of "god will get you through this ordeal and any others", or something like that. But at least he prefaced it with "If you believe in..." That made me feel he was at least acknowledging that not everyone does believe.

(from 1st link above)Richland County elections officials said they had the same number of machines as in past elections, though they acknowledged many of the machines at precincts were breaking down.
Many poll managers throughout the county, however, said they had to make do with fewer resources than during past elections.

I wonder what the truth really is, about the number of voting machines at the precincts.

They said cell phones were not allowed to be on in the building, not even in silent mode, and that otherwise they might make you leave. I could see several people using their phones anyway. It doesn't make sense not to allow people to use their phones, when they are standing in line for hours, bored and with nothing else to do.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/490757.html

A few South Carolina marriage laws...

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

(Are other states so specific?)
(If your son dies, is your son's wife still considered his wife?)
(If your son was secretly married, but then died, and you subsequently unknowingly married his former wife, it would apparently be illegal?)
(What about half-brothers and half-sisters?)

..

SECTION 20-1-210. License required for marriage.
It shall be unlawful for any persons to contract matrimony within this State without first procuring a license as is herein provided and it shall likewise be unlawful for anyone whomsoever to perform the marriage ceremony for any such persons unless such persons shall first have delivered to the party performing such marriage ceremony a license as is herein provided duly authorizing such persons to contract matrimony. Any officer or person performing the marriage ceremony without the production of such license shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty-five dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days nor less than ten days.

SECTION 20-1-360. Effect of article on marriage without license.
Nothing contained in this article shall render illegal any marriage contracted without the issuance of a license.

So... It is illegal to get married without a license, and it's illegal to perform a marriage ceremony without a license, but the resulting marriage itself could still be legal? (as long as nothing in the other sections renders it illegal).

It surprises me that it is apparently illegal to get married in a private ceremony without state involvement. I thought that such a marriage was allowed, but that it would simply not be recognized by the state. But apparently even the act of getting married without state involvement (ie. without a state-issued license) is illegal.
But what exactly defines "marriage" and a "marriage ceremony"? If you call it something else, like a "wedding" or a "hand-fasting", or a "life-long commitment", does that make it legal?

..

Fuck marriage and fuck laws. If I were to choose to get married to someone in a private or public ceremony, and/or in a religious ceremony (if I were religious), I sure as hell don't think the state has any right to say that it's illegal to do so.

So, it's not only that gay marriage is not recognized as valid under the law; it's actually illegal? You could theoretically get put in jail for having married someone by means of a non-legally sanctioned ceremony?

I supposed it shouldn't be surprising. Apparently the purpose of marriage is for sex, and there have been plenty of laws which made sex between various kinds of people illegal. So it follows that there would also be laws making marriage between various kinds of people illegal too.

Last Friday, after Qiao and me had been shooting some pool in a pool hall, Qiao commented that he had been disturbed to see a few children there. One had been a small child who was obviously only there because the parent was. Another few persons had looked to be of teenage years, and were shooting pool together.

My own first experiences with playing pool had been when I was a child, in vacation hotels and possibly in a few German restaurants. So it seemed an odd idea that there might be laws here in the U.S. against kids being in a place where pool/billiards was played.

Qiao said that most pool halls were like bars and served alcohol. The one we were in wasn't very bar-like, but apparently does have beer available. I can understand it if kids aren't allowed in bars, because a bar's main purpose is to sell alcohol, and kids are not allowed to have alcohol. But it still seems strange to ban kids from being in a pool hall, where the main purpose is pool, not alcohol. What is wrong with a kid playing pool? Unless perhaps, they are gambling, but in that case it should be the gambling that is disallowed, not the playing of pool.

Anyway, so I looked up what the laws are here in South Carolina, and found this:

SECTION 63-19-2420. Loitering in a billiard room.
It is unlawful for a person under eighteen years of age to loiter in a billiard or pocket billiard room or to play billiards or pocket billiards in a billiard room unless accompanied by the person's parent or guardian or with the written consent of the person's parent or guardian.

I *also* found this:

SECTION 63-19-2430. Playing pinball.
It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine.

Eh?? In my growing-up experience, only *kids* played pinball! To me, pinball is a kids' game. But there's a SC law still on the books that forbids kids from playing pinball here.

So then I googled about that, and found this interesting old article from 1942. Apparently way back then, pinball games were a topic of dispute. San Diego even banned them entirely, after "a delegation of all the ministers of the city churches" paid a visit to the county council.

Juke boxes were a topic of dispute back then too. But apparently that was due to concerns that it would hurt musicians' livelihood.
"...union musicians [were barred] from making radio transcriptions, juke box records, and commercial recordings not for home use.
In the nationwide controversy that followed, union spokesmen argued their action was a case of self-preservation; the canned music actually tended to destroy the musicians' livelihood. Against this, radio spokesmen and others, including the government, contended that the ban resembled a monopoly and threatened to put many small radio stations and other businesses out of existence."

That entire periodical ("The Billboard - The World's Foremost Amusement Weekly") seems fascinating to me; to read about how things were like back in 1942.

This page lets you search SC laws and regulations.