SC NAACP v. Wilson

Disabled voters and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference filed a lawsuit in December 2025 to challenge South Carolina’s restrictions on voter assistance, arguing that these state laws violate the federal Voting Rights Act and will impede their ability to vote in the 2026 primaries and general election.

The lawsuit challenges state laws that have made it difficult or impossible for many disabled South Carolinians, including those living in nursing homes and congregate care facilities, to exercise their voting rights.

Why this case?

We took this case to protect the right to vote. South Carolina law restricts who can provide and receive voting assistance and imposes felony criminal penalties on those who assist in the voting process in violation of South Carolina’s restrictions. The lawsuit challenges those State laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that they violate Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act.

Congress added Section 208 to the Voting Rights Act in 1982, finding that allowing disabled voters to choose their preferred assistor was “the only way to assure meaningful voting assistance and to avoid possible intimidation or manipulation of the voter.” It also found that the denial of assistance to low-literacy voters would conflict with the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on literacy tests, which were long used to disenfranchise Black voters.

We are asking a federal court to block enforcement of the following state-level restrictions on voter assistance, citing the Voting Rights Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

• Who is eligible to receive assistance. South Carolina law prohibits voting assistance “of any kind” except for “those persons who are unable to read or write or who are physically unable or incapacitated from preparing a ballot or voting.” This rule is narrower than the federal Voting Rights Act, which guarantees assistance for all voters with disabilities.
• The ability of non-family members to assist voters. State law makes it a felony for many disabled voters to rely on anyone other than a member of their “immediate family” to request or return their absentee ballot. Data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission shows that, among disabled voters who rely on assistance to vote, a majority prefer to rely on a non-family member to assist them. South Carolina voters are only allowed to rely on an “authorized representative” outside their immediate family in specific circumstances, including if they are confined to home or physically incapable of accessing polling places.
• Who is authorized to assist with voting. The Voting Rights Act guarantees that voters with disabilities may choose anyone to assist them, with only two narrow exceptions related to their employer or union. In contrast, South Carolina law imposes additional restrictions, including the requirement that an authorized representative is registered to vote in South Carolina.
• How many voters a person can assist. South Carolina law prohibits anyone from requesting more than five absentee ballot applications or returning more than five absentee ballots for others. This rule harms voters at nursing homes and other congregate care facilities, where many residents often seek assistance from a single social worker or other employee, and violates voters’ federal right to rely on an assistor of their choice.

The latest

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 5, 2025. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction of the State’s unlawful restrictions on voting assistance.