News & Commentary

October 21, 2012. Orangeburg Times & Democrat. It is a good thing that South Carolina voters will not face the unnecessary hurdle of producing government-issued photo IDs on Nov. 6 of this year, but our work to protect voting rights can’t end with this. Our politicians should acknowledge (as Election Commission professionals do) that it is burdensome to vote only on the first Tuesday of November while our friends in over 30 states nationwide have far more flexible options for early voting.

October 10, 2012. Rock Hill Herald. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit to establish the right of a man who takes his wife’s last name after they are married to get a new driver’s license.

October 9, 2012. AP. Columbia, S.C. The leader of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles says an employee made a mistake by refusing to let a man change his name to his wife's name unless he had a court order.

Aiken StandardBy Rob Novit – Staff writer

The Georgetown TimesBy Scott Harper

August 1, 2012. Island Packet. Beaufort County has installed more than 100 surveillance cameras in public buildings during the past two years, and some officials are hoping to place the devices at libraries, parks and boat landings.

July 30, 2012. American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in 38 states including South Carolina sent requests today to local police departments and state agencies that demand information on how they use automatic license plate readers (ALPR) to track and record Americans’ movements.

“Both sides of the immigration debate claimed victory on Monday, June 26, finding something to celebrate in the decision.”

July 3, 2012. The Greenville News. The recent Supreme Court ruling on S.B. 1070 represents a strong rebuke to Arizona lawmakers who involved their state in immigration enforcement, and it should put our politicians on guard against passing or implementing further unconstitutional measures. The Supreme Court struck down three of the four Arizona provisions considered on the grounds that states do not have the authority to regulate immigration. It expressed concerns that the fourth provision, the controversial “show me your papers” requirement, might well be impossible to enforce without violating federal law. The Court strongly suggested that this could lead to such provisions being struck down, while indicating that it is too early to tell if “show me your papers” is unconstitutional as well.In our view, it will be impossible to implement South Carolina’s copycat version, SB20/Act 69, without relying on racial profiling. It is impossible to enforce these provisions without using race, color or ethnicity. Such inherently unequal treatment of people is clearly unconstitutional.