S.C. NAACP and Disabled Voters Challenge Restrictions on Voter Assistance

MEDIA CONTACTS: Paul Bowers, [email protected]

Ella Wiley, [email protected]

Chyna Fields, [email protected]

COLUMBIA – Disabled voters are suing to challenge South Carolina’s restrictions on voter assistance because these 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.

In a federal lawsuit filed December 5, the NAACP South Carolina State Conference joins individual disabled voters in challenging the State’s limits on who can provide assistance to voters, how many voters they can assist, and what categories of voters can receive assistance. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, and Proskauer Rose LLP.

South Carolinians require assistance voting for a variety of reasons including vision and hearing impairments, mobility issues, and cognitive impairments. In the lawsuit, voters rely on Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which states, “Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”

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.

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 the State’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.

“Voting is a fundamental right, and the State of South Carolina is infringing on that right for voters with disabilities and low literacy,” said Brenda Murphy, President of the NAACP South Carolina State Conference. “The South Carolina NAACP is proud to take part in this important lawsuit to dismantle barriers to voting for Black voters and all voters in our state.”

“These laws target some of our state’s most vulnerable voters and make it harder — sometimes even impossible —to cast a ballot,” said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina. “Voters who need help voting deserve to receive that help from someone they trust, without worrying that the state might arrest the person they choose.”

"The Voting Rights Act guarantees for all disabled and low-literacy voters the right to receive assistance from a person of their choice,” said Clay Pierce, EJW Fellow with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. “Laws that criminalize that assistance — from a friend, loved one, or caregiver — prevent voters from participating in the democratic process with dignity and autonomy. We are proud to represent the NAACP South Carolina State Conference and individual voters to protect their right to assistance."

The Voting Rights Act guarantees disabled and low-literacy voters the right to receive assistance from a person of their choice. The lawsuit asks 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 lead plaintiff in the case is the NAACP South Carolina State Conference. The organization is joined by individual plaintiffs who are impeded in their ability to rely on their chosen assistor to vote in the 2026 primary and general elections. They are residents of congregate care facilities who would choose a staff member from the facility whom they trust to assist them, but are impeded by the State’s five-voter limits for assistors and other restrictions.

Defendants in the case include South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, State Election Commission Interim Executive Director Jenny Wooten, State Election Commission Chairman Dennis W. Shedd, and four Members of the State Election Commission, sued in their official capacities. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction of the State’s unlawful restrictions on voting assistance. Plaintiffs filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division.

About NAACP

The NAACP advocates, agitates, and litigates for the civil rights due to Black America. Our legacy is built on the foundation of grassroots activism by the biggest civil rights pioneers of the 20th century and is sustained by 21st-century activists. From classrooms and courtrooms to city halls and Congress, our network of members across the country works to secure the social and political power that will end race-based discrimination. That work is rooted in racial equity, civic engagement, and supportive policies and institutions for all marginalized people. We are committed to a world without racism where Black people enjoy equitable opportunities in thriving communities.

NOTE: The Legal Defense Fund – also referred to as the NAACP-LDF - was founded in 1940 as a part of the NAACP, but now operates as a completely separate entity.