Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
June 2
The Index-Journal on police brutality protests:
Yes, the outrage is understandable.
Yes, the frustration is understandable.
Yes, the anger is understandable.
Yes, the protests are understandable. And warranted.
It is even understandable that given the many years of blatant racism and disproportionate cases of police brutality targeting black Americans protesters people want to resort to more than walking and chanting in unison.
If we admit it, have we not all been so angry that we want to punch someone or something? Have we not been so enraged that we consider breaking things? Or even do so?
Imagine, then, with all the pent up anger, outrage and frustration over social injustice how difficult it might be for some not to resort to doing more than marching and chanting.
But make no mistake. The nation cannot heal that way. Those who take to burning and looting the businesses and automobiles with no regard for the property owners’ involvement or stance on such issues are distracting from the very message they want to send and, in some cases, turning sympathetic eyes and ears the other direction.
Fortunately, the majority of those protesting across the nation are doing so peacefully, including here in Greenwood. They are unified in making their message known, which is that it is time to end the racial division, strife and injustice that George Floyd - and others before him - have come to represent.
It is unfortunate that some involved in the protests have seen fit to abandon the message and, instead, resort to a self-serving mission of stealing. Or, in some cases, destroy for the sake of destroying. But again, they are in the minority while the majority remain true to their message.
Violence, destruction and theft will get plenty of attention and camera time, but the overarching message being broadcast through peaceful organized protests is what must remain the nation’s focal point.
We can condemn the violence, the burning and looting, but we cannot let those actions distract from what the real and ever-present problem is within America.
Online: http://www.indexjournal.com/
___
June 2
The Post and Courier on a guest column written by South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Drew McKissick:
If you think political parties have become destructive forces, today’s guest column from the chairman of the S.C. Republican Party probably won’t change your mind. It’s sadly little more than a diatribe, filled with innuendo that seems designed not so much to explain why he disagreed with a recent editorial but to advance a narrative that the media can’t be trusted.
It’s not the sort of thing we’d normally publish. But Drew McKissick wrote it in response to our editorial on Friday urging people to vote against a question on the June 9 GOP primary ballot, and we believe we have an obligation to let people respond when we criticize them.
But we also have another obligation to readers: not to publish claims we know are false or misleading - and certainly not unjustified criticism of our motives or integrity.
Those obligations usually co-exist easily, but this is one of those rare occasions when they don’t. So we decided to do something a little unorthodox: Publish the column and allow Mr. McKissick to respond, but also provide some context, so we aren’t spreading misleading claims.
Our editorial warned people that a question on the June 9 GOP primary ballot about “allowing” voters to register by party actually seeks to require them to register by party in order to vote in primaries. Mr. McKissick decries the absence of “the truth” in the editorial, although he doesn’t list any facts he considers untrue. Instead, he cites opinions he finds objectionable, such as our description of the ballot question as misleading.
His column implies that editorial writers are supposed to be “dedicated to reporting the news and sticking to facts.” That is the job of reporters, but the job of editorial writers is to write informed opinion. We strive to base our opinion on facts and a sense of fairness, but our editorials are opinion, and clearly labeled as such.
Mr. McKissick complains that we encouraged Democrats to vote in the Republican primary to support our position, which is absolutely true. The missing context: We also encouraged Republicans to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February. And we’ll continue to encourage all people of good faith to vote in the primaries that include contests most important to them.
In his argument for closed primaries, Mr. McKissick says the Republican Party paid the state more than $600,000 to conduct this month’s primary. That’s not technically untrue, but here’s the rest of the story: Candidates have to pay a filing fee; the amount is set by state law. Candidates pay that fee to the political parties, which by law are required to forward it to the State Election Commission. That’s the only money the party “pays” to the state. It helps pay for the primaries; taxpayers pay the bulk of the cost.
It’s essentially true that under current state law, “a primary ballot exists because a political party exists.” But this is also true: There’s nothing that requires states to give political parties an automatic spot on the general election ballot, which is what the primaries do. Some states have experimented with nonpartisan blanket primaries, where parties aren’t listed, and the two top vote-getters advance to the general election. Given all the damage that primaries do to our state, we’re not sure that’s a bad idea.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com
___
May 28
The Times and Democrat on the upcoming Democratic Presidential primary:
The rules for voting in the June primaries and runoffs finally may be set.
A federal judge’s ruling on Memorial Day has effectively ended a key point of disagreement lingering after the General Assembly approved all voters in the state being able to cast absentee ballots in June.
U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs ruled that voters will not have to meet the requirement of having the envelope in which they mail in absentee ballots signed by a witness. The requirement was being challenged by the S.C. Democratic Party and others.
In ruling against the S.C. Election Commission and Gov. Henry McMaster, the judge cited the difficulty of a voter having a witness sign while abiding by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advice on social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.
An absentee voter infected with the virus would “risk exposing the witness and whoever comes in contact with the witness to the virus,” the judge stated, noting that maintaining the witness requirement would not be in the best interest of the public.
Complying with the judge’s ruling, the State Election Commission issued a statement notifying voters: “Election officials will accept and count all absentee ballots regardless of whether the envelope contains a witness signature, if otherwise valid. Any ballots that may have already been returned without a witness signature will also be counted if otherwise valid. Voters are still required to sign and date the voter’s oath on the return envelope. However, the ‘Signature of Witness’ and ‘Address of Witness’ spaces can be left blank.”
Though South Carolina’s law on absentee voting makes it possible for just about anyone to cast an early ballot, a person would still have been required to provide a reason for voting absentee in June had the legislature not acted to allow all registered voters to cast absentee ballots in June. The action was taken to protect people during the continuing coronavirus emergency.
Marci Andino, executive director of the State Election Commission, said: “This action by the General Assembly and Gov. McMaster, which we greatly appreciate, will go a long way in protecting the health and safety of every South Carolinian. All voters now have a safer alternative to voting at their polling place in June.”
But voting by absentee ballot is not required during the emergency. Polls will be open on June 9, with the election commission advising that steps are being taken to protect the health of voters and poll managers:
Poll managers will receive special COVID-19 training on applying social distancing and maintaining sanitary conditions in the polling place.
- Masks, face shields and gloves will be worn by poll managers.
- Sneeze guards will be in place at check-in stations.
- Sanitizing wipes will be used to clean common surfaces.
- Hand sanitizer will be available for voters and poll managers.
- Cotton swabs will be used for making selections on the touchscreen.
- Check-in stations and voting equipment will be spaced at least six feet apart.
Some will see expansion of absentee voting and the ruling against the witness requirement as opening the door to making the changes permanent. The courts are likely to be used again in pursuit of such, particularly in regard to the November general election.
But for now, the changes only apply to the June 9 primaries and any June 23 runoffs. And unless the status of the coronavirus emergency is again used to justify the courts waiving state law, changes in voting statutes are and should be a matter for the General Assembly.
Online: https://thetandd.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.