NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson

South Carolina’s unnecessary restrictions on voting assistance violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs sued to protect their right to voting assistance and the right of all voters with disabilities and low literacy to vote with dignity and autonomy.

Section 208 of The Voting Rights Act guarantees that all voters with disabilities or low literacy have the right to receive assistance to vote from the person of their choice, with two narrow exceptions related to a voter’s union and employer. Many voters rely on a trusted friend, caregiver, or loved one for support filling out their ballot or returning it by mail. But South Carolina laws limit that assistance and impose felony criminal penalties for those who might want to help voters. These laws violate Section 208 and will impede Plaintiffs’ ability to vote in the 2026 primaries and general election.

South Carolina law prohibits voting assistance “of any kind” except for voters who can’t read or write or who are “physically unable or incapacitated” from voting. But all voters with disabilities are afforded the right to receive assistance under Section 208, including voters with cognitive disabilities or physical disabilities that don’t render them incapacitated from voting.

South Carolina also imposes steep criminal penalties for anyone who assists more than five absentee voters in an election. Plaintiffs and many other voters with disabilities reside in congregate care facilities where they rely on one staff member for help voting. After that staff member has helped five voters in an election, the rest of the voters in the facility can’t rely on that person for help. This violates voters’ right to assistance from a person of their choice.

Under the current law, many voters cannot receive assistance from anyone other than an immediate family member. This restriction violates their right to assistance, including those who don’t have family nearby or would prefer to rely on a trusted friend or neighbor.

Together, South Carolina’s unnecessary and burdensome restrictions harm Plaintiffs and other voters with disabilities and low literacy who rely on voting assistance to make their voices heard in the democratic process.