The commission voted 7-0 following a nearly two-hour hearing in county council chambers where petitioner Ernest Yarborough presented his case against the chairwoman.
For her part, McDaniel stormed out of the hearing only minutes after it convened when her request for a continuance was denied. She left the room in spite of warnings from the chair of the commission, Redden Thames, that she was under subpoena.
Thames later said that, on advice from the county’s attorney, an arrest warrant would not be issued for McDaniel’s arrest.
According to the school board’s official policy (Policy BBBC), “If a board member’s permanent residence ceases to be in his/her voting district, the member will resign immediately.”
Phone calls and emails to McDaniel asking if she indeed intends to resign were not answered at press time, neither were calls to vice chair Rickey Johnson.
Other board members, however, were clear on the matter.
“She should have resigned last night (Tuesday night’s school board meeting), point blank,” said board member Danielle Miller, “especially when you know you’re doing something wrong.”
Board member Polly Parker said it was only a matter of time.
“We can’t do anything until the paperwork comes in from the Election Commission,” Parker said. “Then, she’s gone.”
Yarborough called several witnesses during the proceedings, beginning with Debbie Stidham, custodian of records with the Fairfield County Voter Registration Office. Her testimony confirmed documents submitted into evidence by Yarborough that indicated McDaniel had registered to vote in Fairfield County in 1978, registering at the address 2247 Kennedy Road.
Testimony from a second witness, Elizabeth McDonald, a deputy assessor with the Richland County Tax Assessor’s office, confirmed that McDaniel had, in 1990, applied for a special assessment for legal residence in Richland County.
At that point, Yarborough contended, McDaniel’s voter registration in Fairfield County technically became null and void, as she had, under penalty of perjury, signed a document claiming residency in Richland County.
Further testimony from McDonald revealed that McDaniel did, in 2002, notify the assessor’s office that she was returning to Fairfield County, and that her legal residence would no longer be in Richland County.
However, Yarborough noted, at no time did McDaniel ever re-register as a legal voter in Fairfield County, which she was required to do by law.
Other witnesses included Lisa Sloan, an employee with South Carolina Electric and Gas, who confirmed that McDaniel’s account with them for the address at 1211 Metze Road, Columbia, is still active and has been so since 1988.
Davis Anderson, Deputy County Administrator, also testified to McDaniel’s employment with the county from 1997 to 2002 and that the address on her application forms was 1211 Metze Road. Anderson’s testimony, along with the testimony of Willard Bailey, former Data Processing Director for Fairfield County, confirmed that, during McDaniel’s tenure with the county, certain electronic equipment was installed in her home that would allow her to remotely access the county’s computer database. This equipment, Bailey said, was installed at McDaniel’s Metze Road address. The equipment was recovered from the same address following her termination in 2002.
In his summation, Yarborough also presented a current Columbia phone book, listing “A.E. McDaniel” at the Metze Road address.
But it was the combined testimony of Stidham and McDonald that proved to be McDaniel’s undoing.
“Walking out was the equivalent of taking the Fifth,” Yarborough said. “She cannot legally sit on that board. If she doesn’t resign, I will take appropriate action.”
Yarborough said he plans to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent McDaniel from returning to her seat on the board.
Kadena Woodard, whose petition was also scheduled to be heard Wednesday, excused all of her subpoenas and only submitted documents as evidence against McDaniel.
Following a brief recess, the commission returned its unanimous decision. Prior to doing so, Thames said the commission had given McDaniel every opportunity to answer her petitioners, but that “she has abandoned that pursuit.”
I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE SMARTER AND HAD MORE CHARACTER THAN THAT. Obviously, I was wrong.
You now have a 9:00 curfew. You guys are supposed to be leaders. Yet, you were led around by the nose by people who were laughing at you behind your back.
Coleman, watch what you say to the press if you are going to be underhanded.
Brown, keep your business off of Facebook.
You two have just gone down in history. Just not like you wanted to.
Brown speaks on Facebook to his temporarily adoring constituents.
You boys are too young to be on the streets after dark. You also need to watch out WHO
you listen to.
YOU HAVE BEEN USED LIKE PUPPETS ON A STRING. HOWEVER, IT IS YOUR FAULT FOR NOT BEING "SHARP" ENOUGH TO PICK UP ON THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL DUMP TRASH RIGHT DOWN YOUR THROAT IF YOU DON'T KEEP YOUR EYES AND EARS OPEN.
PERHAPS IN ABOUT 10 YEARS YOU WILL BE READY TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY. NOW IS THE TIME TO LEARN ABOUT REAL LIFE.
NOBODY WANTS SOMEONE TO REPRESENT THEM IF YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM TO BE AT LEAST AWAKE AND ALERT.
PERHAPS I TOTALLY MISSED THIS SPECTACULAR LETTER. PERHAPS YOU DID TOO. HOWEVER, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THIS LETTER HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN FROM A LARGE PART OF THE VOTING PUBLIC.
THAT PROVES A LOT. NOT ONLY WERE PERCENTAGES MISLEADING OR WRONG, THIS LETTER SHOULD HAVE LED ANY DECENT PERSON TO WITHDRAW THE BILLS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMBARRASSING, BUT IT WOULD HAVE SHOWN CHARACTER. IT IS NOT TOO LATE.
I AM ASHAMED OF OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. I WANTED TO BELIEVE THE BEST OF THEM, BUT THIS HISTORY IS VERY REVEALING. INDEED, IN MY OPINION, THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE AN INTENT TO REPEAT HISTORY.
MAY WE ALL TRY TO FORGIVE THE WRONGS DONE TO US AND THIS COUNTY. I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW YOU SHOULD VOTE ON JUNE 8 AND AT THE NEXT ELECTION FOR SENATOR.
HONESTLY, THIS WHOLE THING MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT.
One can be sympathetic to the concerns members of the Legislative Delegation have about problems the School Distict is expeiencing in Fairield County and suppot effots to ensure the quality education of all students, but those effots should not dilute the voting rights of minoities in Fairield County. Under the circumstances, the ACLU urges an objection to Act R 136 (HB 4432).
Sincerely,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
5
Laughlin McDonald
Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project
Herbert E. Buhl ' &«%£*V*a . I A\
ACLU Cooperating Attorney
Committee of the S.C. Legislative Black Caucus, I have been asked to investigate whether the two Bills violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I believe the way to effect change on the school board is through the election process and not through local legislation which may disenfranchise voters. It is my intent to convey my concerns to the Civil Rights Division of the U. S. Department of Justice.
A statement by Senators John Matthews, Darrell Jackson, and Ralph Anderson was similarly citical of the bill.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
Out of a long-held precedent in the Senate where members do not vote
on legislation affecting solely one county, also known as local
legislation, we did not officially vote on Bills related to Fairield County
schools. However, we have seious concerns about the legislation.
The effect of H. 4431 and H. 4432 is to undermine the will of Fairield
County voters. As a result, we strongly oppose both pieces of
legislation. The Bills serve to subvert the local election process and
could be construed as devices to disenranchise Fairield County voters
and thus violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We believe Fairield
County voters can best effect change for their community in the election
process. We plan to relay our strong objections to the U.S. Department
of Justice when the bills go to the agency for preclearance.
There has been other opposition to the bill. On March 11, 2010, the Town
Council of Ridgeway, which is located in Fairield County, voted not to suppot a
resolution sponsored by the County Legislative Delegation suppoting the change in the
makeup and authoity of the Fairfield County School Distict Board of Trustees. Several
public meetings and a demonstration have also been held in Fairfield County in
opposition to this legislation. Kamau Marchaia, a member of the Fairfield County
Council and who participated in the demonstration, explained his opposition to the bill
saying "it's a question of democracy, which I think works better from the ground up
rather than from the top down." Herald Independent. March 31, 2010. Thomas
Armstrong, the Chairman of the Fairield Parents Association, was quoted in the local
newspaper to similar effect saying that: "Senator Coleman and House Representative
Brown have decided that when the citizens go to the polls and vote, that's not good
enough. They need to appoint someone to oversee us, but we elect them, we elect the
county as well, but our vote for the school board is not good enough." Herald
Independent February 2, 2010, p. 1.
4
Although Act R 136 (HB 4432) does not abolish the Board of Trustees of the Fairield County School Distict, it would dilute the power of existing board
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
members. More important, it would dilute the power of voters of Fairield County by
taking from them the power to select all members of the Board of Trustees and
placing some of that power in the hands of the state Legislative Delegation. And
given the demographics of the county and the Board of Trustees, that transfer of
power would have an adverse racial impact and would be retrogressive within the meaning of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Beer v. United States. 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976).
That the purpose of Act R 136 (HB 4432) is to diminish the power of existing board members is apparent from comments made by Senator Coleman. According to The State newspaper, "Senator Creighton Coleman said appointing the two new
members was a necessity put in place to offset the boards reliable four member majoity voting bloc, which he said has stymied progress in the district." The State. February 22,2010, p. 1.
Members of the Black Legislative Caucus, although they did not vote on the bill since it was local legislation, were strongly citical of it. The S.C. Senate Journal contains the following comments by Senator Robert Ford:
I strongly oppose H. 4431 and H. 4432 due to the impact on the Fairield
County School Board. I believe both pieces of legislation have the effect
of subverting the will of Fairield County voters, who elected the current
school board members. As co-chairman of the Afirmative Action
!In Vander Linden the cout held that the legislative delegation system of local government violated one person, one vote given the fact that each member of a delegation had one vote but represented disproportionate numbers of county residents. 193 F.3d at 281. As a remedy, the state adopted a system of weighted
voting for delegation members.
3
plantation mentality, [which] has included threats against job secuity, exploitation of 'financial problems,' and outright asking blacks to stay away from the polls." Jeff Miller, "Fairield elections protested," The State. November 4, 1988, p. 1-C.
The Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School Distict is composed of seven members elected rom single member districts, which were established in 1991. Act R 159 (1991). According to the 2000 census, Fairield County is 59% African Ameican. At the present time, six of the seven members of the board are African Ameican. The bill passed by the state legislature, Act R13 6 (HB 4432) of 2010, would allow the Fairfield County Legislative Delegation to appoint two additional members
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
to the board. The two sponsors of the bill were Senator Creighton B. Coleman and
Representative H. Boyd Brown, both of whom are from Fairield County. Since the bill was local legislation, it passed by a single vote in both houses, i^, Senator Coleman's vote in the Senate and Representative Brown's vote in the House. The Governor, however, vetoed the bill on February 24, 2010, characterizing it as "local legislation." The veto was overridden by a vote of 1-0 in the House on March 2,2010, and by a vote of 1-0 in the Senate on March 4, 2010.
It is something of an irony that South Carolina has a history of circumventing the power of county voters to elect their own local oficials by transferring some or all of that power to members of the legislative delegation or other state level
officials. Pior to the election of Benjamin R. Tillman as governor in 1890, local
governing bodies in South Carolina were elected by popular vote. S.C. Const, of
1868, art. IV, § 19; 1873 S.C. Rev. Stat. 146, No. 155. In places like Edgeield
County, where Tillman grew up, and where blacks comprised a substantial majoity
of the population and voter registration was supervised by federal officials, there
were numerous black office holders duing the Reconstruction years. O. V. Burton,
Ungrateful Servants? Edgeield's Black Reconstruction: Pat I of the Total History of Edgeield County. South Carolina 108 (Princeton Univ. Doctoral dissertation 1976). Given his admitted racism, it is not surpising that Tillman was instrumental in
securing passage of legislation during his second term as governor that abolished elected local governments.
In 1894 the general assembly enacted a law requiring county and township commissioners to be appointed by the governor upon the recommendation of the local senator and representatives. 1894 S.C. Acts 481,483, No. 320; 1899 S.C. Acts
1, 2, No. 1; 1899 S.C. Acts 113,113-14, No. 86. All powers to tax, borrow money, appoint local boards, or exercise eminent domain were reserved for the state legislature. Since, as Tillman said, whites had "absolute control" of state
SOUTHERN
REGIONAL OFFICE
VOTING RIGHTS
PROJECT
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
SOUTHERN
REGIONAL OFFICE
230 PEACHTREE STREET, NW SUITE U40
ATLANTA, GA 30303-1513 T/404.523.2721
F/4D4.653.0331
WWW.ACLU.ORG
WWW.VOTINGRIGHTS.ORG
NATIONAL OFFICE
25 BROAD STREET, 1 8TH F|_.
NEW YORK, NY 1 0004-2400
T/2 1 2.549.2500
F/212.549.2654
WWW.ACLU.ORG
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS SUSAN N. HERMAN
PRESIDENT
ANTHONY D. ROMERO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RICHARD ZACKS
TREASURER
iAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION I u.
April 1,2010
Chief, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
1800 G Street, NW
Room 7254 - NWB
Washington, DC 20006
RE: Comment under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Submission No.
2010-0971, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Voting Rights Project of the ACLU ("ACLU") submits this comment letter to urge the Department of Justice to interpose an objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, to South Carolina's Submission No. 2010-0971,
authoizing the Fairfield County Legislative Delegation to appoint two additional
members to the Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School Distict. The state has
made another submission, No. 2010-0970, which transfers inancial authoity for the
School Distict rom the Board of Trustees to a new board appointed by the Fairield
County Legislative Delegation. This comment letter addresses only Submission No.
2010-0971.
The ACLU has represented African Ameican voters in Fairield County in prior
litigation under Section 2 ofthe Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The irst suit was
iled in 1988 and challenged at-large elections for the Town Council of Winnsboro, the
Fairield County seat. In July 1988, the federal distict court ruled that the plaintiffs had
established a prima facie case that the at-large system diluted minoity voting strength
in violation of Section 2, and ordered the implementation of a remedial disticting plan.
Broome v. Winnsboro. South Carolina Mayor and Town Council. Civ. No. 0-88-1160-
16 (D. S.C.). The second case was also filed in 1988 and challenged at-large elections for the Fairield County Council. Walker v. Fairield County, South Carolina, County Council. Civ. No. 0-88-2927-6 (D. S.C.). The distict court ruled that plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case of a violation of Section 2, and the parties agreed in December 1988, to submit a new plan for distict elections.
Aside from polaized voting, the November 1988 election in Fairield County
was characteized by racial division. In the days leading up to the election, Robert
Davis, a black councilman, told The State newspaper that whites had "threatened blacks
to stay away rom the polls." He described the political atmosphere in the county as "a
/■
®
to be continued
PAGE 1
Key Issues
Our Work
News & Commentary
About the ACLU
How You Can Help
Newsfeeds
Blog
Donate
Voting Rights
ACLU Urges Department Of Justice To Object To Changes In County Board Elections In South Carolina
E-mail ShareLinkedInDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! Buzz"Twitter"StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditPermalinkPrint April 1, 2010
Changes Would Dilute Minority Vote
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
WINNSBORO, SC – In a letter sent today to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the American Civil Liberties Union urged the DOJ to object to changes to board elections for the Fairfield County School District in South Carolina because the changes would dilute the voting strength of minorities in Fairfield County. Because of its history of discrimination against minority voters, South Carolina is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to preclear changes to election procedures before they may be implemented.
The changes, authorized by a bill passed by the South Carolina Legislature, allow the Fairfield County legislative delegation to appoint two additional members to the Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School District, increasing its size from seven to nine. The existing members of the board were elected by residents of Fairfield County in district elections. Fairfield County and the Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School District are majority African-American.
"Allowing members of the state legislative delegation to appoint board members of the Fairfield County school district circumvents the power of county voters, the majority of whom are black, to elect their own local officials," said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "That violates one of the central tenants of our democracy, that every American citizen has the right to participate equally in the political process."
In its comment letter to the DOJ, the ACLU says that the changes to the board's elections would have a retrogressive effect on minority voting strength in the county in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The letter points out that appointing additional members to the board would dilute the power of the existing seven board members, six of whom are black. More importantly, it would dilute the power of voters of Fairfield County, which is 59 percent black, to select all the members of the Board of Trustees.
"It's clear that the changes to the school board elections in Fairfield County would dilute the minority vote in the county and don't meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act," said Herbert Buhl, the cooperating attorney in Columbia, South Carolina who co-wrote the letter to the DOJ. "The DOJ should object to them."
The South Carolina legislation authorizing the appointments was crafted by Sen. Creighton Coleman and Rep. Boyd Brown. Their stated purpose was to offset an existing four-member majority voting bloc on the Board of Trustees that the legislators claim is stymieing progress.
The ACLU letter outlines the long history of segregation and racial discrimination in South Carolina and Fairfield County and the obstacles to voting minorities have faced there, including racially polarized voting and as late as the 1980s, reports of whites threatening blacks to stay away from the polls. The ACLU has represented black voters in Fairfield County in two prior cases challenging discriminatory voting practices.
The ACLU's letter to the DOJ, co-authored by McDonald and Buhl, can found at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-letter-doj-objecting-changes-fairfax-county-board-trustees-elections
Get exclusive content and interact with Boyd Brown right from Facebook. ... WINNSBORO, SC (WIS) - A lobbyist is suing the Fairfield County School District, ...
www.facebook.com/pages/Boyd-Brown/8380207693 - Cached - Similar
I DID NOT READ THIS, BUT DID BROWN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT LAWSUIT?
BiographicalVoting RecordIssue Positions
(Political Courage Test)Interest Group RatingsCampaign Finances
Current Office: State House
Current District: 41
Party: Democratic
Please call our Voter's Research Hotline 1-888-VOTE SMART (1-888-868-3762) for more information.
Donations by Sector
2008
Uncoded $21,995
Lawyers & Lobbyists $10,625
Candidate Contributions $9,000
Construction $8,100
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $6,825
General Business $6,500
Energy & Natural Resources $2,850
Agriculture $2,400
Health $2,050
Labor $2,000
Party $1,000
Government Agencies/Education/Other $850
Communications & Electronics $800
Transportation $500
Total: $75,495
OF THE ABOVE...$22,000 UNCODED??????????????????
$10,500 LAWYERS AND LOBBYISTS???
TOTAL OF THOSE = $32,500 OF $75,500
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU NEED TO WATCH WHAT YOU SAY ON FACEBOOK. IT IS NATIONAL AND SOCIAL..AND IT WILL COME BACK TO BITE YOU IN THE BUTT!
RIGHT? ANYONE KNOW THAT FOR A FIRST-HAND FACT?
Longtime GOP activist and former SC Election Commission chair Rusty Depass joked ... Andre Bauer Anton Gunn Boyd Brown GOP buffoonery health care Jim Rex ...
A prominent S.C. Republican Party activist is in hot water after describing an escaped gorilla at a South Carolina zoo as an “ancestor” of First Lady Michelle Obama.
The exchange occurred after Trey Walker, an advisor to S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, posted an innocuous Facebook update about this morning’s escape of a Western Lowlands Gorilla from Columbia’s Riverbanks Zoo.
ooooooooooeeeeeee!
Friends of Rusty Depass -----Election Commission???
00000000000eeeeeeeeee
Mocking the First Lady?...Gorilla?
HAVE NO FEAR, ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED ON JUNE 8, 2010
“Dwight Drake is, simply put, the best candidate to get South Carolina working again, and there is no more important job for the next Governor than that,” Brown said in a prepared statement released by the Drake campaign. “He has the hands-on experience and proven leadership that we desperately need, and with his comprehensive jobs plan, Dwight offers actual...
OOPS! ANOTHER BAD CHOICE? I BELIEVE THIS DUDE GOT OUT EARLY...REAL EARLY...LIKE RAN OUT OF MONEY...SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE SUPPORT AND DONORS, I BELIEVE.
Well, this junk STINKS to the highest heavens. MAYBE we will all be there one day to smell it. MAYBE SOME WON'T.
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
THINK ABOUT IT LONG AND HARD. I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO EXPERIENCE THE HELL OF WHAT WAS IN THE PAST. DO YOU?
THAT FLAG IS STILL FLYING. ONLY YOU CAN HELP TAKE IT DOWN TO KEEP HISTORY FROM REPEATING ITSELF.
HISTORY KILLED MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. IS THAT THE STRATEGY? ELIMINATE THE LEADERS AT ALL COSTS?
SOME LEADERS ARE TAKEN BY THE COMPETITION AND TAKEN UNDER THEIR WINGS. SOME ARE DESTROYED BY DEMEANING THEIR CHARACTERS FOR NO REASON. COME ON PEOPLE. YOU SHOULD SEE THAT THERE ARE ENEMIES IN YOUR MIDST. THEY ACT LIKE YOUR FRIENDS UNTIL THEY ARE TAKEN IN, BY HOOK OR CROOK, BY YOUR ENEMIES. BENEDICT ARNOLDS.
YET, SOME CANNOT BE FOOLED. ANNIE CANNOT BE FOOLED OR MOVED. IS THAT WHY THEY ARE WAGING THEIR OWN PERSONAL WAR AGAINST HER? WHO WILL BE NEXT. THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL THEIR AGENDAS ARE FINISHED.
DON'T FALL FOR LIES.
Has anyone dared to get on the internet and look up the questions at hand? Probably not. You would rather believe people who act like they know what they are saying. Are they credible? Do you care that attacks against McDaniel have been going on for 8 years with no fault found?
Do your own research. As a layman who researched on the internet, my opinion is that the question of residency depends on the "intent to return." McDaniel never abandoned her "intent to return" to Fairfield. IF IT IS PROVEN IN AN ADEQUATE HEARING THAT SHE EVER EVEN ABANDONED IT. Can the people on the Election Commission understand the law? NO. They are appointed by Brown and Coleman. Reread Cato. He represented Greenville but lived for a fairly long time with his wife in Columbia. Did they JERK his residency away from him? NO. The powers that be clearly said he remained a resident of Greenville, the County he originated from. You are hearing LIES BASED ON OTHER LIES. Do your own research on the web. MAKE YOUR OWN INFORMED DECISION. DO NOT RELY ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDAS. SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TAKEOVER THIS TOWN. IF THEY SUCCEED IN REMOVING MCDANIEL, THAT WILL BE 3 VOTING DISTICTS WHO HAVE BEEN CHEATED OF THEIR RIGHTS TO ELECT THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVE. IF YOU THINK THIS WILL BE THE END OF THEIR INTENT TO TAKE OVER, THINK AGAIN.