Jones On Politics

How did we get here?

The Strange and Bizarre Story of Wallace Scarborough’s Fight Against Democracy

As we all know, South Carolina is a very Republican state. John McCain carried the state by nine percentage points and the Republicans control six of the eight congressional seats, the Governor’s Mansion, the State House, and the State Senate. Republicans have all but one of the nine statewide constitutional offices. One may think that Republicans would be comfortable with their command of South Carolina. But they seem on the verge of stealing one of the few bright spots SC Democrats had in November.

Wallace Scarborough (R- Charleston) was elected to the SC House in 2000 by defeating a moderate GOP incumbent in the Republican Primary. Scarborough was aided by right-wing groups who didn’t believe his opponent had been conservative enough. Scarborough is the son of a prominent SC political figure and a graduate of The Citadel. After winning in 2000, Scarborough did not face serious opposition until 2006. He was facing a perennial candidate in Democrat Eugene Platt who is a self-described poet. Platt had run for nearly ten offices in the past including US Congress without ever winning though had managed to secure a seat on James Island Public Service district. 

Scarborough’s re-election hit a snag that year due to several interesting occurrences. He was having a well known affair with fellow Republican legislator, Rep. Catherine Ceips (R – Beaufort). (Beaufort is about an hour and half from Charleston) The two were often seen together displaying plenty of PDA. The affair became well known around the state capital of Columbia and the two, both married, were inseparable. At some point, Scarborough’s wife caught wind of things and filed for divorce. She also hired a private investigator. The PI had no problem securing the evidence needed to prove an affair. Scarborough’s wife kicked him out of the house and hired a well known local divorce lawyer. Both of Scarborough’s parents were elderly and ill and were living in a nursing home. After being kicked out of his house, he began staying at his parents’ home (outside of his legislative district). Rumors of private investigators and the divorce became well known and Scarborough’s behavior became erratic and odd. He would often display outbursts of anger and paranoia. His affair with Ceips never stopped. One stormy summer night while Scarborough was  at his parents’ home, a lightning strike knocked the power out in the neighborhood. SC Electric and Gas (SCE&G) employees were dispatched to the area. The SCEG employees ended up being in or near Scarborough’s parents’ yard looking for downed power lines. While never proven, it is rumored that Ceips was in the house with Scarborough at this time and he was drinking heavily. In an apparent drunken and outraged state, Scarborough confronted the SCE&G workers with a handgun, believing they were private investigators. The SCE&G workers were in full uniform and tried to explain to Scarborough their purpose of being in the yard. The explanations only angered Scarborough more, and he eventually fired his gun in their direction. The police were called and Scarborough was arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill. He spent the night in jail.

Of course, this was a media spectacle. Fortunately for Scarborough, the good ole’ boy Republican establishment in South Carolina came to his rescue. After taking the investigation into his own hands, the Republican solicitor dropped the charges against Scarborough and called the whole thing a big misunderstanding. It was good ole boy politics at its worst. The Republican House Caucus then took over Scarborough’s re-election campaign. They sent out mail accusing the Democrat, Platt, of writing erotic poetry about his daughter. On Election night, Scarborough was re-elected by just 40 votes. There was a recount and the margin was upheld. Platt did not protest the election.

This brings us to 2008. Scarborough was single due to the divorce and Ceips was single due to the death of her husband. Ceips was elected to the SC Senate in a 2007 special election and was then defeated in the 2008 Republican Primary. Scarborough had more successfully managed to keep his bizarre behavior out of public view and was primed to be the chairman of an important committee should he be re-elected. He moved back into his district and worked to rehabilitate is image.

Enter Anne Peterson Hutto. She was a local attorney who had moved to Charleston from New York City in the mid 90s. She had decided to run against Scarborough despite the fact that many believed that he had survived his political troubles and was impossible to defeat. She also had to run in a primary against the poet Platt who craved a rematch against Scarborough. The first poll had Platt leading by 15 points in the Democratic Primary. Nobody knew who Anne was. She canvassed the entire district, met voters, targeted her audience, and raised as much money as she could. And on June 10th she beat the poet with over 60% of the vote. In an ominous sign of things to come, Platt became outraged at his loss and got himself on the Green Party ballot for the November Election. Platt did this to split the Democratic vote which would enable Scarborough clear sailing in the general. Publicly, Platt maintained that he was running as a Green to win. Thankfully, a state law prohibited Platt from filing with one party, losing the primary, and then running under the banner of a different party in the general election. The case went to federal and state court. At the end of the day, Platt was removed from the Green ticket and banned from actively campaigning. Finally, in mid September the match was set. It was Hutto vs. Scarborough. Anne proved to be a terrific fundraiser. She raised over $100,000. She also went door-to-door in every single precinct. She took on the good ole’ boy establishment in the area and even sent out some hard-hitting mail reminding voters of Scarborough’s run-in with the law. Scarborough didn’t realize that he had a real race until mid October. At that point he and other establishment leaders began sending out mail and running radio spots accusing Hutto of being a liberal trial lawyer yankee who didn’t share our values.

On election night the race was too close to call. That did not stop Scarborough from publicly claiming victory. The local newspaper believed him and reported such on their web site. But after the absentee votes were counted, Hutto had won by 211 votes. Scarborough showed up at the Election Commission headquarters the next morning in shock. He yelled and his supporters for not doing enough. The election results were certified by the Republican controlled Charleston County Election Commission later that week. Scarborough immediately began to talk about challenging the election. The next week, the Republican-controlled South Carolina Election Commission certified the results. Scarborough immediately filed a protest and asked for another election. He claimed that over 700 voters voted “illegally”. The right-wing Charleston radio host, Rocky D, championed Scarborough’s claims. 

Eventually Scarborough released the names of the “illegal voters.” His proof was that these voters had filed a change of address form with the US Post Office. He claimed that over 400 of these folks had changed their address outside the district and the rest had changed their address within the district. Hutto’s campaign began to investigate this and found that the charges were unfounded. These folks changed their mailing address not their domicile. The plurality changed their address to a PO Box. Others changed their mailing address to their offices or were temporarily relocating. They were able to find that some people simply owned more than one home, but were still voting from an address they didn’t get their mail delivered to. Some of these people were overseas and many were college-aged students who often changed addresses, but kept their domicile at their parents or relatives house.

What became very clear is that none of these people committed voter fraud. None of these folks voted or were registered in more than one location. Hutto’s campaign sent their list of challenged voters to the SC Democratic Party’s database manager and he quickly found a folded column in their spreadsheet. It seems that Wallace Scarborough, who had himself changed his mailing address to a PO Box, was on his own list. They tried to hide it.

Right before the hearing, Scarborough’s lawyers dropped DMV records and tax records on these voters in an attempt to support their baseless claims. Hutto’s camp had only two hours to investigate this new evidence. Many of the names were not even on the original list. They were quickly finding contradictory evidence on most of these people as the hearing began. For no reason, Scarborough even released these people’s personal driving records. So we now know which of these people were arrested, had their licenses suspended, and why.

Hutto’s lawyers were on top of this. At the hearing, Scarborough’s lawyers didn’t even enter the National Change of Address information as evidence, instead relying on the 365 tax records and DMV records, still enough votes in question to overturn the election. Hutto’s advisors took the stand and offered contradictory tax records for several people showing that these people owned the house they voted from. As it turns out, they didn’t really have to work that hard to contradict their charges after all. First, there is law and a SC Attorney General’s opinion that clearly states the rules for a voting domicile. A domicile can be different from where someone gets their mail or even where they sleep at night. The AG’s opinion makes it very clear that someone’s DMV address can be different from their voting domicile. About 5 things need to take place to void someone’s domicile. Voter intent is a big deal here. This is where the US Constitution comes in. You cannot disenfranchise a voter without giving them legal notice and the right to defend their vote. In other words, due process rights. Scarborough hadn’t notified any of these people that he was attempting to disenfranchise them. None of them had the opportunity to defend their vote. The SC Election Commission is made up of four Republicans and one Democrat. They deliberated for about 20 minutes and unanimously rejected Scarborough’s protest.

Sadly, this is not where the story ends. It is simply the beginning of a potentially more serious situation that merits serious attention.

South Carolina has some pretty strange laws on the books reminiscent of a third world nation. One would think that any further appeal from Scarborough would go to the courts, right? Wrong. In South Carolina, any further appeal goes to the South Carolina House of Representatives. The SC state constitution provides the SC House with the ultimate responsibility of seating their members. The SC House is controlled by a bunch of very partisan Republicans who, in my opinion, don’t always care much for the rule of law.

A week and a day after his protest was rejected, Wallace Scarborough filed an official appeal with the SC House. He is now asking his former GOP colleagues to ignore the election results on November 4th. He’s asking them to put aside the decision made by the voters and void the election results. This is no longer about the law; this is about partisan politics at its worse.

Anne Peterson Hutto won the election on November 4 by a margin large enough that a recount was not even needed. Her victory was certified by the Republican-controlled Charleston County Election Commission and by the Republican-controlled South Carolina Election Commission. Scarborough’s baseless protest was unanimously rejected by the state Election Commission. While a Republican elected to the State Senate this year who’s election was under protest was sworn-in immediately after certification, Hutto has still not been sworn-in. Scarborough’s term ran out in November. According to the Clerk of the SC House, this seat is officially vacant.

Not one elected Republican has spoken out against what is happening, including Governor Mark Sanford who is running for President in 2012 or state GOP chair Katon Dawson who is running for national RNC chairman.

The process of deciding who will be seated in this house district will begin in mid January. The Republican controlled Judiciary Committee will recommend to the full House that either Hutto will be seated, that Scarborough will be seated, or that the seat will remain vacant and a special election will be called. A special election in this district could greatly benefit Scarborough.

This is a slap in the face to democracy as we know it. In the United States of America, the voters choose their representatives, not partisan politicians.

In an interesting twist, last weekend, Scarborough participated in the Folly Beach (a small beach town in the district) Christmas parade. He rode in an open convertible with a banner on his car claiming to be the official state representative for the town, even though his term had expired. Hutto wasn’t invited to participate in the parade.

This is a story that deserves national attention. For South Carolina to truly change, backwoods tactics like this must be exposed. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents must all come together, reject the good ole boy system and condemn Wallace Scarborough’s disregard for the rule of law, and the will of the voters. The residents of House District 115 are tired of seeing Scarborough’s soap opera lifestyle in the papers and on television. They voted him out. They elected Anne Peterson Hutto to represent them in the State House but for some strange reason, the will of the voters may no longer matter in South Carolina. And in the United States of America, that is incomprehensible, illegal, and unacceptable.

Speak out to the Governor and the Speaker of the House and urge them to stand up for democracy and the will of the voters of SC House District 115.

Contact the office of the Governor, Mark Sanford at (803)-734-2100.

Contact the Speaker of the House of Representatives Bobby Harrell at (803) 734-3125.