Winthrop University sponsors state-wide polling of the general public and likely voters on a regular basis. The polling is overseen by Dr. Scott Huffmon of the Political Science department and is highly regarded for its methodological rigor. Following a recent round of polling, Post and Courier journalist Nick Reynolds gave a summary of Huffmon’s review of the May 2024 poll, which reveals a disturbing trend. According to Nick Reynolds, “… issues polled indicate that legislative actions often bely public opinion.”
The SC legislature is passing legislation that clear majorities of the South Carolina public, as reflected in these polls, do not favor and likely would not vote for if they had an opportunity through issue referenda. This disconnect applies to issues such as abortion restrictions, background checks for gun purchases, the age to purchase types of weapons, medical marijuana, and providing a full and accurate account of how racial discrimination shapes South Carolina history. When a representative sample of the South Carolina public is directly asked to share their opinions about issues, we can see these opinions do not match the content of the bills and regulations that are passing through the SC legislature and being endorsed by the governor. There is middle ground in South Carolina, but it is being ignored.
Winthrop Poll Results:
Links to Winthrop Poll Results: May 8-21, 2024 | May 12-22, 2023 | April 2023
There are several recent examples of elected officials avoiding popular sentiments and concerns when it comes to quality of life issues in South Carolina.
Reproductive Rights: In 2023, the SC Legislature instituted a six-week abortion ban, even though a clear majority of South Carolinians, as reflected in the May 2024 Winthrop poll, oppose this timeframe. Dr. Huffmon’s results show “very strong majorities in South Carolina, including strong majorities among both Democrats and Republicans, believe abortion should remain legal under some circumstances," such as the health of the mother (84%) and if the pregnancy was due to rape (81%).
As Joseph Bustos, State Government and Politics Reporter at The State, points out, “South Carolina doesn’t have a mechanism to allow citizen initiative petitions to put a question on the ballot. In a state where a plurality of people oppose the state’s 6-week abortion ban, only lawmakers can place constitutional questions on ballots and Republican leadership doesn’t think that move is necessary because legislators are elected to make those decisions (July 10, 2024).” In the six states that put reproductive health on the ballot since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, majorities of voters told their representatives that they wanted to regain or maintain those freedoms.
Gun Safety: Even with South Carolina’s long-standing high rate of gun violence and counter to related public opinion polls and county sheriffs’ thinking, state elected officials relaxed further the rules about concealed weapons. The state’s “Constitutional Carry” law, H. 3594, went into effect on March 7, 2024. The statute makes it legal to carry a gun just about anywhere without a concealed weapon permit. The gun can be carried openly or concealed except in locations such as courthouses, schools and police departments. Additionally, in South Carolina there are no background checks, firearms registration, or permit requirements when buying a firearm from a private individual and 18-year-olds have been permitted to purchase certain weapons for years.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Curriculum: In the 2023-2024 legislative session, the South Carolina House of Representatives passed H 4289, which seeks to limit the use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs on college campuses. This legislative solution in search of a problem (and public support) just copied the efforts undertaken in several other states. The same type of "cut and paste" legislation can be found in the restrictive book ban regulations.
While the May 2024 Winthrop Poll asked about a DEI college curriculum requirement, not broad DEI policies on college campuses, the results do signal bipartisan support for the types of programs that the legislature is banning mandates of.
Book Bans: Though there is no recent polling in South Carolina about book banning, there are two national polls that take snapshots of the public’s thinking about book bans. Large majorities of voters (71%) oppose efforts to have books removed from their local public libraries, including a majority of Democrats (75%), independents (58%), and Republicans (70%), according to polling commissioned by the American Library Association. A companion result found, “Most voters and parents hold librarians in high regard, have confidence in their local libraries to make good decisions about what books to include in their collections, and agree that libraries in their communities do a good job offering books that represent a variety of viewpoints.”
However, in August 2024, South Carolina went forward with the implementation of one of the most restrictive book ban regulations in the US, enabling mass censorship in school classrooms and libraries across the state. Regulation 43-170 gives the state board of education power to ban books from schools if they meet the state legal definition of “sexual conduct.” The process unfolds in steps: Parents would get five challenges a month and if the local school board doesn’t approve their challenge, the decision can be appealed to the state level. If that board agrees, the book would be banned, not just in that county, but in schools across the state. The regulation appears to have been adapted from regulations deployed in Iowa.
Medical Marijuana: The Compassionate Care Act has lingered in the SC Legislature for years without passage, even though a strong majority of South Carolinians support permitting doctors and their patients access to a well-regulated medical cannabis program. Advocates believe it is time to allow doctors - in consultation with their patients - to decide what is the best course of medical treatment, especially when that patient is in pain and pharmaceuticals have not provided relief. Republicans and Democrats generally agree on the topic. According to Huffmon, “Support for medical marijuana in South Carolina has steadily grown over the years, especially as other states have moved towards legalization without an apparent collapse of society.”
Why are voter sentiments not always reflected in laws that are passed by those elected to represent them?
How did we get here? There are many reasons. The nationalization of politics has made state policy respond more to party control of state government, without much responsiveness to public opinion change or evidence of policy effectiveness. The American Political Science Association submitted a white paper, composed by several scholars, documenting this trend. Dr. Grumbach, one of the contributors, writes, “Ultimately, the nationalization of party networks may enable antidemocratic coalitions that gain power at the state level to subsequently propel themselves to national power…In recent decades, national political organizations and interest group activists have shifted resources to the state level, in response to gridlock at the national level. As a result, state legislatures have polarized and become sites of national political conflict. This trend toward nationalization is reinforced by a media ecosystem that is highly partisan and hyper-focused on national issues. Additionally, the organizational networks that state governments rely on to inform policymaking increasingly reside within national partisan silos, meaning that state legislatures are more likely to adopt legislation that closely resembles the policies of co-partisan states.”
In addition, state-level parties have moved to perfecting gerrymandering, sharing canned legislation and shielding agenda-loyal state legislators from competition. As Brian Hicks opined in the Post and Courier (June 16, 2024), “That sort of gerrymandering drives the parties to the polar extremes, diminishes any chance of moderation or bi-partisanship—and leaves us with a state government that can’t pave roads for fighting divisive, bogus culture wars.” Grumbach agrees: “Gerrymandering has clear implications for political parties’ incentives to be responsive to voters.”
Another current keeping voters and state-elected officials apart is that voters do not always give state legislators strong incentives to work hard in office in order to win reelection; they do not always discern between “work-horses” and “show-horses” when making candidate selections. Consistent with this concern, political scientist Steven Rogers (2023) presents evidence “that incumbents among state legislators are not punished when they support more extreme positions on roll-call votes.”
This is exacerbated by low voter turnout in primary elections, where parties can choose the candidate they will have on the ballot in the general election. With over three million registered voters in the Palmetto State, only 15.6 percent cast their ballot in the June 2024 primary, or about 506,000 voters. That's down from the previous election cycle, despite a rise in early voting in 2024. (Voter participation statistics are available from the SC Election Commission.)
LWV Positions on Issues Included in this Article
The League of Women Voters is committed to helping create an informed electorate; this work includes providing voters with information that helps them to evaluate the candidates on their ballot. We are also committed to advocating for voting rights and reforms (including redistricting reform) that will strengthen our democracy.
The LWV is non-partisan and never supports or opposes any candidate or elected official. However, we do adopt issue positions after performing extensive research and arriving at a member consensus.
For the League of Women Voters, comprehensive gun safety reform must include: (1) closing the gun show loophole, (2) offering universal background checks, (3) banning assault weapons and putting limits on high-capacity ammunition magazine size, (4) increasing penalties for straw purchases of guns, and (5) funding research and reporting on gun violence in America. Curbing gun violence is a critical matter of public safety and health to restore public confidence in our government’s ability to protect communities and vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people of color who are often targets of gun violence (LWVUS, 2022).
The LWV strongly supports reproductive rights, including family planning, access to abortion and sex education. The LWVSC affirms the LWVUS position on reproductive rights and accepts the definition of reproductive and sexual rights promulgated by Amnesty International at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development: “Sex and reproductive health rights, including access to sexual and reproductive health care and information as well as autonomous sexual and reproductive decision making, are human rights. These rights are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are grounded in other essential rights including the right to health free from discrimination, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one’s children, and the right to be free from sexual violence.”
LWV South Carolina is a member of a group of organizations and community leaders called Freedom to Read SC. It is a statewide coalition that will work to defeat unconstitutional efforts to ban books from schools and public libraries. The Coalition includes educational organizations, civil rights groups, religious entities, and others who are committed to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
LWV South Carolina does not have a position on medical marijuana, but we do believe that illegal drug use should be considered a public health issue, and that drug use and addiction should be addressed by substance abuse treatment and education programs instead of incarceration.
There are several ways to relay expectations that elected and non-elected officials weigh and synthesize public input before rendering decisions. The League of Women Voters seeks to accomplish these goals through review of legislation, voter education, civic engagement, and legislative advocacy. The League of Women Voters has a long record of fighting for voter rights and electoral reforms which attempt to connect voters with their representatives in a quest to uphold the general welfare of our state’s residents.
This white paper was published in September 2024. Development and research by: Doc Ardrey, Cindy Boatwright, Jeri Cabot, Paula Egelson, Cara Erickson, Barbara Griffin, Shayna Howell, Joan Zaleski, and Scott Zaleski
