Marion County Absentee Ballot Practices Under Scrutiny After SLED Review
- CUBNSC
- Jun 1
- 4 min read
A SLED investigation may be closed, but questions remain about how absentee ballots were handled in Marion County, who was responsible for oversight, and whether election officials ever conducted the reviews recommended by prosecutors.
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC
MARION, S.C. — The 2024 Democratic primary elections in Marion County sparked a series of election protests, allegations of ballot harvesting, and eventually a state law enforcement investigation that stretched well into 2025.
The controversy began after Democratic challengers Cynthia Ford and Kendra Fling questioned the results of their respective primary races against incumbent State Representative Lucas Atkinson and Marion County Coroner Jerry Richardson.
Supporters of both campaigns alleged that unusually high absentee ballot activity, multiple voters registered at the same addresses, and the involvement of paid campaign workers in absentee voting operations may have influenced the outcome of the elections.
Election protest hearings were held by both the Marion County Democratic Party and the South Carolina Democratic Party in June 2024. Although the challengers argued that improper absentee ballot activity had occurred, party officials upheld the election results after determining there was insufficient evidence to prove enough votes had been illegally obtained to change the outcome of either race.
According to SLED records, both party organizations indicated they would refer the matter for further investigation, though investigators later noted they never received a formal referral from either organization.
Months later, allegations from multiple sources, including complaints submitted to state officials and concerns raised by both Democratic and Republican activists, ultimately landed on the desk of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
Over the next several months, investigators reviewed campaign finance disclosures, absentee ballot records, election data, voter registration information, and witness statements. What emerged from those records paints a far more complicated picture than either side of the political debate may have expected.
Campaign Workers Admitted Handling Absentee Ballots
According to SLED interview summaries, campaign workers Alice Legette and Eartha Davis acknowledged that they assisted voters with absentee ballots, mailed absentee ballots, witnessed absentee ballots, and in some instances returned absentee ballots on behalf of voters.
Legette told investigators she had worked on campaigns for numerous Democratic candidates, including State Representative Lucas Atkinson, Senator Kent Williams, Coroner Jerry Richardson, and others. She stated that she helped voters obtain absentee ballots, assisted some voters with filling them out, witnessed ballots, and mailed ballots for voters.
Davis similarly told investigators that she worked as a paid campaign worker for Lucas Atkinson, Kent Williams, Jerry Richardson, and Probate Judge T. Carroll Atkinson III. She acknowledged assisting voters with absentee ballot applications, witnessing ballots, and mailing absentee ballots for voters who requested her help.
In both interviews, investigators documented that the women initially denied returning absentee ballots in person before being shown signed Authorization to Return Absentee Ballot forms. After reviewing the forms, both acknowledged instances where they had delivered absentee ballots to the Marion County Elections Office.
The Legal Question Became Less Clear
The most revealing portion of the SLED file may not be the interviews themselves but the confusion investigators encountered when attempting to determine whether any law had actually been broken.
Case records show that SLED contacted the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, the South Carolina Ethics Commission, and the South Carolina Election Commission seeking guidance regarding campaign workers acting as authorized representatives for absentee voters.
The Ethics Commission indicated the matter fell outside its jurisdiction and referred investigators elsewhere. The Election Commission likewise advised that it would not oversee an investigation into campaign workers returning absentee ballots and suggested SLED consult the Ethics Commission.
As investigators attempted to determine who had enforcement authority, questions emerged regarding whether authorization forms had been completed correctly and whether election officials had properly validated those forms before accepting absentee ballots.
At one point, Election Commission General Counsel Thomas Nicholson advised SLED that an audit of the Marion County Election Office could be conducted if the authorization forms were not properly completed. SLED subsequently provided those forms to the Election Commission for review.
Prosecutors Declined Charges
Ultimately, prosecutors declined to pursue criminal charges.
According to SLED’s closing report, Assistant Solicitor David Richardson advised investigators that the case did not reveal violations that met the statutory requirements of a crime. The investigation was closed as unfounded.
However, the same closing report contains an important recommendation.
Richardson recommended that the South Carolina Election Commission evaluate and review Marion County’s practices involving absentee ballots, validation of authorized representatives, and the accuracy of election paperwork.
That recommendation raises a critical public question.
Was An Audit Ever Conducted?
CUBN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking to determine whether state or local election officials ever reviewed Marion County’s absentee ballot procedures after the SLED investigation, whether any deficiencies were identified, whether corrective actions were recommended, and whether an audit was ever conducted.
At this time, CUBN has not received those records.
Without those answers, voters are left with a troubling reality.
The state investigated.
Prosecutors declined charges.
Yet the official record also shows concerns about absentee ballot procedures, questions regarding authorization forms, and a recommendation that election administration practices be reviewed.
Whether such a review occurred remains unknown.
For Marion County voters, the issue is no longer whether one candidate won or lost an election. The issue is whether election procedures were consistently followed, whether safeguards worked as intended, and whether the public can be confident that concerns raised by investigators were fully examined after the criminal case ended.
Those are questions that deserve answers regardless of party affiliation.
Comments