Mullins in Turmoil: Council Vote Sparks Outcry Over Elections, Transparency, and Decorum
- Javar Juarez
- 1 hour ago
- 5 min read
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC | Marion County
In Mullins, South Carolina, what unfolded inside City Hall did not resemble orderly governance. It resembled something far more troubling.
On April 24, 2026, Mullins City Council voted 5–1 to adopt Ordinance 2026-005, a measure that formally shifts municipal elections from November to April while reaffirming the election–runoff method. The lone dissent came from Councilwoman Terry Davis. But to call her simply a dissenting vote would miss the weight of what occurred.
Davis was not just opposing a measure. She was speaking for a room that increasingly felt shut out.
A Vote Without the People
Residents and organizers repeatedly raised concerns that the public was not given a meaningful opportunity to weigh in. Davis made that point unmistakably clear during the meeting.
“We never had a public meeting to discuss our likes or dislikes about changing elections,” she said. “The public couldn’t get up, even ask the question, or even express their desires to change the timing of elections for the city of Mullins.”
Her words did not land in isolation. They echoed what many in attendance were already feeling.
Edla Vaughn, president of the National Action Network of Marion County, said she only became aware of the meeting late the previous day.
She warned that shifting elections to April could reduce turnout in a city where participation is already fragile. Referring to the most recent school board race, she added, “We just proved it last month that people do not historically vote in April,”
warning that the change could amount to a form of disenfranchisement.
The Stakes: Voter Turnout and Representation
At the center of the controversy is a simple but powerful question: who votes, and who does not?
Davis addressed that directly, cutting through procedural language with clarity.
“If anybody in their right mind can see what having an election in April can do… the turnout is not good,” she said. “Our turnouts are always better during November. What city is trying to deter your citizens from voting?”
Her argument reframed the ordinance from a technical correction into something far more consequential. For many residents, this was no longer about aligning election methods. It was about access.
Mullins is a majority-Black city, and concerns about disenfranchisement were not abstract. They were rooted in lived experience and historical memory.
A Community Carrying Its History
81 year-old resident Rudolph Bryant brought that history into the room.
Having grown up in Mullins during segregation, Bryant drew a direct connection between past and present. He warned that the change in election timing would predictably suppress turnout and argued that council members understood exactly what that meant for the community.
“When I grew up in Mullins, I had to step off the sidewalk when a white person was walking,” Bryant said, reflecting on the town’s past. “Things look different now, but that’s just people being polite under the surface… and today, they are deliberately voting to disenfranchise our people from voting. In this community, we’re roughly 60 percent African American, yet all of the major elected offices are still being controlled and held by Caucasians.”
When asked how he felt about a majority-Black council advancing the measure, Bryant did not hold back: “All skin folks ain’t necessarily kin folks,” he said, expressing disappointment in what he viewed as a betrayal of the community’s interests.
For Bryant and others, this was not simply a policy disagreement. It was part of a longer pattern.
Breakdown in Decorum
Beyond the ordinance itself, the conduct of the meeting raised serious concerns.
The session was marked by confusion over procedure, repeated interruptions, and visible frustration from residents. Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Wilson was forced to confer multiple times with legal counsel, underscoring a lack of familiarity with governing standards.
Tensions escalated when Kindra Brewton-Pompey ordered the removal of 81-year-old Rudolph Bryant after he refused to yield during a heated exchange. The moment drew visible reactions from the audience and reinforced a growing perception that the public was not being heard.
Longtime resident Terri Brigman, who has lived in Mullins for 60 years, noted that the behavior was unusual, stating that Brewton-Pompey “usually doesn’t act this way.” Still, she described the overall scene in stark terms: “This is the first time I ever witnessed this kind of circus,” she said, expressing disbelief at both the tone and the outcome.
Leadership in Absence
Mayor Miko Pickett, absent due to a family funeral, attempted to submit a statement to council. As witnessed in the meeting, the statement was not formally entered into the record after no motion or second was made to allow it to be read publicly.
When the mayor’s email was shown or referenced, Councilwoman Kindra Brewton-Pompey appeared flippant and visibly irritated, particularly as mentions of Mayor Pickett and public pushback continued throughout the meeting.
For many residents, the decision to proceed without the mayor’s voice only deepened concerns about fairness, intent, and the council’s willingness to hear dissent.
The Lone Voice, and the Record
As the meeting reached its conclusion, Davis made sure her position was unmistakable, not just in sentiment, but in the official record.
“When we as council decide to take decisions and don’t even consider the public… the public has not had opportunity to express what they want,” she said. “I want the records to show that I, Terry Davis, do not support a need to have an election in April.”
Then, with finality:
“I’m going to vote no, and I want that in the record.”
It was a statement that resonated beyond the chamber. In a meeting marked by tension and disorder, Davis provided something rare: clarity.
A Turning Point for Mullins
What happened in Mullins was not just about an ordinance. It was about trust, process, and power.
It was about whether a governing body can make a significant electoral change without robust public engagement. It was about whether procedure is being followed with integrity. And it was about whether the people of Mullins feel represented in their own government.
The ordinance is now law. But the political consequences are still unfolding.
Davis reminded residents that while the vote may be final, accountability is not. The public still has time, and the power, to respond.
In Mullins, the next election will not just determine leadership. It will test whether the system itself still reflects the will of the people.