MO-024 - Byrd v. Nesbit
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Edward Byrd, Ken Currie, Mike Morrow and Willie Mae Muldrow, Appellants, v. Craig Nesbit and John Y. Latimer, Respondents, Appellate Case No. 2016-000299 Appeal From Lee County George C. James Jr., Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2016-MO-024 Heard May 17, 2016 – Filed July 13, 2016 AFFIRMED Melvin Wayne Cockrell, III and Sarah Crawford Campbell, both of Cockrell Law Firm, P.C., of Chesterfield, for Appellants. William E. Hopkins Jr. and Joseph Clay Hopkins, both of Hopkins Law Firm, LLC, of Pawleys Island, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: This case arises from the Bishopville Municipal Election Commission's decision to invalidate a May 2015 city council election. Edward Byrd, Ken Currie, Mike Morrow, and Willie Mae Muldrow—winning candidates in the election—appeal the circuit court's order affirming the Commission's decision, arguing the circuit court should have reversed the Commission's finding that votes were counted in secret in violation of article II, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Const. art. II, § 1 ("All elections by the people shall be by secret ballot, but the ballots shall not be counted in secret."); S.C. Code Ann. § 5-15-120 (2004) ("Immediately upon the closing of the polls at any municipal election, the managers shall count publicly the votes cast . . . ."); Gecy v. Bagwell, 372 S.C. 237, 241, 642 S.E.2d 569, 571 (2007) ("In municipal election cases, we review the judgment of the circuit court upholding or overturning the decision of a municipal election commission to correct errors of law. The review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence."); McKnight v. Smith, 182 S.C. 378, 383, 189 S.E. 361, 363 (1937) ("The law provides . . . that the managers of an election shall publicly count the votes; and persons desiring to see such count are not required to seek or receive permission from any one to do so."). AFFIRMED. PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
