The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges At 583.3 B.2. Keep claims within dictates of statutory procedures By not bringing a claim in a timely manner, a plaintiff effectively waives his or her right of action. But even if a claim is brought within the time period set out in the state law, it will fail if the irregularities being complained of do not involve procedures required by a state statute. For example, in 2005 the same court decided a case brought by another Taylor, Charlene Taylor, who lost badly in her attempt to be mayor of Atlantic Beach, South Carolina.4 Taylor v. Town of Atlantic Beach Election Commission, 609 S.E.2d 500. The day after the election, Ms. Taylor and two candidates who lost badly in their races for town council seats filed letters with the town election commission contesting the election results and claiming that there were a number of irregularities in the election. The election commission replied with a letter saying that some of the claimed violations were not proven and that the others would not have changed the result of the election. The commission rejected their complaint. Ms. Taylor and the two council candidates then sued the town council and the winning candidates in circuit court, claiming again that there were a number of irregularities, including the violation of voters’ right to secrecy of the ballot. The plaintiffs asked the court to either set aside the election or send the matter back to the town election commission because the commission failed to set out in writing the reasons they rejected the plaintiffs’ alleged violations. They lost, and the case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The supreme court looked first at whether the case should have been sent back to the Atlantic Beach election commission to give the losing candidates more details about its findings and reasons. The supreme court said, There was no right to contest an election under the common law. “The right to contest an election exists only under the [state] constitutional and statutory provisions, and the procedure proscribed by statute must be strictly followed.” Taylor v. Roche, 271 S.C. 505, 509, 248 S.E.2d 580, 582 (1978); see also S.C. Const. Art. II, 10 (“General Assembly shall…establish procedures for contested elections, and enact other provisions necessary to the fulfillment of and integrity of the election process.”). Appellants have not cited, nor have we found, any South Carolina statute or case establishing standards for written orders issued by an election commission. [S.C.Code Ann.] 5-15-130 requires an election commission to conduct a hearing, decide the issues raised, file a report with the testimony and exhibits, and notify the parties of the decision. The statute does not require a written order containing findings of fact or conclusions of law similar to those, e.g., required of tribunals in [the Administrative Procedures Act] or family court proceedings…It is within the plenary power of the Legislature, not this Court, to promulgate election standards or enact statutory election requirements which address the necessity or substance of written orders issued by an election commissions. At 503-504 (some internal citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). Even so, the court wanted everyone to know that Mr. Taylor would have lost anyway because he waited too long to bring his lawsuit, i.e., his lawsuit would have been precluded under the doctrine of laches (the inequity of permitting a claim to proceed, usually because of the change of position of the parties. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 395 (2d Pocket Ed. 2001)). The penultimate paragraph in the court’s opinion took note of the many millions of dollars in general obligation bonds that the state issued in reliance on the change in the constitution. The court said that Mr. Taylor could have known about the effect of the amendment on school bond elections many months earlier, and thus could have brought his lawsuit many months earlier, because in 1977 the state legislature passed a statute implementing the constitutional amendment that made it clear that an election was no longer required for issuing school bonds. 4 She came in third of four candidates. The winning candidate got 104 votes, and the other three candidates got, respectively, 34, 18 and 13 votes. Ms. Taylor was the candidate with 18 votes. 3 4