The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 516 S.E.2d 206 335 S.C. 182, 516 S.E.2d 206 (Cite as: 335 S.C. 182, 516 S.E.2d 206) Supreme Court of South Carolina. G. Robert GEORGE, Steve M. Kearse, Mary Ellen Warner, Dorothy M. Humphries, Barbara H. Miller, and the City of Charleston Republican Party, Appellants, v. MUNICIPAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, Respondent. No. 24941. Heard April 20, 1999. Decided May 3, 1999. Political party brought challenge to results of special municipal election. City municipal election committee upheld election results, and the Circuit Court, Charleston County, A. Victor Rawl, J., affirmed. Party appealed. The Supreme Court, Waller, J., held that referendum results were required to be nullified due to total lack of booths and foldable ballots. Reversed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 305(7) 144k305(7) Most Cited Cases In municipal election cases, the Supreme Court reviews the judgment of the circuit court upholding or overturning the decision of a municipal election commission only to correct errors of law; the review does not extend to findings of fact unless those findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence. [2] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases [2] Elections 291 144k291 Most Cited Cases The Supreme Court will employ every reasonable presumption to sustain a contested election, and will not set aside an election due to mere irregularities or illegalities unless the result is changed or rendered doubtful. [3] Elections 220 227(1) Page 1 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases The Supreme Court is loathe to nullify an election based on minor violations of technical requirements. [4] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases As a general rule, statutory provisions regulating the conduct of elections are mandatory in two instances: when the statute expressly declares that a particular act is essential to the validity of an election, or when enforcement is sought before an election in a direct proceeding. [5] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases The court may deem statutory provisions regulating the conduct of elections to be mandatory after an election--and thus capable of nullifying the results-- when the provisions substantially affect the free and intelligent casting of a vote, the determination of the results, an essential element of the election, or the fundamental integrity of the election. [6] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Where there is a total disregard of a statute regulating the conduct of elections, it cannot be treated as an irregularity, but it must be held and adjudicated to be cause for declaring the election void and illegal. [7] Elections 227(2) 144k227(2) Most Cited Cases Statute requiring election officials to provide voting booths was mandatory, and municipal election committee's failure to provide any such booths required nullification of results of special municipal election, even though there was no evidence of voter intimidation or fraud. Const. Art. 2, § 10; Code 1976, § 7-13-740. [8] Elections 28 144k28 Most Cited Cases [8] Elections 166 144k166 Most Cited Cases The use of ballots that are not designed to be folded violates the constitutional and statutory right to a secret ballot. Const. Art. 2, § 10; Code 1976, §§ 7-13-611, 7-13-730; © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.