Background
South Carolina allows voters age 65 or older to vote absentee by mail without providing an excuse. Voters under 65 may vote absentee by mail only if they fall within specified categories, such as having certified work obligations, caring for a sick or disabled person, being confined pending trial, or expecting to be outside their county.
Five registered South Carolina voters under 65 sued state election officials, alleging that the age-based distinction violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims, and the voters appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because they were able and ready to vote in future elections and faced unequal voting options based on age. Their injury was the denial of equal treatment—not merely an inability to obtain an absentee ballot—and declaratory or injunctive relief could eliminate that disparity.
On the merits, the court held that South Carolina’s age-based absentee-voting scheme violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Once a state offers a method of voting, it may not make that method harder to access based on age. The court reversed summary judgment on that claim but affirmed judgment for the defendants on equal protection because age is not a suspect classification and the plaintiffs argued only for strict scrutiny, without challenging the law under rational-basis review or the Anderson-Burdick test.
Key Takeaways
- The Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibits states from abridging voting opportunities based on age, not merely from denying the franchise outright.
- Providing no-excuse absentee voting to voters 65 and older while imposing excuses, documentation requirements, and deadlines on younger voters is unconstitutional age discrimination in voting.
- On remand, the district court must choose an appropriate remedy: extend no-excuse absentee voting to voters under 65 or withdraw that benefit from voters 65 and older, while considering election timing and potential voter confusion.
Why It Matters
The decision adopts a broader reading of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment than the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, creating a circuit conflict over age-based absentee-voting laws. Under the Fourth Circuit’s approach, the constitutional baseline is equal treatment in whatever voting methods a state chooses to provide.
The ruling does not create a freestanding constitutional right to vote by mail. It instead limits how states may allocate access to voting methods once offered: election rules may regulate absentee voting, but they may not expressly favor one group of adult voters over another because of age.