South Carolina voter records fight raises Social Security data privacy concerns

Transparency lawsuit targets removal process

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina sued the State Election Commission over the process commissioners used when removing Executive Director Howard Knapp in September 2025.

The lawsuit seeks records, recordings, other materials related to the executive session, and a court declaration concerning alleged Freedom of Information Act violations tied to the commission’s handling of Knapp’s removal process.

Federal request included personal identifiers

The U.S. Department of Justice requested voter names, birth dates, addresses, and either state driver’s license numbers or the last four Social Security digits from voter registration records.

The request covered South Carolina’s voter registration list, containing information for about 3.3 million registered voters when the privacy dispute formally reached court through an August 2025 filing.

Public lists exclude Social Security numbers

Voter lists sold by the state can include names, addresses, birth dates, specific registration details, districts, and participation history, while Social Security numbers remain protected from public inspection.

That distinction shaped privacy concerns because the federal request sought other identifying fields beyond information South Carolina routinely includes in voter lists available for purchase by registered voters.

Supreme Court reversed lower order

A circuit court blocked the transfer in September 2025 while a voter lawsuit challenged disclosure of personal registration information to the U.S. Department of Justice under state law.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed that order on procedural grounds without deciding the underlying privacy claims or preventing another request for preliminary relief in later circuit proceedings.

Commission removed Knapp

The State Election Commission removed Knapp on September 17, 2025, after members returned from executive session and approved his dismissal through a public vote of three to two.

Former Chairman Dennis Shedd described the decision as a leadership change and said it was unrelated to election conduct, while the commission offered no further public explanation then.

Complaint details individual contacts

The 2026 complaint alleges Shedd contacted commissioners individually before the formal public vote and urged them to support removing Knapp from his leadership position at the election agency.

South Carolina law bars electronic communication used to circumvent open-meeting requirements when a public body acts on matters within its assigned supervision, control, jurisdiction, or formal advisory power.

Fun fact: Social Security got its name in 1935 when Congressman Frank Buck moved to rename the Economic Security Bill in committee.

Executive session polling alleged

The lawsuit also alleges commissioners polled members during executive session before returning to a public meeting for the formal vote on Knapp’s employment during the September 2025 meeting.

State law permits certain personnel discussions behind closed doors, but members cannot commit a public body to an official course of action through polling conducted during executive session.

Little-known fact: Social Security moved 27.6 million people out of Supplemental Poverty Measure poverty in 2023, making it the largest antipoverty program.

Public hearing claim remains

A third allegation says Knapp received no opportunity to request a public hearing before commissioners conducted what the complaint describes as an adversary hearing directly concerning his employment.

South Carolina law gives an employee that option when an adversary hearing occurs, while the complaint alleges commissioners directly excluded Knapp from the executive session involving his position.

Commission limits public response

The State Election Commission declined to discuss the lawsuit, citing its policy against commenting on matters that remain before a court after the September 2026 filing in Richland County.

Shedd had previously said commission staff remained focused on accurate, secure, and accessible elections after Knapp’s removal, while offering limited detail about the leadership decision at that time.

Complaint links data resistance

The complaint says Knapp resisted the federal request for unredacted voter information before commissioners ended his tenure, but that claimed connection remains an allegation rather than a court finding.

It also alleges Shedd accused Knapp of working with lawyers opposing disclosure, while the filing did not explain how the organization learned about those private conversations or polling.

Agreement added privacy safeguards

On April 28, 2026, the State Election Commission entered a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice covering the transfer of South Carolina voter registration information.

The agreement requires the requested last four Social Security digits to be hashed, while the voter list and associated information travel through the Justice Department’s encrypted file-sharing system.

Separate legal case remains

A legal matter followed Knapp’s removal after the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division brought 11 counts tied to alleged vehicle use, fuel purchases, financial gain, and a recording device.

That case remained unresolved in September 2026, while Knapp’s lawyer, Joe McCulloch, characterized the matter as political at an October 2025 bond hearing and referenced a public trial.

Want to stay informed every day? Check out how the Michigan data center plan added Social Security AI safeguards to the tech debate.

Belangia received Senate confirmation

The commission selected Conway Belangia on March 25, 2026, following a four-to-zero vote, and he served as Interim Director while his appointment awaited formal Senate confirmation.

The South Carolina Senate confirmed Belangia on April 21, 2026, one week before he signed the federal voter data agreement containing specific privacy protections for sensitive registration information.

Want to read more about the latest developments? Check out how the Iowa Social Security debate centers on lifting the payroll tax cap.

Should South Carolina officials disclose more before voter data leaves state custody, or are hashed Social Security digits enough protection? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Oklahoma data center power plans put grid tariffs and solar farms in focus
• Michigan outage credit bills would pay customers by the hour after blackouts
• Rhode Island turns to a Maine onshore wind farm after offshore wind setbacks