Connect with us

South-Carolina

Early voting changes in South Carolina

Published

on

Early voting changes in South Carolina


BEAUFORT COUNTY, Sc. (WTOC) – At the moment, Governor McMaster signed a brand new laws into regulation handed by the Normal Meeting that establishes early voting within the state of South Carolina.

In-person absentee voting has been changed with a two week early voting interval. Any voter can go to an early-voting location in Beaufort and vote like they’d at their polling place on Election Day.

Early voting for the primaries in South Carolina will happen on June 14. Early voting for the primaries will now be from Could 31 to June 10, count on for June 5 and 6.

Places of work will probably be open from 8:30 a.m. to five p.m. You need to deliver your Picture ID or a voter registration card.

Advertisement

There are at present three early voting facilities:

  • Beaufort  – 15 John Galt Rd, Beaufort, SC 29906
  • Bluffton  – 61B Ulmer Rd, Bluffton, SC 29910
  • Hilton Head – 539 William Hilton Pkwy, Hilton Head Island, SC 29926

Early voting for the June Runoffs held on June 28 will probably be from June 22 to June 24.

To vote absentee, you need to request an absentee utility and full, signal and return the appliance by mail or in particular person.

New purposes will probably be issued quickly primarily based on the brand new necessities however the previous purposes will nonetheless be accepted via Could 31. After Could 31, solely new purposes assembly present necessities will probably be accepted.

The deadline to return a brand new utility is June 3. When you obtain your absentee poll within the mail, you may vote and return your poll to the Board of Voter Registration and Elections of Beaufort County workplace by mail or in particular person no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day.

In-person absentee voting is now not approved by regulation.

Advertisement

Polling place on Election day will probably be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Head to scvotes.org to search out your polling place.

Copyright 2022 WTOC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

South-Carolina

Mary Elle Marchant, River Bluff native, crowned as Miss South Carolina Teen 2024 – ABC Columbia

Published

on

Mary Elle Marchant, River Bluff native, crowned as Miss South Carolina Teen 2024 – ABC Columbia


Photo Courtesy: Amanda Upton Photography

COLUMBIA, SC (WOLO) — The Miss South Carolina Scholarship Organization has crowned Miss River Bluff’s Teen, Mary Elle Marchant, as Miss South Carolina’s Teen 2024.

According to Gavin Smith with the organization, Marchant hails from Lexington, SC, and is an 18-year-old who recently graduated from River Bluff High School.

Performing a musical theatre dance to “I Hope I Get It” from “A Chorus Line to Life,” Marchant was a preliminary winner in the teen evening gown and teen talent award categories.

She received a $12,500 savings bond and will compete for the title of Miss America’s Outstanding Teen.

Advertisement

The Miss South Carolina Scholarship Organization also named four additional delegates as runners up in the 2024 Miss South Carolina’s Teen Competition:

First runner up: Miss Daniel Island’s Teen, Tess Ferm
Second runner up: Miss Columbia’s Teen, Le’Daviah Terry
Third runner up: Miss Greer High School’s Teen, Madison Harbin
Fourth runner up: Miss Greater Greer’s Teen, Lilykate Barbare

The Miss South Carolina 2024 competition will continue Saturday evening, beginning at 8 p.m.

Miss South Carolina 2024 will receive a $60,000 scholarship and will compete for the title of Miss America.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South-Carolina

Editorial: Long-awaited reform on how SC picks judges will help, but it doesn’t go far enough

Published

on

Editorial: Long-awaited reform on how SC picks judges will help, but it doesn’t go far enough


The reform measure the Legislature sent to Gov. Henry McMaster on Wednesday won’t solve the multitudinous problems with the way South Carolina picks judges.

The governor still won’t have anywhere near as much say as the Legislature in selecting the members of the third branch of government.

And lawyer-legislators still will retain inordinate sway over the careers of judges they practice before — creating the appearance if not the reality of preferential treatment.

Advertisement

But the bill — more than a year in the making and far longer than that in the needing — provides a good first step to addressing real and perceived flaws that threaten public confidence in our judicial system. We urge Mr. McMaster to sign it.

Editorial: Radical? Proposals to change how SC picks judges couldn't get any more modest

For the first time, it allows the governor to appoint some members to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which decides who legislators can elect or reelect to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Circuit and Family courts. Governors have never had any say in those elections, and they still won’t participate in the vote, but S.1046 lets the governor appoint four of the 12 commissioners.

House and Senate leaders will still pick the eight other members, and six of them have to be legislators; technically, the bill allows all eight to be legislators, which would ensure legislators’ continued majority on the panel, but if House or Senate leaders choose to interpret it that way, it will be a massive betrayal of the public trust.

Scoppe: How SC lawyer-legislators use their ‘immunity’ to keep criminals out of jail

Advertisement

Perhaps equally important, legislators will be limited to four consecutive years on the panel, and all but three current members will be expelled from the commission when the law takes effect in a year. Among those leaving will be House Democratic Leader Todd Rutherford, who has made himself the poster child for how lawyer-legislators can manipulate that position to their personal advantage. (Additionally, commissioners have to resign if a relative files to run for a judgeship.)

As long as the Legislature elects judges, the governor should appoint all the members of the screening panel; that’s the only way to create the balance of powers that is foundational to our nation’s system of governance. Barring that, lawyer-legislators should be prohibited from serving on the panel: One chance to influence who becomes a judge — when they vote in the election — is enough; that second opportunity is the root of most of the evil that South Carolina’s prosecutors have been complaining about for more than a year.

Editorial: Remove lawyer-legislators from judicial panel, before we hear more outrages

It’s worth noting that lawmakers agreed to give the governor some say on the commission at the very same moment they reduced the commission’s power: It still will be able to end the careers and the hopes of judges and would-be judges, but in most cases, it no longer will be able to nominate its favorites from among multiple qualified candidates. Now, instead of nominating a maximum of three candidates for each seat, the so-called cap will be six — which is more than the number of candidates in most contests — so if six candidates are found qualified, all six of them will stand for election.

The other smart reforms are a requirement that screening hearings be livestreamed and a related ban on candidates dropping out before the commission issues its report on their qualifications. Both are designed to stop the panel from pressuring candidates to drop out after screening by suggesting that the public will see unflattering material about them if they don’t.

Advertisement

Scoppe: Is it a coincidence the folks who pick judges fare so well in court?

As Upstate Solicitor Kevin Brackett tells us, “This is helpful, but some of the main structures that ensure legislative dominance are still in place and need to be addressed.” That means getting lawyer-legislators off the screening commission and, ideally, allowing the governor to appoint all 12 members. It’s not too soon to start working on that next round of reforms.





Source link

Continue Reading

South-Carolina

Supreme Court overturns opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma that shielded Sacklers

Published

on

Supreme Court overturns opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma that shielded Sacklers


After the Supreme Court struck down a controversial bankruptcy plan from Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, those who sued the drug company were left uncertain about when promised funds would be available to combat addiction and other damage from the ongoing drug epidemic.

The ruling upended a carefully-crafted settlement worth roughly $8 billion, and involving the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, and all the individuals, states and local governments that had sued over harms from the opioid epidemic.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices focused on the part of the Purdue bankruptcy plan that shielded members of the Sackler family from future opioid-related lawsuits.

In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “In this case, the Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy or placed all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a discharge. No provision of the [bankruptcy] code authorizes that kind of relief.”

Advertisement

Some relatives of overdose victims praised the decision. Ed Bisch’s son — also named Ed — overdosed on Oxycontin in 2001, at age 18. Bisch now leads Relatives Against Purdue Pharma, and wants the Sacklers held personally accountable.

“We did not want to give them exactly what they want,” Bisch said. “Today is a very good day for justice.”

Purdue Pharma was facing thousands of lawsuits for falsely marketing OxyContin as non-addictive and fueling the opioid crisis. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2019.

Before that, the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, had moved about $11 billion of profits into personal accounts. In his ruling, Gorsuch said members of the family had created a “milking program” designed to shelter opioid profits from their company’s bankruptcy.

During the bankruptcy negotiations, the family offered to pay $6 billion in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits.

Advertisement

A federal bankruptcy judge approved that deal in 2021, but Gorsuch ruled that it was an overreach.

“The court is doing a reset here,” said Melissa Jacoby, an expert on bankruptcy law at the University of North Carolina. “[The Court is] saying there is no authority to protect the Sacklers, who are not bankruptcy filers themselves, at least against claimants who have not agreed to settle with them.”

Many on both sides are unhappy about new delays

The total settlement would have amounted to roughly $8 billion directed towards states, local governments, personal injury victims, schools, and hospitals.

In a statement, Purdue Pharma called the ruling “heart-crushing.” It also said Purdue would immediately reach out to the parties to work on a new agreement: “The decision does nothing to deter us from the twin goals of using settlement dollars for opioid abatement and turning the company into an engine for good.”

The recent death toll from the ongoing opioid crisis exceeds 100,000 Americans every year.

Advertisement

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “Today’s decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.”

Many relatives of overdose victims considered the bankruptcy deal the best they could hope for — a way to funnel money from the Sacklers to communities to fund addiction treatment programs, and to individuals harmed by Oxycontin. Now that money is on hold, potentially for years.

Calls for swift return to negotiating table

Advocates called for new negotiations as soon as possible.

“I think everybody wants this done in an expeditious way. It’s important to get to the table and negotiate something that puts victims first very quickly,” said Ryan Hampton, an author and activist on addiction issues who supported the bankruptcy settlement.

Some suggested the Sacklers could use their personal funds to compensate victims, rather than waiting for a formal bankruptcy deal to be finalized for Purdue.

Advertisement

“The Sackler family should begin the process today of compensating the thousands of individuals who lost loved ones to an overdose from their company’s product. There’s no need to wait — and no time to waste,” said Regina LaBelle in a statement. LaBelle is a former acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and an addiction policy scholar at Georgetown University.

In a statement sent to NPR, members of the Sackler family, who deny any wrongdoing, said they would work to renegotiate a settlement, but they also expressed some defiance, describing themselves as the victims of “profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis.”

Money already flowing from other opioid-related lawsuits

Most states are already participating in other opioid-related settlements with opioid manufacturers Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Allergan; pharmaceutical distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson; and retail pharmacies Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS. Many are also settling with the national supermarket chain Kroger.

It’s estimated that the total payout from multiple settlements could come to about $50 billion.

Several of these deals began paying out in the second half of 2023, leading to bumps in states’ opioid settlement pots.

Advertisement

There is no national database on how settlement dollars are being spent, but efforts by journalists and advocates to track the money flows have revealed some of the more common ways the funds are being used.

Wide leeway in how to spend opioid settlement funds

One of the biggest is investing in treatment. Many jurisdictions are building residential rehab facilities or expanding existing ones. They’re covering the cost of addiction care for uninsured people and trying to increase the number of clinicians prescribing medications for opioid use disorder, which have been shown to save lives.

Another common expense is naloxone, a medication that reverses opioid overdoses. Wisconsin is spending about $8 million on this effort. Kentucky has dedicated $1 million. And many local governments are allocating smaller amounts.

Some other choices have sparked controversies. Several governments used settlement dollars to purchase police patrol cars, technology to help officers hack into phones, and body scanners for jails. Supporters say these tools are critical to crack down on drug trafficking, but research suggests law enforcement efforts don’t prevent overdoses.

This article was produced in partnership with KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.

Advertisement

Copyright 2024 NPR





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending