A federal appeals court has ruled South Carolina’s mail-in voting law unconstitutional, finding that the state illegally discriminates based on age by allowing voters 65 and older to vote by mail without excuse while requiring younger voters to provide a reason. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on August 18 in the case Grant v. Belangia, marking a rare modern application of the 26th Amendment, which prohibits age-based restrictions on voting rights.
The case was brought by a group of younger Charleston residents who sued the South Carolina Election Commission in 2023, arguing that the state’s two-tiered absentee voting system violated the 26th Amendment. Under South Carolina law, voters 65 and older can vote by mail for any reason, but younger voters must meet specific criteria such as disability, caregiving obligations, work conflicts, or being away from their county during voting periods.
U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the unanimous three-judge panel opinion that the state’s approach “allocates voting opportunities unequally based solely on age” by granting voters over 65 “unconditional access to absentee-by-mail voting while conditioning that same option for younger voters on eligibility categories, documentation, and a rigid deadline.”
The ruling sends the case back to the district court to determine how to remedy the violation—either by allowing all voters no-excuse mail voting or restricting it to those meeting eligibility criteria. However, the decision likely won’t affect the November 3 general election due to legal precedent that courts should avoid changing voting rules too close to an election, according to Armand Derfner, a Charleston civil rights attorney representing the plaintiffs.
The South Carolina case reflects a broader debate about how the 26th Amendment applies to voting methods. Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford Law professor working on the case, noted that most states that allow relatively widespread absentee voting do not discriminate on the basis of age, treating voters equally regardless of their age. South Carolina’s law is an outlier in this regard.
A Circuit Split on the 26th Amendment
The Fourth Circuit’s decision creates a direct conflict with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2022, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld a similar Texas law that restricts no-excuse mail voting to voters 65 and older, finding it did not violate the 26th Amendment. The two courts interpreted the amendment fundamentally differently.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that making voting easier for elderly voters did not harm younger voters’ existing rights, so no discrimination occurred. The Fourth Circuit, by contrast, held that unequal treatment between age groups is itself discriminatory under the 26th Amendment, regardless of whether younger voters are worse off than before. This interpretation requires states to maintain age-neutral voting access when they offer any particular voting method.
South Carolina can appeal the Fourth Circuit’s ruling to the full appeals court or seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal observers expect the case may eventually reach the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split, though the timing remains uncertain. A spokeswoman for the South Carolina Elections Commission declined to comment, noting that absentee voting rules have not yet changed.
Some state officials have already signaled their preferred outcome. State Senator Chip Campsen, a Republican from Isle of Palms who wrote South Carolina’s early voting law, argued that if the court forces age-neutral rules, the state should eliminate no-excuse mail voting entirely rather than expand it to all voters. Campsen contended that universal no-excuse mail voting would reduce election security by giving the state “less control” over the ballot process.
Sources
- Post and Courier — the ruling details, the case background, and expert commentary from Armand Derfner and Pamela S. Karlan
- Fox News — the Fourth Circuit decision and age-based discrimination finding
- Bloomberg Law — the unconstitutionality ruling and 26th Amendment violation
- Reason.com — the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that states cannot limit no-excuse absentee voting to the elderly
- Election Law Blog — the unanimous panel decision in Grant v. Belangia and the 26th Amendment interpretation
- Yahoo News — the Fourth Circuit opinion holding that the 26th Amendment prohibits unequal allocation of voting access based on age
