A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-200 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE INSTANT RUNOFF METHOD OF CONDUCTING CERTAIN LOCAL ELECTIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 5-15-20, RELATING TO METHODS OF ELECTION FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, SO AS TO ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 5-15-60, RELATING TO METHODS FOR NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF NONPARTISAN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO ADD THE INSTANT RUNOFF METHOD; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 7-17-610, RELATING TO THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING WHICH CANDIDATES HAVE RECEIVED A MAJORITY VOTE FOR A PARTICULAR OFFICE, SO AS TO CLARIFY ITS APPLICATION TO ELECTIONS UNDER THE INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING METHOD.
H3589 would authorize ranked-choice voting, described in the bill as “instant runoff voting,” for certain local elections in South Carolina. It allows general law or home rule cities, counties, and other local offices to use ranked ballots in primary or general elections, and it also permits multiwinner ranked-choice elections, known as single transferable vote, for some local bodies. Under the bill, a local government that uses instant runoff voting for its general election would not have to hold a separate primary or runoff election.
The bill sets out the basic counting rules for both single-seat and multi-seat elections. For single-seat contests, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in successive rounds until one candidate has a majority or is the last remaining candidate. For multi-seat contests, it establishes a quota-based system for electing candidates and transferring surplus votes or eliminating the lowest candidate until all seats are filled. The bill also directs the State Election Commission to adopt rules on ballot design, counting procedures, ballot errors, vacancy filling, recall elections, and the publication of round-by-round and ballot-level results in machine-readable open formats.
H3589 also amends municipal election law to let councils choose additional ward-based election structures, including multi-member wards with at least three members elected by ranked-choice voting, and mixed systems combining ward and at-large seats. It updates the municipal nonpartisan election statute to add instant runoff voting as an approved method for nominating candidates and determining results. Finally, it clarifies the state’s majority-vote statute so that it works with ranked-choice elections by specifying that the final round determines the nominee in instant runoff contests.
The bill’s legal impact would be significant for local election administration, because it creates a new optional voting method and requires statewide rules from the Election Commission before implementation. It would affect municipalities, counties, local election officials, candidates, and voters in jurisdictions that choose to adopt ranked-choice voting, while leaving the method optional rather than mandatory. It would also alter how some municipal councils may structure wards and at-large seats, potentially changing local representation and election logistics.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears reform-oriented and technically detailed, with an emphasis on expanding local election options and improving transparency in vote tabulation. Likely points of contention would include the complexity of ranked-choice counting, the administrative burden on election officials, ballot design and voter education, and the policy debate over whether ranked-choice voting improves majority support and representation or makes elections harder to administer and understand.
H3589 would add a new section to the election code authorizing instant runoff voting and multiwinner instant runoff voting for certain local offices, and it would require the State Election Commission to promulgate rules for implementation. It would also amend municipal election statutes to permit multi-member ward systems and to add ranked-choice voting as an option for nonpartisan municipal elections, while clarifying that final-round results in ranked-choice contests satisfy majority-vote requirements. The bill would primarily affect local governments, election administrators, candidates, and voters in jurisdictions that opt in to the new system.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative debate or voting sentiment. From the bill text and caption alone, the measure appears to be a pro-reform election administration bill aimed at expanding local choice and modernizing election methods. The inclusion of detailed reporting and open-data requirements suggests an emphasis on transparency and implementation planning.
The main likely areas of contention are the use of ranked-choice voting itself, the administrative complexity of counting ballots in rounds, and the need for new election rules, ballot instructions, and voter education. The bill also raises questions about multi-member ward elections and how those structures might affect local representation. Supporters would likely focus on eliminating separate runoff elections, ensuring winners have broader support, and increasing flexibility for municipalities, while opponents may worry about cost, confusion, and implementation burdens on county election offices.