Case: Crook v. South Carolina Election Commission

This case challenges the South Carolina Election Commission’s compliance with the Trump Administration's Department of Justice’s request that it turn over statewide voter registration information.  

On August 6, 2025, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that South Carolina’s Election Commission turn over the state’s voter registration list and information.  On August 14, 2025, it followed up, clarifying that it was requesting every voter’s “full name, date of birth, residential address, his or her state driver’s license number or the last four digits of the registrant’s social security number.”  The list was requested by August 21, 2025, but the Commission received an extension until September 5.

On August 29, 2025, the plaintiff in this action, a resident and registered voter in South Carolina, filed this lawsuit in the Calhoun County Court of Common Pleas.  [Docket # 2025-CP-09-00195]  She sued the Election Commission, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, to prevent the Commission from releasing her voter files to the Department of Justice. She asserted that the release of her personal data in this way would violate the right to privacy enshrined in Article 1 Section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution as well as provisions of state laws preventing state agencies from releasing this information.

On September 2, 2025, Judge Diane S. Goodstein granted the plaintiff’s ex parte petition for a temporary restraining order, finding a likelihood of irreparable damage resulting from the release of the plaintiff’s personal information data, in violation of her right to privacy under the state constitution.  Judge Goodstein restrained the Commission from distributing the statewide voter registration list and information until after a hearing.

On September 3, 2025, the Governor of South Carolina, Henry Dargan McMaster, moved to intervene to defend the action alongside the Election Commission.  On September 5, 2025, the Commission appealed the September 2 Temporary Restraining Order to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and, in the Court of Common Pleas, sought to change venue to Richland County, the county in which its offices are located.

The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the Governor’s request to intervene and reversed the ex parte temporary restraining order on September 11, 2025. It reasoned that the lower court’s “conclusory order” did not comply with the procedural rules governing issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (that is, an order granted without prior notice to the opposing party) because it did not specifically define the alleged injury, state why the harm would be irreparable, or indicate why the order was issued without notice to the Commission as required.  Therefore, it reversed the order without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to request a hearing before the circuit court, after notice to the defendant, on her claim for a preliminary injunction.

On September 17, 2025, upon mutual consent of the parties, Judge Goodstein granted the motion to change venue to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.  The case was transferred and assigned to Judge Daniel M. Coble. [Docket # 2025-CP-40-06539]

On October 1, 2025, after a hearing on September 26, Judge Coble issued a decision denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin release of protected election data to the Department of Justice absent a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties.  The court declined to grant the injunction for several reasons.  First, it held that the plaintiff failed to show that she would suffer irreparable harm because the Commission had stated that it would not release the data without an MOU addressing necessary security safeguards to ensure proper and confidential use of the data.  Next, it concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that no adequate remedies existed at law because she could avail herself of state and federal tort claims if the data were to be handled negligently. Finally, it rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that she was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim for several reasons, including that the Commission was authorized by statute to enter data sharing agreements to securely disclose voter registration data, that the state’s constitutional right to privacy did not encompass sharing data between state and federal government agencies to secure federal elections, that the requested MOU would improperly entangle the judiciary and offend separation of powers, and that federal law likely required the Commission to provide the requested information to the DOJ.

On October 6, 2025, Judge Goldstein's house burned to the ground; three people were injured, and there was wide speculation that the fire was related to her anti-Trump Administration order.  However, as investigation got under way, state officials said they had so far found “no evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set.”