Full Breakdown
Fourth Circuit Rules South Carolina’s Age-Based Mail-In Voting Exemption Unconstitutional
8/31/2026, 8:14:42 AM
Core Event
On August 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that South Carolina’s law allowing voters 65 and older to request absentee ballots without providing a reason violates the Twenty-sixth Amendment. The ruling sends the case back to the district court to decide whether the state must extend no-excuse mail voting to all voters or eliminate it entirely.
Background & Context
South Carolina’s absentee-voting statute creates a two-tiered system: voters 65 and older may vote by mail for any reason, while younger voters must meet one of several eligibility categories (disability, caregiving, work conflict, or being away from the county). Plaintiffs— a group of younger Charleston residents who sued the South Carolina Election Commission in 2023— argued that this distinction breaches the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which bars age-based voting restrictions. Legal scholars note that most states with broad absentee-voting options do not differentiate by age, making South Carolina an outlier.
Key Figures & Groups
- Roger Gregory – Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; authored the opinion.
- Armand Derfner – Charleston civil-rights attorney representing the plaintiffs; cautioned that the decision is unlikely to affect the November 3 general election.
- Pamela S. Karlan – Stanford Law professor and co-counsel on the case; highlighted the rarity of a modern Twenty-sixth-Amendment challenge.
- Chip Campsen – Republican State Senator from Isle of Palms; authored South Carolina’s early-voting law and opposes universal no-excuse mail voting.
Timeline
- 2023 – Younger voters file suit against the South Carolina Election Commission.
- August 18 – Fourth Circuit issues its decision in *Grant v. Belangia*.
- Post-decision – Case remanded to district court for remedy; state may appeal to the full Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Official Statements & Responses
Chief Judge Gregory wrote that the state must choose either to grant unconditional absentee voting to all voters or to restrict it entirely, eliminating the age-based exemption. Attorney Derfner noted that courts traditionally avoid altering election rules close to an election, so the ruling is unlikely to change the November 3 ballot.
Criticism & Opposition
Senator Campsen’s position reflects a concern that expanding mail voting could compromise ballot integrity. He contended that the state’s current system balances accessibility for seniors with safeguards for the broader electorate, and that a court-mandated overhaul would undermine those safeguards.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the Twenty-sixth Amendment conflicts with a 2022 Fifth Circuit ruling upholding a similar Texas law that limits no-excuse mail voting to voters 65 and older. The Fifth Circuit concluded that facilitating voting for seniors does not harm younger voters, whereas the Fourth Circuit views any age-based disparity as discriminatory. The split leaves open the question of which interpretation will ultimately prevail, and no further appellate decisions have addressed the issue.
What’s Next
South Carolina officials may seek review by the full Fourth Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split. Legal analysts anticipate that the Supreme Court could be asked to clarify the Twenty-sixth Amendment’s application to absentee-voting methods, though no hearing date has been set.
