The South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) has recently found itself embroiled in controversy, revealing a series of troubling allegations that have emerged from within its ranks. Among the accusations are claims of falsified documents, misuse of state resources, unauthorized recording devices during meetings, and a questionable contract for voting machines that could burden taxpayers with substantial costs.

In a pivotal meeting held on Wednesday, SEC Chairman Dennis Shedd announced the termination of Howard Knapp, the former executive director, along with his deputy, Paige Salonich. Their dismissals were the result of an internal investigation that uncovered serious misconduct.

Shedd disclosed that the investigation had uncovered additional misconduct following their departure, including the placement of recording devices in confidential commission meetings. Such actions have raised significant concerns about the integrity of the agency’s operations.

Further complicating matters, Shedd accused Knapp of admitting to document falsification and colluding with staff to deceive the commission. Under Knapp’s administration, Shedd described the working environment as having deteriorated into what he termed a “toxic and perhaps hostile” atmosphere.

Additionally, Shedd charged Knapp with misrepresenting the details of a contract, which now poses serious financial risks. The implications of such a misstep could potentially lead to millions in taxpayer expenses, highlighting the gravity of the situation facing the SEC.

In 2024, there was a push from Knapp for over 3,200 new ballot scanners in South Carolina. Knapp had reportedly presented a $28 million contract to the commission, with the claim that the State Treasurer’s Office would cover the cost. However, Treasurer Curtis Loftis recently said that was not the case.

The State Election Commission has now learned Knapp agreed to pay $32 million without the commission’s approval. The commission now faces pressure to try to renegotiate or figure out where to get the money.

Shedd said three state agencies are looking into the contract.

Treasurer Loftis has maintained that his office does not directly sign contracts; its role is financing, not procurement. He insists that the commission must have the legal authority to enter into such agreements.

The question is how the commission will get the money to pay it. The agency was allocated $11 million in the latest state budget, but those funds are not scheduled to be received until February. The commission accepted a $10 million loan from the bank. Now, it is requesting an additional $25 million from the General Assembly, money intended to pay off the loan and cover costs associated with the contested ballot scanner purchase.

Shedd said discussions with the bank are now underway because they need to take care of this immediately.

“Maybe we have some agreement that we negotiate for that interim amount [$28 million], that serves the same effect as a modification of the contract, but it’s just something new… it leaves us without any responsibility or any wrongdoing claims under that other agreement,” Shedd said.

Shedd said it’s important to note, despite the problems, “any misconduct did not affect the integrity of any election.”

These scandals are occurring amid other tensions. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested full voter information, including names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers for more than 3 million registered voters in the state. All of this information is available for purchase except the voters’ driver’s license number and last four digits of their Social Security number.

The commission is facing legal issues regarding the data release. A voter sued the commission, which led to a temporary restraining order, citing privacy concerns. The state Supreme Court later overturned that order, ruling that it was constitutional to send the data to DOJ.

Shedd said any data sharing would require legally binding privacy safeguards, and that South Carolina already shares voter data with around 25 states under strict protocols.

Shedd added, if they were to share data with the DOJ, it would be under strict protocols to maintain privacy and protection of all voter’s data. He said they have not yet come to a decision on whether they will send the DOJ the information.