|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
The legal battle over whether South Carolina will turn over its voter registration database to Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is escalating — and fast. What started as a standoff between the governor’s office, state “Republican” leaders, and the ostensibly independent State Election Commission (SCVotes.gov) has now moved into the courts – with a Calhoun County resident securing an order (.pdf) which temporarily blocks the release of the data.
At issue? The names, addresses, and identifying information of more than 3.3 million registered Palmetto State voters — data the DOJ insists it needs to enforce Trump’s March 25, 2025 executive order targeting “non-citizen voter registration.”
Democrats have pushed back against this request, with S.C. state senator Brad Hutto – the party’s minority leader in the upper chamber – representing the Calhoun County citizen who is suing the state.
***
THE LAWSUIT
On August 28, 2025, Anne Crook filed suit in Calhoun County against SCVotes, seeking to stop the agency from releasing the state’s voter registration database to the DOJ. Her complaint (.pdf) argued that the voter file contains sensitive personal identifiers — including driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers — and that sharing this information with the federal government would violate her rights under both the South Carolina and United States constitutions. Crook also cited state privacy laws, election statutes, and even criminal provisions designed to protect citizens’ data.
Crook framed the matter not as an abstract dispute about election policy, but as an immediate threat to individual privacy. By handing over this information, she argued, SCVotes would be exposing millions of South Carolinians — herself included — to the risk of misuse, identity theft, or unauthorized surveillance. She asked the court to enjoin the agency from releasing the data and to recognize the privacy interests of citizens as paramount.
***
Circuit court judge Diane Goodstein agreed — at least temporarily. On September 2, 2025, Goodstein issued a temporary restraining order, finding Crook had shown a likelihood of “immediate and irreparable damage” if her data were released. Goodstein cited state and federal constitutional protections as well as privacy and election laws in reaching her decision. Goodstein’s order blocked the SCVotes from distributing the list until a hearing could be held.
Crook’s initial victory stopped the clock as the DOJ’s September 5, 2025 deadline loomed – setting the stage for an accelerated courtroom clash over whether purported privacy rights can trump both state statutory authority and federal demands.
***
RELATED | ELECTION INTEGRITY STANDOFF
***
THE STATE’S RESPONSE
Republican governor Henry McMaster, who has already gone on record supporting compliance with DOJ’s request, quickly inserted himself into the case. On September 3, 2025, McMaster – a Trump acolyte – filed an unopposed motion to intervene (.pdf), arguing his constitutional duties and appointment powers over the SEC entitled him to participate. His lawyers stressed that federal supremacy and election law concerns go beyond the SEC’s authority — and that the governor himself must have a seat at the table.
Not stopping there, McMaster also filed a motion to expedite (.pdf), urging the court to rule on his intervention immediately so he could participate in next week’s hearing.
Meanwhile, SCVotes — still led by embattled director Howie Knapp — launched its own counteroffensive. On September 4, 2025, the agency appealed judge Goodstein’s order to the state supreme court (.pdf), arguing it was overbroad and vague. Citing § 7-5-186(C) of state law, SCVotes claimed explicit authority to share voter data with other states and with DOJ for “legitimate governmental purposes.”
***
RELATED | S.C. ELECTIONS DIRECTOR UNDER INVESTIGATION
***
Goodstein’s order, it claimed, unlawfully impinged on that statutory authority.
The following day, SCVotes filed a motion to change venue (.pdf), insisting the case belongs in Richland County — where the agency is headquartered and the data is maintained — not in Calhoun County, where Crook resides.
Taken together, these moves from both the governor and SCVotes show a coordinated push to reframe the lawsuit from a narrow privacy dispute into a broader fight over federal authority, state powers and procedural control of the case.
For now, the order remains in place, blocking the release of voter data while the court sorts through this tangle of jurisdictional disputes, appeals and intervention motions. The pace of filings underscores the political urgency of the issue: the DOJ deadline has already arrived – and a hearing on the matter has been set for September 10, 2025 in Aiken, and the state supreme court could weigh in on the matter at any moment.
The outcome will determine not just the fate of this particular data request, but also how South Carolina courts balance privacy concerns, state statutes, and federal election directives in the months ahead.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
5 comments
What kind of private citizens hero was this to just up and decide to sue to block this?
Luckily the Governor jumped in, whose actions lead to favorable or unfavorable support to two governor candidates and can explain to us whats going on.
Why are we hiding support to give info to the DOJ? Yes yes, we dont want the federal government from having our last names and social security last four.
Or that there is evidence that shows
illegal voting, which leads to existence of illegal immigrants voting in local elections, which lead to harboring and employment questions, which leads to trafficking, which leads to learning about mass holding while receiving benefits and exploitation, which leads to cartel involvement, which leads to state senators and local leaders having connections to Cartels. Which then leads to corruption and malfeasance, which leads to politicians not legally being voted into positions that have created laws and voted in judges, which leads to transparency and federal investigations.
Im sure there’s more to that conspiracy, and wasnt it the federal government who gave me my social security number? Its like sueing your parents from looking into your underwear drawer.
Some of our judges are about as bright as that moron Ketanji Brown Jackson when it comes to knowledge of the law. I mean Goodstein is just another nepo judge. Her husband was in the legislature and got his liberal wife the job.
Most of them are corrupt swollen head narcissist. They think they are Gods. Many do not even understand court rules.
FOIA Requests
The South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) maintains public records that are available for review, upon request, in accordance with the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The incoming appellate smackdown on Judge Goodstein’s ruling is gonna look like a five-fingered birthmark across her face. This message brought to you by Cromer’s popcorn.
Goodstein’s husband is named in a draft of a criminal complaint along with several others. Dunno if it will be filed, or not. But law enforcement trolls and attorney trolls can’t hide on the web like they believe they can. So tip off all you want … LMAO!!