An attorney for Sen. Maggie Glover asked a federal judge Monday to render the South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee’s decision to order a new election null and void and either reinstate a runoff between the incumbent senator and the second place winner in the primary or let a three-judge panel decide the questions in the suit pertaining to the Voting Rights Act.
     The South Carolina Democratic Party, the respondent in Glover’s lawsuit, in turn asked the judge to dismiss Glover’s lawsuit altogether.
     District Judge Terry Wooten ruled on neither of the motions and instead ordered each side to file motions and briefs citing case law to support their opinions.
     “I have an abundant understanding about what actually happened here,” Wooten said shortly after testimony from both sides concluded. “Now, it’s time to move on to the next phase - evaluating federal law in light of the facts that have been presented over the two days of testimony.”
     Bill Nettles, the Democratic Party’s attorney, agreed to have his motions and briefs filed by Thursday. By law, Glover’s attorney, Brenda Reddix-Smalls, has five days to respond to Nettles’ motions.
     However, Wooten said he would allow extra time if needed to make sure this matter is not rushed.
With motions to be filed and other matters on Wooten’s as well as both attorneys’ agendas, it most likely will be at least two weeks before any decision is rendered in the matter.
     According to a letter sent to Wooten by the S.C. Attorney General’s Office, a decision must be made by Sept. 10 for the winning candidate’s name to appear on the general election ballot in November.
     “I certainly don’t want to rush the attorneys on this, but I have tried to move this along for the benefit of the (Democratic) party,” Wooten said. “I’ve put this at the top of my list because I felt that was warranted under the circumstances. I certainly don’t want this district court to stand in the way of residents of District 30 having representation at the Statehouse.”
     In the second day of testimony, Glover’s attorney continued her argument that the Democratic Party violated the Voting Rights Act by hearing opponent Tim Norwood’s protest of the election.
     Reddix-Smalls said Glover was not notified that the committee was going to hear Norwood’s protest and therefore was not adequately prepared to argue her side of the matter.
Nettles argued that three days before the hearing, Glover was informed by the party that the executive committee would hear Kent Williams’ protest June 17.
     Williams eventually withdrew that protest, but Democratic Party officials assert that Glover and her representatives were never told that the hearing had been canceled. Although Glover was not in attendance, she was represented at the hearing by attorney Glenn Gray.
     On Monday, Reddix-Smalls argued that the party’s decision disenfranchised black voters and presented several witnesses to testify about the impact the decision has had on them.
     “It causes lots of convenience. Some people who voted before are now out of place,” Bishop R.F. Davis of Marion testified.
     “Black people have been disenfranchised so long till people feel like it’s not necessary. You’re not going to win, you’re not going to get nothing.”
     Reddix-Smalls said the party should have had the hearing June 24, giving all parties involved ample opportunity to respond.
     In his protest to the executive committee, Norwood alleged more than 600 voter irregularities.
     Norwood and Williams were separated by just six votes, which was enough to persuade the executive committee to throw out the results and ask Gov. Mark Sanford to set a date for a special election. Sanford has said he will not set a date until all court petitions are dealt with.
     In the meantime, Glover and Norwood said they are optimistic about the outcome of the lawsuit.
     “We’ve had two good days of testimony from everybody involved,” Norwood said. “All I’ve ever wanted is a fair and accurate election to be held, and I think we’re working toward that. We’re confident at the end of the day that we will have a new election between Ms. Glover, Mr. Williams and myself sometime in the near future.”
     Despite Norwood’s efforts, Glover said, she is confident that the facts of her argument speak for themselves.
“I think if you heard the proceedings here today, you know that I’ve been vindicated. Now, I’m simply waiting for the runoff,” Glover said.
     “Now, I just hope the judge will rescind the Democratic Party’s decision to invalidate the election and move this forward to a three judge panel to decide the questions we’ve posed concerning the Voting Rights Act.”