STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

)
COUTY OF RICHALND )
South Carolina Democratic Party; )
Amanda Alpert Loveday as )
Executive Director of the South Carolina )
Democratic Party;
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Richland County Board of Elections; )
Lillian McBride as Executive Director of )
the Richland County Board of Elections; )
and M. Elizabeth Crum as Chair of the )
Richland County Board of Elections, )
)
Defendants. )

)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Civil Acton No. : 20l 2-CP-40- D7r;'1
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the ex parte petition of Plaintiffs South Carolina
Democratic Party and Amanda Alpert Loveday as Executive Director of the South Carolina
Democratic Party for a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 65, SCRCP. The specifc
relief sought by the Plaintiff is as follows:
that all votes cast in the November 6, 2012 general election for
State House District 75 (HD-75) be seized fom the Defendants
and deposited into the safe-keeping of the State Law Enforcement
Division (SLED) until such time that a fll hearing on this matter
can be held and provisions can be made under the supervision of
this Court for an independent, manual recount of all ballots cast.
For the reasons stated herein, the petition is granted.
Rule 65(b), SCRCP requires "[e]very temporary restraining order granted without notice
shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance . . . .
DATE OF ISSUANCE:
.
f. 20 I 2-
HOUR OF ISSUANCE: 11 ', 7
tr
1
The Court frther orders that the Plaintiff comply with the mandate of Rule 65(b), SCRCP, in
serving, together with a summons and complaint, a filed copy of this order upon the above-
named Defendants in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4, SCRCP.
This order shall expire 10 days from the date of its entry unless good cause is shown for
an extension. The related motion for temporary injunction must "be set down for hearing at the
earliest possible time." Rule 65(b ),SCR aring for November L

2012 at /:OtM/M.
'I-AYSIS OF EX PARTE PETITION
"Pursuant to Rule 65(b), SCRCP, a trial judge can issue a temporary restraining order
without providing notice where it clearly appears fom specific facts shown by affdavit or by
verifed complaint that immediate or irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the
applicant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon." Zabinski v. Bright Acres
Associates, 346 S.C. 580,600-01,553 S.E.2d 110, 120 (2001).
I. Immediate or Irreparable Injur
Plaintiffs have set forth the following factual allegations, via verifed complaint.
1. On November 6, 2012, Richland County Board of Elections conducted the 2012 general
election.
2. One of the ofices voters voted to fill in this election was South Carolina House of
Representatives District 75. Two candidates were on the ballot competing for HD-75:
Democrat Joe McCulloch and Republican Kirkman Finlay.
3. The 2012 general election in Richland County was marred by irregularities stemming
from the illegal conduct of the Defendants.
4. Richland County voters waited as long as fve or six hours to exercise their right to vote.
2
5. These long lines were attributed to an inadequate number of voting machines and a large
number of voting machines that became inoperable while voting was occurring.
6. South Carolina law requires the use of one voting machine per 250 registered voters. S.C.
Code Ann. 7-13-680.
7. The RCBE failed to provide additional machines and failed to make timely repairs of
inoperable machines.
8.
As a result of the RCBE's conduct in failing to provide voters with adequate voting
equipment, polling locations around the county remained open late into the night with
voters
c
asting ballots as late as 10:00 p.m.
9. Once polling locations were closed, the RCBE failed to properly "close out" voting
machines. This procedure transfers data from the voting machines used by voters to a
cartridge that combines all the votes cast in that polling location. This cartridge is then
used to create a printout of the results in that polling location.
10. Prior to transporting the cartages to the RCBE headquarters, poll managers are required
to print the results for their polling location and post it on the door of the polling location.
11. Once the "close out" procedure is complete, the cartages and one of the voting machines
fom each precinct is transported to the RCBE headquarters at 2020 Hampton Street,
Columbia, South Carolina where the RCBE totals the votes cast in all precincts.
12. Many precincts failed to properly "close out" their vote totals and post them.
13. Some precincts were unable to complete this procedure because the voting machines lost
power afer their batteries died.
14. Other precincts failed to complete this procedure as a result of human error.
3
IS. This required the RCBE to retrieve machines from the polling locations around the
county and transport them to the headquarters for "repair," recharging, or merely to
conduct the procedure
16. This corrective action was not completed on Election Day, November 6, 2012.
17. No final results were released for Richland County elections on Election Day or early the
next moring on November 7. RCBE released preliminary numbers for fewer than 25
percent of the County's 124 precincts that night or early the next moring.
18. On November 7, 2012, at 8:00 a.m., RCBE staff retured to headquarters to resume
retrieving and counting votes cast.
19. Despite repeated assurances by the Defendants that this process would be completed
"soon," it dragged on throughout the entire day. Plaintiff and other observers received
changing explanations throughout the day as to the reason for the delay.
20. The RCBE leared for the first time on November 7, that they needed to retrieve
necessary election machinery in order to "close out" and tally vote totals.
21. Additionally, the RCBE solicited the assistance of a technician from the company that
makes the voting machines to repair and retrieve votes fom machines that were
inoperable by the RCBE staff.
22. Information in four precincts in HD-75 remained unavailable for most of the day with
various explanations being offered as to why vote totals from these machines were
unavailable. These precincts were: North Forest Acres, Pennington, Ward 25, and
Woodlands precincts.
4
23. Vote totals for Pennington and Ward 25 were provided to Plaintiff and other election
observers at 12:24 p.m. Vote totals for Woodlands were provided at approximately 3:30
p.m. and vote totals for North Forest Acres were provided at approximately 4:15 p.m.
24. Based on these preliminary totals, Democrat Joe McCulloch led his opponent,
Republican Kirkman Finlay by 38 votes.
25. At this time, some but not all of the absentee ballots had been reported as reflected in a
12:24 summary provided to Plaintiff and other election observers.
26. The 12:24 sum ary produced by the RCBE reported four categories of absentee votes
but only refected totals in three of those categories. "Absentee 3" reported that
McCulloch led Finlay, 201 votes to 145, respectively.
27. Defendants told observers that Absentee 3 was a "combination" of absentee voting types.
28. At 6:20 p.m., the RCBE provided a final summary that updated vote totals for Absentee
1,2 & 3.
29. In Absentee 3, Finlay added 267 votes to his prior total for a total of 412 votes. (Exhibit
B)
30. McCulloch did not add a single vote in category Absentee 3.
31. As of the RCBE's 6:20 p.m. summary, Finlay now leads McCulloch by 265 votes with
6771 to 6506.
32. When confonted with the fact that Absentee 3 added 267 - a determinative margin - to
Finlay's total without adding a single vote for McCulloch, Defendants had no explanation
for how this was possible.
5
33. Even though Defendants had paper absentee and UOCAVA absentee ballots in their
possession before any other ballots these were the last ballots to be counted and also
provided Finlay with a lead by a detenninative margin.
Based upon these factual allegations, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated
the threat of immediate and irreparable inj u in the fonn of the certifcation of election results
that have been marred by unlawfl election procedures and vote tabulation procedures. The
declaration of the victor of HD-75 hangs in the balance and the public is entitled to an
independent and thorough review of these procedures and tabulations. To ensure that this
election has been conducted within the bounds of the law and that a lawfl victor is declared, this
court must issue this ex parte order.
II. Why the Order is Granted Without Notice
As noted above, time is of the essence in this matter. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated
disconcerting anomalies with both the voting process in Richland County and the vote tabulation
itself. Because of this timeliness concer and the ease in which paper and electronic records can
become lost, destroyed, or otherwise altered, the Court issues this temporary restraining order
without notice to the Defendants.
III. Securit
Rule 65(c) establishes that "no restraining order or temporary injunction shall issue
except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for
the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found
to have been wrongflly enjoined or restrained." Rule 65( c), SCRCP. The Court finds that the
relief sought by Plaintiffs threatens no cost nor financial damage to Defendants. As such, the
Court declines to demand Plaintiffs give security in conjunction with this matter.
6
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiffs' petition for a temporary restraining order is
granted. The Court forthwith orders the following:
I. That the Richland County Sherriff seize all voting machines, ballots cast and
machinery necessary to count the votes case in HD-75;
II. That the Sherriff deliver these materials to the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division for safekeeping until an emergency hearing can be
held; and
iii. That an emergency hearing be held to determine the existence, extent, and
nature of the improprieties alleged here and discovered through swor
testimony.
November 8, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Presiding Judge
Fifh Judicial Circuit
7