🐘

A Transparency Update on the 2026 General Election in Dorchester County Dorchester County Republicans deserve a full accounting of what happened in this election. Here is what we know as of today, Friday, November 6. Day One of Early Voting From roughly 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. on the first day of early voting, voters were handed and cast ballots with the wrong ballot style. My own mother is registered in House District 98 and received a House 102 ballot. A sitting County Councilwoman could not vote for herself. The Democratic Party reported that one of their candidates had the same problem. Many others reported the same issue. The Election Commission then switched to manual check-ins that day. Voters were handed slips of paper with their precinct names on them to decide which ballot they would get. Dorchester County had more than 120 ballot styles this election, and some precincts contain more than one. We have asked how the correct ballot styles were determined during the manual process. We have not received an answer. We have been told 154 voters cast incorrect ballots and that nothing can be done for them. My mother's provisional ballot was thrown out at this morning's certification hearing. That week I appeared on television with the Dorchester County Democratic Party Chairwoman to ask for answers and accountability together. Both parties requested in-person meetings with election officials where we could bring our attorneys and party members to ask questions in good faith. They first agreed. When we followed up, our requests were ignored. Election Night Nothing from early voting had been fully explained or resolved when election night arrived. Dorchester was the last county in South Carolina to report results. Early voting results were delayed by what officials described as faulty USB drives and a printer issue. SC Votes showed 100% reporting for Dorchester around 9pm, but local officials told us those numbers did not include more than 5,000 early voting ballots. They said those ballots had to be rescanned and would be published later that night. We passed that message on to you and waited. With 5,000 ballots not reflected on SC Votes and the Congressional race within 2,000 vote margin I contacted Jenny's team because based on the explanation we were given, we expected to see 5,000 new ballots reflected in the results after they were rescanned and uploaded. We went to election headquarters and watched staff work through the ballots. Jenny Costa Honeycutt's team sent legal counsel and her consultant to observe. Around 2:30 a.m., Rep. Greg Ford, Councilman Jay Byars, others, and I were present as the final ballots were rescanned and published. When SC Votes refreshed while we were in the warehouse, local races had moved by only a few dozen votes. I asked how 5,000 ballots could be added without anything close to 5,000 new votes appearing in the results. In front of witnesses, election officials told me, word for word, "the only election that was affected by the 5,000 was Dorchester County Council District 2." I was told to file a FOIA request if I had more questions. I thanked everyone for staying late to get it right and asked again: how could Council District 2 be the only race affected when it shares precincts with the Honeycutt, Ford, and Gatch races? I was looked at like I had three heads. Staff shook their heads, raised their voices, and became defensive and hostile. The next day I submitted the FOIA request below. That same day, the county's election director told the Post and Courier that Jenny Honeycutt could have come to the office and asked questions herself. As your Chairman, I did exactly that, in person, that night, and was met with unprofessional communication and hostility. Jenny also had representation in the building despite what is reported. The director also told the paper that her staff has had to do this kind of rescan in numerous previous elections. That is not reassuring. It confirms a pattern. Human error is one thing. Taking it personally when candidates, party leaders, and voters ask for the facts is another. The poor and unprofessional communication throughout this two week ordeal is unacceptable. Certification This morning at 10 a.m., the election was certified at the County Council Chambers in St. George. Republicans, Democrats, Jenny Honeycutt's consultant, and I spoke on the record about these errors and asked for accountability. Where We Stand Let's be honest about the results. Republicans in Dorchester County lost because of straight ticket voting as a results of national conditions: the war, gas prices, food prices, tariffs, and Republican leaders at the state and national level who campaigned one way and governed another. Local Republicans paid the price for that. Local campaigning and the party's efforts were maximized, and it's a bad faith characterization to blame our party who led the state in door knocking and phone calling numbers. For example Rep. Holman over performed Darline Graham by 10% and Alan Wilson by 4% and still lost by 15% to Montez Aiken, an alleged predator who was an SRO alledgedly sending sexual messages to young high school girls. These irregularities do not explain our losses either. That does not make the irregularities acceptable. They point to a pattern of disorganization and incompetence at the Election Commission. We showed we were willing to work across the aisle to fix it, and we were met with unprofessional and dismissive communication. That is why accountability is needed. This Is Not a Closed Matter Under the previous DCRP Chairman, Dorchester County saw election irregularity frustrations election after election. The buck stops here, and the time for change is now. I have been in contact with local and state officials. We are exploring legal options. We are also planning a public forum so residents can share what they experienced, because many of you have already contacted us with your stories. Election integrity in Dorchester County needs your help. Get involved with the Dorchester County Republican Party at DorchesterCountyRepublicanPa…. We will post updates in the coming days. In the interest of transparency, below is the full FOIA request we submitted to the Dorchester County Board of Voter Registration and Elections. We will share their response with you once we receive it. Respectfully, CJ Westfall Chairman, Dorchester County Republican Party Post and Courier coverage: postandcourier.com/news/dorc… ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ FOIA REQUEST SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 5, 2026 CJ Westfall County Chair, Dorchester County Republican Party November 5, 2026 Dorchester County Board of Voter Registration and Elections Subject: Urgent FOIA Request – Ballot Marking Device / Ballot Style Matching Issues, Early Voting Day 1, USB/Tabulation Issues, and Related Records (SC Code § 30-4-10 et seq.) Dear Custodian of Records: Due to the recent issues regarding Dorchester County's failure of the Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) to accurately match some ballot styles to the correct ballots, and subsequent related matters involving USB drives, ballot duplication/rescanning, and tabulation/publication of results, I urgently request the following information under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, Title 30, Chapter 4. Documents and Records Requested: 1. Test scripts, test data, and test results of all logic and accuracy tests for all machines tested and used in Dorchester County in the Early Voting centers (both BMDs and Tabulators/Scanners). 2. The poll list (or equivalent voter check-in logs) of citizens who voted on the first day of early voting at all voting centers in the county, including the timestamp of when each voter checked in. These documents are public information subject to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act unless they are narrowly confined to matters defined in Sec. 30-4-20(c). If any documents are withheld based on a claim of privilege or any other reason, please identify all documents so withheld and the basis of the claim of privilege or such other reason. Questions for Response (in the name of transparency and to instill trust in our elections): - What specifically was the nature of the issue? - Which precincts, races, and ballot styles were involved? - How many voters were affected? - How was it resolved in the short term, and how was it ultimately fixed? (Provide the detailed steps and who was involved.) - How will this be prevented in the future? - Will any absentee ballots be affected? - What was the process after the issue was discovered on the first day of early voting to manually "check in" voters? - How were their ballot styles determined during the manual check-in? - Some precincts have multiple ballot styles. If voters were given ballots based on their precincts, how were these ballot styles determined? - When did you determine the USBs were corrupted? How did this occur? - If 5,000 ballots were duplicated, rescanned, and published after 2 a.m., why was Kizzie Scott's explanation that these ballots only affected the Dorchester County Council District 2 race? - Why were only a few dozen votes added after the 5,000 ballots were published? I request expedited processing and a waiver of any fees for this request due to the timing of certification of results. As County Chair of the Republican Party, I have a fiduciary duty to communicate and quantify these issues for all candidates involved. Disclosing this requested information matters to the public because it will likely improve their understanding of election operations and activities in our counties and state, and thus their trust in the process and results. However, if there is any anticipated cost, please provide a description of the number and type of records, an estimate prior to providing the requested records, and the methodology used to determine the anticipated fees. State FOIA Sec. 30-4-30(B) states: The public body shall develop a fee schedule to be posted online. The fee for the search, retrieval, or redaction of records shall not exceed the prorated hourly salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the reasonable discretion of the custodian of the records, has the necessary skill and training to perform the request. Fees charged by a public body must be uniform for copies of the same record or document and may not exceed the prevailing commercial rate for the producing of copies. Copy charges may not apply to records that are transmitted in an electronic format. If records are not in electronic format and the public body agrees to produce them in electronic format, the public body may charge for the staff time required to transfer the documents to electronic format. Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Respectfully, CJ Westfall County Chair Dorchester County Republican Party