What's New

League of Women Voters^®
of Georgetown County

What's New

Voter ID. Eval study. Voter ID. Redistricting. Annual meeting report.

We are looking for people to serve on the teacher effectiveness study group. Members will carry out the study chosen by the state League last summer (see below for more details.)
Are you interested in transportation issues? The transportation committee needs you.
And with a big election coming up next year, as well as Voter ID issues, the Voter Service committee also encourages more members to get involved.
See the Voter Services item under the new Committee Activities tab at left for details of a committee meeting with county registration and election director Donna Mahn and plans for the coming year.

Voter ID project, committee recruitment

A local project to aid those who are registered voters but do not have the photo ID required by the new state law was approved by the LWVGC board June 22. For years, a voter could use a registration card to vote, but now must have a state-issued photo ID such as a driver's license. Many people do not have them because they do not drive.
Donna Mahn, county voter registration and elections director, said it is believed that 2,900 registered voters in Georgetown County do not have a photo ID. The state estimated there were 174,000 such citizens statewide.
We have four standing committees, and hope each member will participate in one of them. If these are not to your liking, start a new one that is within League guidelines. The committees we have are voter service, transportation, natural resources and education. The board also talked about voter education on the new districts, and much activity next year as we approach major elections. If you want to work on a committee, please email the president or webmaster and we will direct you to the appropriate committee chair. We would also like to have members who will regularly attend county council, planning commission and school board meetings.

Teacher evaluation study

Dear Local League Leaders,
At the LWVSC convention in May, delegates voted overwhelmingly to undertake the following study on evaluation and retention of effective teachers for the 2011-2013 biennium:
This two-year study will focus on the growing movement toward "results based" evaluation of teachers, nationally and in South Carolina. We will:
· explore what makes a teacher effective;
· examine "best practices" in teacher evaluation and compare them with current practices employed by school districts across our State;
· identify models of school districts in which rigorous methods of evaluation and ongoing teacher support are components of a systematic approach to putting an effective teacher in every classroom. Throughout the course of the study, we will seek research institutions, faith communities, commercial and community groups as partners in our study and would engage the public in thinking about the issues.
The study will concentrate on the recent and growing trend to evaluate and reward teachers based on results, i.e., the academic progress of the students in their classroom.
The study will be managed by a state-wide study committee, whose leader(s) will be appointed by the LWVSC Board in June. Local Leagues will have a large part in the study. Together we will work toward consensus on a position that will enable the League in South Carolina to speak out publicly, to provide objective information to the public and to take action regarding legislation and school district policies.
Because this is such a hot topic in South Carolina and the nation, we would like to see the study conducted and completed just as soon as possible. The legislation that would have produced a study committee organized by State Superintendent Zais and a subsequent report to the legislature by December is not going to pass this time around. So, we have a little more time to work with. We believe that our study will make a valuable contribution to the public discourse around linking teacher evaluation to student performance.
We want your League's active participation throughout the study. Here are two suggestions about how you can help get the study started.
1. You can help determine the scope of the study. Hold a discussion at your next Board or member meeting about the study. Attached and pasted at the end of this message* are some questions to help guide you through the discussion. Identify the issues and the questions that were raised during the discussion and send them to JoAnne Day (mailto:jvday@yahoo.com), no later than June 15.
2. Identify at least one member, but no more than two, from your League to serve on the study committee and to report regularly to your board. No specific expertise or background is necessary + only an interest in learning more about the topic. The committee will meet face-to+face this summer to get organized and started on the work and then as infrequently as possible thereafter. After getting organized, much of what needs to be done can be accomplished by phone and email.
You will be hearing from the study committee chair soon. Thanks so much for being part of this important project.
Yours in League, Barbara Zia and Peggy Brown, LWVSC Co-Presidents

LEAGUE LEADERS SURVEY
Please discuss with your members and/or board. Report results to JoAnne Day (jvday@yaho.com) by June 15.
Questions the LWVSC education study should/could consider (V1.2):
Should teacher performance be evaluated? YES or NO
How do we define teacher performance?
Should a teacher's performance be evaluated every year? YES or NO
Should EVERY teacher's performance be evaluated EVERY year? YES or NO
Should teacher performance be evaluated based on student results? YES or NO

If "YES," should student results (choose one):

(a) Be a small part of teacher evaluation? YES or NO
(b) Be a significant part of teacher evaluation? YES or NO
(c) Be the majority of teacher evaluation? YES or NO
Should teacher performance be a factor in teacher pay? YES or NO

If "YES," should student results (choose one):

(a) Be a small part of determining teacher pay? YES or NO
(b) Be a significant part of determining teacher pay? YES or NO
(c) Be the majority part of determining teacher pay? YES or NO
Who should do the evaluation? (pick all that apply)
(a) Teachers
a. Self
b. Peers
(b) Administrators
(c) Parents
(d) Students
(e) Others (identify)
=

Voter ID

As you know, the state Voter ID law has passed. The Leagues across the state support efforts to complain about the law to the U.S. Justice Department. But here is another view of the law, written by a county elections official. It appeared in the Hilton Head Island Packet newspaper May 20:
SC voter ID law actually enables new way for fraud By SCOTT M. MARSHALL Published Friday, May 20, 2011
As an elections official, one of my primary concerns is to protect the rights of voters to cast a ballot with full confidence in the democratic process. Fundamental to fostering that confidence is to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the "one man, one vote" tenet is not violated.
In other words, we want to do what we can to be sure that only those who are qualified registered voters are offered a ballot, and that each voter is only allowed one ballot.
Poll managers are the guardians of this process on Election Day. They verify that the person standing in front of them at the voting polling location is indeed the person whose name is on the poll list before them. When the identity is verified, the voter is offered a ballot. I am 100 percent in favor of making the identity verification process as tight as possible to protect the overall integrity of the process.
Gov. Nikki Haley signed House Bill 3003 into law on Wednesday, pending approval from the U.S. Justice Department. This is a law with the advertised objective of reducing voter fraud opportunity by requiring photo identification in order to vote. It sounds like a slam-dunk way to tighten the identity verification process.
Unfortunately, it is not. It is a pig in a poke delivered by the General Assembly that, in spite of being forewarned, has just introduced a new avenue for voter fraud that did not exist in South Carolina prior to this new law. They did this at a state-estimated price tag of $635,000 for the first year with annual recurring costs of $100,000. Your legislators sold the governor a pretty expensive lemon, and you will be paying for it.
Under this law, validating a voter's address is mutually exclusive of the photo identification presented. In fact, two of the forms of identification allowed -- military ID and passport -- have no address. I've heard the mantra by legislators, "If it's good enough to get you on an airplane, it ought to be good enough to vote." I could agree with that ... if you are getting on the airplane to vote.
Transportation Security Administration agents scan identification to ensure the person in front of them is the person presenting the identification. Poll managers are scanning the identification to be sure that 1) it is the identification of the person presenting it, and 2) that the person just verified is the same as the name in the poll book in front of them.
When address validation is mutually exclusive of identification presented, there is no way to verify the identity of the person presenting himself to vote is actually the person of the same name listed in the poll book.
Consider the following illustration, for instance. On South Carolina's active registered voter rolls, there are 133 voters by the name of "Thomas Davis." Of these 133, there are nine voters in South Carolina by the name of "Thomas C. Davis." Two of them are registered in Beaufort County and vote at the same polling location. With a few mouse clicks on a computer it is a simple process to determine where other voters named "Thomas Davis," or "Thomas C. Davis" may live in South Carolina and in which voting precincts they are likely to be registered. The South Carolina Election Commission standard is for poll managers to reference the poll book and ask the voter, "Is this your current address?" Thus, there is nothing to prohibit someone named Thomas Davis (much less Thomas C. Davis) from making an early appearance at another Thomas Davis' voting precinct, answer the poll managers' question in the affirmative, steal his vote, and then proceed to his own precinct to cast a ballot.
In this scenario, while the voter may have broken the law, there is no way the poll manager could have prevented the perpetration of voter fraud. Under the law, the poll manager verified that the picture presented on the identification card was that of the person who presented it. Did the poll manager act in accordance with the law and established procedures? Yes, and in doing so aided the perpetrator in committing voter fraud.
If the objective of House Bill 3003 was to protect the rights of voters and the integrity of the ballot box, then the General Assembly failed miserably. If the objective was to pass a piece of landmark legislation on the election process that you can hold over your head like a professional wrestling championship belt, then mission accomplished. By the way, professional wrestling is just pretend.
Scott M. Marshall is executive director of the Beaufort County Board of Elections and Registration.

Redistricting

All government groups required to redistrict have now released their proposals. These are Georgetown County council (where districts are also used by the school board); state House and Senate, and U.S. House. The congressional plan puts Georgetown County with Horry and Florence, almost like the old 6th District we were in until 20 years ago. The House districts for the county are relatively unchanged. The Senate districts as propossed are also not significantly changed. For state House and congressional maps, Go to http://redistricting.schouse.gov Look on the right hand side for the maps. Note these do not have www in the web address. For Senate, go to http://redistricting.scsenate.gov For a statewide map click on http://redistricting.scsenate.gov/WebStaffPlan/StaffPlanSenate_Lmap.pdf The Senate page is difficult to navigate. On the right side of the main redistricting page, click on Plan Submissions under Redistricting Materials; then on Plans Submitted. That takes you to a page showing the staff plan, which is most likely to be accepted, as well as proposals from the ACLU and congressional map proposals from sitting members. To see the Georgetown County proposals, go to http://www.georgetowncountysc.org/county/redistrict.html This page gives you plans A and B for each of the seven districts, plus countywide maps. These seem to take a long time to load, so be patient.

Annual meeting report

Our annual meeting was May 17 at Pawleys Island. Turnout was about 20 members. We took an important step by adopting changes in bylaws, and electing officers, under a streamlined board system recommended by the national League. We are the first League in SC to try this. The idea is that with a much smaller board, meeting quarterly instead of monthly, and using electronic communication, we can operate more efficiently and attract new activists because committee chairs will not have to be board members and will not have to attend extra meetings. The advocacy coordinator will work with committee chairs and the board to assist volunteers and organize action where it is needed in the community. Robert Schuhmacher will chair Education, Sue Myers Natural Resources and Ernie Nance Transportation. If you would like to work with any of these committees or form a new one, please let us know. You can see the minutes of the annual meeting under the minutes tab.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: February 21, 2012 15:07 PST.