SOUTH CAROLINA REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
S
TATEMENT OF ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT
WWW.RFA.SC.GOV • (803)734-3793
This fiscal impact statement is produced in compliance with the South Carolina Code of Laws and House and Senate rules. The focus of
the analysis is on governmental expenditure and revenue impacts and may not provide a comprehensive summary of the legislation.
Page 1 of 2
H. 3556
Fiscal Impact Summary
This bill modifies the process for protesting and contesting the election of county officers, less
than county officers, and municipal officers. This bill also allows the state executive committee
to require a bond of surety of no more than $750 as payment for reasonable costs of hearing a
protest in the event the election challenge is denied. Appeals from decisions by the state
executive committee must be taken directly to the Supreme Court.
The State Election Commission anticipate being able to manage any additional responsibilities
due to this bill with existing staff and within existing appropriations. Therefore, this bill will
have no expenditure impact.
The Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office (RFA) contacted all counties and the Municipal
Association of South Carolina (MASC) to determine the potential expenditure impact this bill
may have for local governments. We received a response from Chesterfield County and MASC.
Chesterfield County anticipates this bill will have no expenditure impact. MASC also anticipates
this bill will have no fiscal impact for municipalities. Based on these responses, RFA anticipates
this bill will have no local expenditure impact.
Explanation of Fiscal Impact
Introduced on January 14, 2025
State Expenditure
This modifies the process for protesting and contesting the election of county officers, less than
county officers, and municipal officers. Currently, these protests and contests are heard by the
county party executive committee. This bill eliminates the county party executive committee
protest process and repeals all relevant code sections. The state executive committee will hear
these protests and contests. This bill also allows the state executive committee to require a bond
of surety of no more than $750 as payment for reasonable costs of hearing a protest in the event
the election challenge is denied. Appeals from decisions by the state executive committee must
be taken directly to the Supreme Court.
The State Election Commission anticipates being able to manage any additional responsibilities
due to this bill with existing staff and within existing appropriations. Therefore, this bill will
have no expenditure impact.
Bill Number: H. 3556 Introduced on Januar
y 14, 2025
Subject: Political Parties and Primaries
Requestor: House Judiciary
RFA Analyst(s): Welsh
Impact Date: March 4, 2025
__________________________________
Frank A. Rainwater, Executive Director
DISCLAIMER: THIS FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT REPRESENTS THE OPINION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE
AGENCY OFFICIAL WHO APPROVED AND SIGNED THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS PROVIDED AS INFORMATION TO
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPRESSION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
Page 2 of 2
H. 3556
State Revenue
N/A
Local Expenditure
This bill modifies the process for protesting and contesting the election of county officers, less
than county officers, and municipal officers. Currently, these protests and contests are heard by
the county party executive committee. This bill eliminates the county party executive committee
protest process and repeals all relevant code sections.
RFA contacted all counties and MASC to determine the potential expenditure impact this bill
may have for local governments. We received a response from Chesterfield County and MASC.
Chesterfield County anticipates this bill will have no expenditure impact. MASC also anticipates
this bill will have no fiscal impact for municipalities. Based on these responses, RFA anticipates
this bill will have no local expenditure impact.
Local Revenue
N/A