Robbie Coward has filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Judicial Circuit and a motion of reconsideration with the Latta Municipal Election Commission in regards to the Latta mayor’s election, which he won and was then overturned.
A protest was filed by the other candidate in the race, Teresa Mason, and a protest hearing was held by the Latta Municipal Election Commission. At a hearing on December 11th in a 2-1 vote, the Latta Municipal Election Commission overturned the mayor’s election saying that Coward was not properly domiciled in the Town of Latta as required by S.C. Code of Laws 7-5-610 and that he had not abandoned his prior residence of 708 East Jefferson Street, Dillon, as stated in S.C. Code of Laws 7-1-25. This hearing can be watched on The Dillon Herald’s channel on YouTube or on www.thedillonherald.com.
On Monday, the notice of appeal and motion for reconsideration were filed. They read as follows:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
In Re: Henry L “Robbie” Coward
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO: CHAIRPERSON OF THE TOWN OF LATTA MUNICIPAL ELECTION COMMISSION, AND TERESA MASON:
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that undersigned attorneys for Henry L. “Robbie” Coward (hereinafter “Candidate Coward” or “Mr. Coward”), hereby appeals the decision of the Latta Municipal Election Commission (hereinafter “MEC” or “the Commission”). On December 7, 2021, the town of Latta held an election for mayorship. Candidate Coward won the election against opponent, Teresa Mason (hereinafter “Candidate Mason” or “Mrs. Mason”). At the close of the polls, the citizens of the town of Latta voted in favor of Candidate Coward 275 times. Candidate Mason received 192 votes. Mason subsequently protested the election on the grounds that Mr. Coward was not a qualified elector. A protest hearing was held on December 11, 2021. In a split decision, the MEC rendered a finding that Mr. Coward had not abandoned a previous residence, 708 East Jefferson Street, Dillon South Carolina, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 7-1-25 (2011) and § 7-5-610 (1994).
The MEC’s decision did not meet the evidentiary burden to overturn the election. South
Carolina law strongly favors maintaining the election results. “The Court will employ every reasonable presumption to sustain a contested election, and will not set aside an election due to
mere irregularities or illegalities unless the result is changed or rendered doubtful.” Broadhurst v.
Cty of Myrtle Beach Election Comm’n, 342 S.C. 373, 379 537 S.E.2d 543 (S.C. 2000). The MEC 1
lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to make the determination that Mr. Coward was not a qualified elector.
Mr. Coward satisfied all statutory requirements to be a qualified elector in the town of Latta for the purposes of the December 7, 2021 election. He effectively testified and produced evidence that he had abandoned his residence at 945 Calhoun Street in Dillon, South Carolina and established residency at 304 South Marion Street in Latta, South Carolina 30 days prior to the election. No evidence contradicted this fact and the intent of Mr. Coward, to permanently remain at 304 South Marion Street.
Mr. Coward’s updated voter registration application was accepted without challenge. Mr. Coward’s candidacy statement to run in the mayoral election was accepted, again without challenge. Mr. Coward voted on December 7, 2021 with no objection. Mr. Coward’s vote in the mayoral election was canvassed with no objection and included in the official vote tallies that have been certified by the MEC. These issues cannot be dissected. Mr. Coward legally voted pursuant to § 7-1-25 (2011) and § 7-5-610, and thus has a constitutional right to run for office in the same election. The MEC’s decision was wholly unsupported by the evidence presented at the protest hearing and by virtue of Mr. Coward legally casting a ballot in the election and his vote being counted in the certified totals of the election. For these reasons, Appellant humbly requests that this Honorable Court reverse the decision of the MEC and allow the votes cast in the Town of Latta election be heard and not ignored.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2021 Dec 20 7:04 PM – DILLON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2021CP1700522
Florence, South Carolina December 20, 2021
3
Respectfully submitted,
/s/M. W. Cockrell, III M. W. Cockrell, III Bar No.: 69417 COCKRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. Old Town Centre Barrister Building 157 Main Street Chesterfield, South Carolina 29709 Phone: (843) 623-5911 Fax: (843) 623-5700
/s/Wallace H. Jordan, Jr. Wallace H. Jordan, Jr. Bar No: 76222 WALLACE H. JORDAN, JR., P.C. Post Office Box 2010 626 West Evans Street Florence, South Carolina 29503-2010 Phone: (843) 662-4474 Fax: (843) 662-6024
ATTORNEYS FOR Robbie Coward

Note: Several exhibits accompanied this motion for reconsideration that are referred to, but not shown here. This is the motion only.

Latta Municipal Election Commission
In Re: December 7, 2021 Election
Motion for Reconsideration
Candidate Robbie Coward, by and through undersigned counsel, moves this Honorable Commission to reconsider the December 11, 2011 decision based upon the following facts and argument of law:
Factual Background
On December 7, 2021, the town of Latta held an election for mayorship. Candidate Coward won the election against opponent, Teresa Mason (hereinafter “Candidate Mason” or “Mrs. Mason”). At the close of the polls, Candidate Coward had 275 votes and Candidate Mason had 192. Mason subsequently protested the election on the grounds that Mr. Coward was not a qualified elector. A protest hearing was held on December 11, 2021. The MEC rendered a split decision finding that Mr. Coward had not abandoned a previous residence, 708 East Jefferson Street, Dillon South Carolina, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 7-1-25 (2011) and 7-5-610 (1994).
Analysis
“The Court will employ every reasonable presumption to sustain a contested election, and will not set aside an election due to mere irregularities or illegalities unless the result is changed or rendered doubtful.” Broad hurts v. Cty of Myrtle Beach Election Comm’n, 342 S.C. 373, 379 537 S.E.2d 543 (S.C. 2000). “In the absence of fraud, a constitutional violation, or a statute providing an irregularity or illegality invalidates an election, the Court will not set aside an election for a mere irregularity.” Id. At 381. “Every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining a contested election will be employed and irregularities or illegalities which do not appear to have affected…the election will not be allowed to overturn it.” Fielding v. South Carolina Election Com’n, 305 S.C. 313 408, 314 S.E.2d 232,234 (S.C. 1991) (holding that mere conjecture, speculation, and surmise clearly does not sustain the burden necessary to overturn an election).
“{E}very inhabitant of this State possessing the qualification provided for in this Constitution shall have an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.” S.C. CONST.ART.1 5. “Municipal electors…must have resided in the municipality in which he offers to vote for thirty days next proceeding the election.” S.C. CONST. art. II 5. “Mayors and councilmen shall be qualified electors of the municipality…” S.C. Code Ann. 5015020 (1976). South Carolina Law mandates that:
Every citizen of this State and of the United States: (1) Of the age of eighteen years and upwards; (2) Having all the qualifications mentioned in Section 7-5-120; (3) Who has resided within the corporate limits of any incorporated municipality in the State for thirty days previous to any municipal election; (4) Who has been registered for county, state, and national elections as herein required, is entitled to vote at all municipal elections of his municipality. S.C. Code Ann. 7-5-610 (1994).
“A person’s residence is his domicile. “Domicile” means a person’s fixed home where he has an intention of returning when he is absent. A person has only one domicile.” S.C. Code Ann. 7-1-25(a) (2011). “For voting purposes, a person has changed his domicile if he (1) has abandoned his prior home and (2) has established a new home, has a present intention to make that place his home, and has no present intention to leave that place.” S.C. Code Ann. 7-1-25(b) (2011). “For voting purposes, a spouse may establish a separate domicile.” S.C. Code Ann. 7-1-25(b) (2011).
The MEC found that Mr. Coward had not abandoned 708 East Jefferson Street in Dillon, South Carolina. The order states, “Mr. Coward testified under oath that he had not abandoned 708 East Jefferson St. in the City of Dillon.” That is simply not the case. Mr. Coward’s testimony was consistent that his residence and domicile is within the town limits of Latta. When the question of whether Mr. Coward had abandoned 708 East Jefferson Street was asked, he clearly states, “I had been abandoned that home but the home I moved from was 945 West Calhoun Street.” (Video Time 1:06:33). Mr. Coward consistently testified to the timeline of events from which homes he had residency for the purposes of voting and running for office. He had resided at 708 East Jefferson. Then he resided at 945 West Calhoun Street until he changed his domicile to 304 South Marion Street in the Town of Latta. This testimony is consistent with his voter history attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Coward further testified that while his home is undergoing renovations, he is currently spending the nights with his wife and children at their residence, 708 East Jefferson. Mr. Coward’s testimony about this residency is in compliance with South Carolina law.
Mr. Coward testified that he had abandoned his previous home, 945 West Calhoun Street, to make 304 South Marion Street his new home. Mr. Coward provided testimony that he has established his new home. He owned 304 South Marion Street prior to the election. He removed the prior tenants from the residence. He began renovations on the residence to update and modernize the residence. He has opened utilities accounts and the home is now being serviced attached hereto as Exhibit B. he went to the Dillon County tax assessor/s office and requested that 304 Marion Street be considered his new residence for the purposes of the homestead exemption tax rate attached hereto as Exhibit C. He registered to vote for the Town of Latta election. All of these actions were done 30 days prior to the election. No evidence was presented nor was Mr. Coward asked if he had any present intentions of not making 304 Marion Street his permanent residence. This evidence satisfies the statutory requirements of establishing residency for the purposes of voting. Because Mr. Coward satisfied the requirement to vote, this satisfying the requirement to run for office.
Moreover, Mr. Coward actually did vote in the town of Latta’s election. See Exhibit C. His voting registration was not challenged. His vote was not challenged on election day. His vote was canvassed with no objection and became a part of the official totals for the December 7, 2021 election. You cannot pick and choose this issue. If Mr. Coward voted legally, he has a constitutional right to be an electoral candidate in the same election. The time to argue his voting qualifications has come and passed. His vote is now certified (along with his qualifications) with this election. He legally voted and thus he legally ran as a candidate for the office of Mayor of Latta.
This Commission has to make every presumption of the original reported results of the election. Mere conjecture, speculation, and surmise is not sufficient enough to meet the evidentiary burden to overturn an election. Mr. Coward provided more than sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements that he is a residence of the Town of Latta and had been prior to the 30 days before the election. No conclusive evidence was presented at the protest hearing that established otherwise. Furthermore, it is conclusive and impossible to rebut the fact Mr. Coward is a qualified elector pursuant to statutes 7-1-25 and 7-5-610 because he voted in the December 7, 2021 election, without challenge, and it was certified. For these reasons, the MEC must uphold the December 7, 2021 election and declare Mr. Coward the mayor elect of the Town o Latta.
Respectfully submitted,
M.W. Cockrell, III Bar No.:69417
Old Town Centre
Barrister Building
157 Main Street
Chesterfield, South Carolina 29709
Phone 843-623-5911
Attorneys for Appellant
Wallace H. Jordan, Jr. Bar No: 76222
Wallace H. Jordan, JR., P.C.
Post Office Box 2010
626 West Evans Street
Florence, South Carolina 29503-2010
Phone: 843-662-4474
When asked for a statement from Mr. Coward, his attorney responded, “The 275 votes of the citizens of Latta shall not be disenfranchised!”