A court has delivered a major ruling just weeks before midterm voting begins for November’s primary races.
A federal appeals court has struck down a South Carolina election law that gave voters 65 and older unrestricted access to absentee-by-mail ballots while forcing younger voters to satisfy additional eligibility requirements, handing voting-rights challengers a major victory that could ultimately put the politically charged dispute before the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
The unanimous three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 18 that South Carolina’s age-based absentee system violates the 26th Amendment, reversing an earlier lower-court decision that had sided with state election officials.
South Carolina generally restricts absentee-by-mail voting to people who fall into specifically defined categories, including certain disabled voters, military personnel, and individuals whose employment or other qualifying circumstances prevent them from voting normally.
Advertisement
But voters who are at least 65 years old have been exempted from those restrictions and permitted to request absentee ballots without providing one of the excuses demanded from younger residents, creating the age-based distinction now declared unconstitutional.
“By granting voters aged sixty-five and older unconditional access to absentee-by-mail voting while conditioning that same option for younger voters on eligibility categories, documentation, and a rigid deadline, the state allocates voting opportunities unequally based solely on age,” U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote.
Advertisement
The lawsuit, Grant v. Belangia, was filed by five registered South Carolina voters under age 65 who argued that treating adult voters differently solely because of age violated both the 26th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
A federal district court initially rejected the challenge and granted summary judgment to South Carolina election officials on both constitutional claims, but the younger voters appealed and secured a substantially different result from the 4th Circuit.
Gregory’s opinion emphasized that states possess broad constitutional authority to establish election procedures, including whether absentee voting is available at all, but said that power does not permit a state to distribute voting options based on classifications specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
The court concluded that while nobody possesses an independent constitutional right to vote by mail, South Carolina created a constitutional problem after offering no-excuse absentee voting to one group of adult voters while withholding the same convenience from another group solely because of age.
Judges rejected the state’s argument that younger voters suffer no genuine injury because they can still cast ballots in person, reasoning that absentee voting provides an additional means of participating in elections and can become particularly important when unexpected circumstances arise.
The opinion cited situations including last-minute changes to work schedules, mandatory overtime, failed childcare arrangements, family emergencies, vehicle trouble, severe weather or illnesses that could prevent a younger voter from appearing in person after the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot has already passed.
South Carolina defended the law in part by pointing to administrative concerns and election integrity, arguments that have taken on renewed national importance as Republicans push for tighter election safeguards and greater scrutiny of mail ballots heading into the 2026 midterms.
Advertisement
The ruling does not automatically mean South Carolina must open unrestricted absentee voting to every registered voter, because the appeals court specifically left the remedy to the district judge now receiving the case on remand.
The lower court can eliminate the constitutional disparity in one of two dramatically different ways: extend no-excuse absentee-by-mail voting to South Carolinians younger than 65 or remove the unrestricted absentee privilege currently enjoyed by voters 65 and older.
That choice could carry significant consequences for election administration, especially with the midterms rapidly approaching, and the 4th Circuit specifically warned the district court to consider longstanding Supreme Court concerns about judges ordering disruptive election changes too close to voting.
Advertisement
The decision is especially notable because other federal appellate courts have reached different conclusions in similar disputes, with the 5th Circuit and 7th Circuit previously rejecting challenges to age-based absentee-ballot laws in Texas and Indiana.
The 4th Circuit openly disagreed with those courts, concluding they used the wrong constitutional analysis and arguing that the 26th Amendment requires states to remain neutral when allocating voting opportunities according to age.
The ruling also arrives roughly 70 days before November’s midterms.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court recently handed Trump a procedural victory in separate litigation over his election order, allowing federal agencies to move forward with certain actions while Democratic-led states await concrete implementation measures that could provide grounds for new legal challenges.
With Election Day approaching and South Carolina preparing to appeal, the dispute has transformed a relatively narrow absentee-ballot exemption into a consequential constitutional fight over state control of elections, age discrimination, and how far courts can go in reshaping voting rules before Americans head to the polls.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
