SC State Election Director Requests Doubling Budget to $43 Million Amid SLED Investigation
Executive Director Howard “Howie” Knapp is requesting over $43.2 million for the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) for fiscal year 2025-2026, nearly doubling the budget the SEC received for FY 2024-2025.
This past January, Palmetto State Watch Foundation reported that Knapp is being investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) by the request of the SC Attorney General’s office for allegations of misconduct. This investigation is close to hitting its one year mark and is still ongoing.
Budget Hearings
On January 22, 2025, SEC Executive Director Howard Knapp presented the budget request for the fiscal year 2025-26 to the House Ways and Means Constitutional Subcommittee and then presented the same budget request (arguably a much more interesting hearing, which will be coming in the followup article) to the Senate Finance Constitutional Subcommittee on March 6, 2025.
In total, the SEC is requesting $43,255,596 for the next fiscal year 2025-2026. This is a very sharp increase from the $17.9 million that the SEC received in state funds for fiscal year 2024-2025. For those of us that didn’t major in math, the $43,255,596 request is approximately a 150% increase. So, the question is: why did it more than double this year?
Since Knapp took office in 2021, the SEC’s state and federal funding has skyrocketed as observed in the graph below.
Election Machine Loophole
According to SEC meeting minutes from July 11, 2024, Knapp asked the SC Senate for extra funds to purchase new election equipment and was denied for FY 2024-2025.
In this meeting, Knapp proposes that the commission should utilize the Master Lease Program to purchase the $25 million in new election equipment. According to the minutes, “Knapp explained the master lease program and that the agency would have to pay the vendor for the full amount regardless of whether or not state appropriations are allocated to cover the cost.”
The Master Lease Program is a little known program provided by the SC Treasurers’ Office for state agencies, colleges, and universities for purchasing equipment.
Premature Machine Replacement
The last time new ES&S election machines were purchased by South Carolina was in 2019 and implemented throughout 2020. These machines were guaranteed to last “for years to come” following the replacement of the 2004 ES&S election machines. That means South Carolina’s election machines were 15 years old the last time they were replaced.
However, in the 7/11/2024 SEC minutes, the Chairman Edler asked when South Carolina’s existing equipment would need to be replaced. “Director Knapp stated that it would have to be replaced within 3-5 years.” So, at most, SC’s current elections machines are projected to last 7-9 years.
Four years after these new election machines were purchased for SC, Director Knapp replaced all of the scanners in South Carolina. Why did we need new equipment? According to the Knapp’s testimony in the House budget hearing in January 2025, it’s because Beaufort County Elections created new precincts and waited around one year to tell the SEC that they needed more scanners for these precincts.
In this hearing, Knapp explained that our election machine provider (ES&S) no longer sold the scanners South Carolina uses so the SEC needed to replace all scanners. This did not convince the SC Senate in 2024, so Knapp used the master lease program to borrow $25 million for these scanners later in the year.
The $32 Million Request
If the new scanners were purchased with $25 million from the master lease program, why is Knapp asking for $32 million in non-recurring funds for a statewide voting system upgrade?
According to the SEC’s 2025-2026 budget request presentation, the SEC used the master lease program to purchase 3,015 scanners, 250 ballot marking devices, 100 epollbooks, 100 printers, tabulators, and additional memory sticks and cases. Why is the SEC asking for an additional $7 million dollars to what was taken out in the master lease program according to SEC meeting minutes?
Furthermore, why would the SEC make such a gamble in borrowing millions from the state that they may never receive the funds to pay back? In the SEC meeting minutes from August 21, 2024, Director Knapp states that “there would be no payments until the following fiscal year and he had received verbal assurance that the agency will get the appropriations to fund the upgrade loan in the next fiscal year.” Knapp later mentions that the master lease agreement is interest free for a year.
Who told Knapp he would get the funds in 2025 to pay back a loan he took out for funds that the SC Senate previously denied in 2024? So many questions…
The Other $11 Million
In addition to the $32 million request to pay back the master lease program for machines the Senate denied Knapp for in 2024, here is the breakdown of the rest of the requested budget:
$4.5 million in recurring funds to conduct elections
$500,000 in recurring funds to create a new program called the “Polling Location Technician Certification Program”
$500,000 in recurring funds to promote “election integrity”
$423,346 in recurring funds for new FTES
$500,000 in recurring funds for the agency’s legal defense costs
$4 million in recurring funds to increase poll worker pay
$621,000 in recurring funds to increase pay of county board members
$11,250 in recurring funds to increase pay of State Board of Canvassers
$200,000 in non-recurring funds for the state match required by federal funds to receive the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) grant in 2024
3.6.2025 budget requestDownload
The one positive to come out of this budget request is increasing the pay for poll workers, board members, and employees that are underpaid. It is extremely difficult to attract competent staff if there is no financial incentive. We have seen how that has played out in South Carolina elections over the past several years. For example, during July 2024, the Aiken County Election Director was federally indicted for allegedly embezzling at least $62,664 from the US Social Security Administration.
Our elections decide the trajectory of not only our state, but the quality of our lives. Shouldn’t we have the most highly qualified individuals running our elections?