News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Legislative vote history on school choice by rural district representatives in South Carolina (2023 - 2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rural School Choice Banner v3.png
Impact of school choice
Education Icon 200x200.png
on rural school districts
• Portal page
• States with universal school choice
• Analysis of legislative representation
• Polling
• Studies and reports
• State-specific case studies
• Arguments
• Policy and reform proposals
Click here to visit Ballotpedia's comprehensive portal on the impact of universal school choice on rural school districts.


As of April 2025, out of 170 total state legislative districts in South Carolina, there were 51 (30%) that contained rural school districts. Ballotpedia analyzed private school choice legislation vote histories in both chambers across partisan affiliation and according to rural school district representation.

State House Analysis Highlights (April 2025)
  • 30 (24%) state House seats represented at least one rural school district. One House district was vacant as of April 2025.

    Historical data for a vote on private school choice policy (2024)

  • The rate of support for private school choice among state House Republicans representing rural school districts was the same as the support among state House Republicans representing urban/suburban areas without any rural school districts.
  • For rural state House Republicans, 94% voted in support and 6% voted in opposition, based on Ballotepdia's analysis.
  • For urban/suburban state House Republicans, 94% voted in support and 6% voted in opposition.
  • All state House Democrats voted in opposition


    • State Senate Analysis Highlights (April 2025)
  • 21 (46%) state Senate seats represented at least one rural school district.

    Historical data for a vote on private school choice policy (2023)

  • All Republicans in the state Senate voted in support
  • The rate of support for private school choice among state Senate Democrats representing rural school districts was three percentage points lower than the support among state Senate Democrats representing urban/suburban areas without any rural school districts.
  • For rural state Senate Democrats, 17% voted in support and 83% voted in opposition, based on Ballotepdia's analysis.
  • For urban/suburban state Senate Democrats, 20% voted in support and 80% voted in opposition.


    • Vote history analysis overview
      Read more
    • State House vote analysis
      Read more
    • State Senate vote analysis
      Read more
    • List of legislators representing rural school districts
      Read more


    Analysis background and methodology

    Eighteen (18) states had universal private school choice programs as of January 2026. Universal school choice programs provide public funds for alternatives to public schools, such as private schools and homeschooling, and are designed for all students to qualify.[1][2][3]

    • 15 of the 18 states were Republican trifectas, and 9 Republican trifectas did not have universal school choice.
    • All 15 Democratic trifectas did not have universal school choice, though four run limited school choice programs.
    • Three states with universal school choice policies are divided governments, and eight divided government states do not have universal school choice.

    As of January 2026, 12 Republican trifecta states had enacted universal school choice programs since 2021. In 2025, Idaho, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire passed universal private school choice legislation.

    Arguments surrounding private school choice legislation may incorporate claims about the impact of private school choice on rural school districts.

    Ballotpedia aggregated and analyzed legislative vote data on private school choice in Republican trifecta states that, as of January 2026, had not enacted universal private school choice policies. This project analyzes vote history across party affiliation and between legislators representing at least one rural school district and those without any rural school districts in their districts. It also shows how many legislative districts there are in each state containing at least one rural school district and lists the legislators representing those districts.

    Click here to see the vote history analyses for the other states.

    The analysis is based on the vote history data for full chamber floor votes on a selection of recent bills or amendments containing provisions substantively expanding or restricting private school choice programs including Education Savings Accounts (ESA), voucher programs, and education tax credit programs.

    For the analysis, Ballotpedia classified as rural any school district within an area designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as rural, which means any area not within a densely developed area with at least 2,000 housing units or a population of 5,000 or more. This analysis does not reflect any particular legislator's position on any policy or legislation. It does not evaluate reasons or motives for legislative votes.

    Analysis of vote history on school choice policies

    South Carolina House Bill 5164, introduced in 2024, proposed establishing an Education Scholarship Trust (EST) fund, which would have allowed parents to use public funds for private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, or other qualifying educational services. The South Carolina House ultimately voted against the EST fund provision. In that vote, a group of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in opposing the measure.[4]

    South Carolina Senate Bill 285, introduced in 2023, proposed creating an Education Tax Credit (ETC) fund, which also aimed to provide financial support for private educational expenses through tax credits. The Senate passed the bill, but it did not advance in the House..[5]

    The analysis below is based on the 2024 House vote rejecting the EST fund in HB 5164 and the 2023 Senate vote approving the ETC fund in SB 285.


    South Carolina House of Representatives Democrat school choice voting analysis


    100% of Democrats in the South Carolina House of Representatives voted to oppose private school choice, including both the rural and urban/suburban district representatives.

    Analysis is based on votes on an Education Scholarship Trust (EST) fund from HB 5164 in 2024. "Yes" votes were in support of ESTs and coded "support" to private school choice, and "No" votes were opposed to ESTs and coded "opposed."

    House districts that contained at least one rural school district were classified as rural, while House districts that did not contain any rural school districts were classified as urban/suburban (or not rural). The Census' definition and designation of rural was used to classified school districts.

    State House of Representatives vote analysis

    The map below displays how representatives of each South Carolina House district voted on whether to create an Education Scholarship Trust (EST) fund from HB 5164 in 2024. "Yes" votes were in support of ESTs and coded "support" to private school choice, and "No" votes were opposed to ESTs and coded "opposed."Hover over the legislative districts to display the legislator name, party affiliation, vote tallied on HB 5154, vote coding, and if the legislator's district contained at least one rural school district.

    State Senate vote analysis

    The map below displays how representatives of each South Carolina Senate district voted on whether to create an Education Tax Credit (ETC) fund from SB 285 in 2023. "Yes" votes were in support of ESTs and coded "support" to private school choice, and "No" votes were opposed to ESTs and coded "opposed."Hover over the legislative districts to display the legislator's name, party affiliation, vote tallied on SB 285, vote coding, and if the legislator's district contained at least one rural school district.

    South Carolina legislators representing rural school districts

    The tables below list all the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina State Senate who represented as of April 2025 a legislative district that contained at least one rural school district as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The tables include the legislators' names with a link to their Ballotpedia profiles, their district numbers, their party affiliations, and the years they were first elected. The linked Ballotpedia profiles include contact information such as their websites, facebook pages, and other social accounts.

    South Carolina State Senate members representing rural school districts (April 2025)
    District Number Name Party Year first elected
    District 1 Thomas Alexander Republican Party 1994
    District 10 Billy Garrett Republican Party 2020
    District 11 Josh Kimbrell Republican Party 2020
    District 13 Shane Martin Republican Party 2008
    District 14 Harvey Peeler Republican Party 1980
    District 17 Everett Stubbs Republican Party 2024
    District 18 Ronnie Cromer Republican Party 2003
    District 2 Rex Rice Republican Party 2016
    District 22 Overture Walker Democratic Party 2024
    District 25 Shane Massey Republican Party 2007
    District 26 Russell L. Ott Democratic Party 2024
    District 27 Allen Blackmon Republican Party 2024
    District 29 J.D. Chaplin Republican Party 2024
    District 3 Richard Cash Republican Party 2017
    District 30 Kent Williams Democratic Party 2004
    District 31 Mike Reichenbach Republican Party 2022
    District 39 Tom Fernandez Republican Party 2024
    District 4 Michael Gambrell Republican Party 2016
    District 40 Brad Hutto Democratic Party 1996
    District 45 Margie Bright Matthews Democratic Party 2015
    District 9 Daniel Verdin Republican Party 2000

    South Carolina State House members representing rural school districts (April 2025)
    District Number Name Party Year first elected
    District 1 Bill Whitmire Republican Party 2002
    District 11 Craig Gagnon Republican Party 2012
    District 12 Daniel Gibson Republican Party 2022
    District 121 Michael Rivers Democratic Party 2016
    District 122 Bill Hager Republican Party 2022
    District 13 John McCravy Republican Party 2016
    District 14 Luke Rankin Republican Party 2024
    District 32 Scott Montgomery Republican Party 2024
    District 33 Travis Moore Republican Party 2020
    District 35 Bill Chumley Republican Party 2010
    District 38 Josiah Magnuson Republican Party 2016
    District 39 Cal Forrest Republican Party 2016
    District 4 Davey Hiott Republican Party 2004
    District 40 Joe White Republican Party 2022
    District 41 Annie McDaniel Democratic Party 2018
    District 42 Doug Gilliam Republican Party 2018
    District 47 Tommy Pope Republican Party 2010
    District 53 Richie Yow Republican Party 2014
    District 55 Jackie Hayes Democratic Party 1998
    District 6 April Cromer Republican Party 2022
    District 60 Phillip Lowe Republican Party 2006
    District 69 Chris Wooten Republican Party 2018
    District 7 Lee Gilreath Republican Party 2024
    District 78 Beth Bernstein Democratic Party 2012
    District 82 William Clyburn Sr. Democratic Party 1994
    District 9 Blake Sanders Republican Party 2024
    District 90 Justin Bamberg Democratic Party 2014
    District 91 Lonnie Hosey Democratic Party 1998
    District 93 Jerry Govan Jr. Democratic Party 2024
    District 95 Gilda Cobb-Hunter Democratic Party 2022

    See also

    Other school choice-related content:

    Other education policy content


    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ A District Court judge ruled on April 18, 2025, that Utah's universal school choice program, Utah Fits All, violated the Utah Constitution. The program will continue to run until the Utah Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.
    2. ↑ A judge in Franklin County, Ohio, ruled that Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship, a universal school choice voucher program, violated the Ohio Constitution by funding private schools at the expense of public schools. The case is expected to be appealed in Ohio's Tenth District Court of Appeals.
    3. ↑ A Laramie County District Court judge instituted a preliminary injunction on Wyoming's universal Steamboat Legacy private school choice program, preventing payouts to families during litigation over the legality of the program. The program was enacted by the state legislature in March 2025 and set to begin on July 1, 2025, but was delayed on June 27, 2025, then temporarily blocked on July 15.
    4. ↑ Legiscan.com, "South Carolina House Bill 5164 (2024)'", accessed March 8, 2025
    5. ↑ Legiscan.com, "South Carolina Senate Bill 285 (2023)'", accessed March 8, 2025
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Legislative_vote_history_on_school_choice_by_rural_district_representatives_in_South_Carolina_(2023_-_2024)&oldid=11051685"