(A) A party opposing an election protest that prevails at the hearing before the board may petition the circuit court for reasonable costs and attorney's fees associated with the defense of the protest if the protestant does not appeal the board's decision to the Supreme Court. The board may also petition the circuit court for reasonable costs and expenses associated with hearing the protest. For appeals filed pursuant to Section 7-17-70, the petition must be filed and heard in the county where the protest was originally filed. For protests filed pursuant to Section 7-17-260, involving officers elected on a statewide basis, the petition must be filed and heard in Richland County. For all other protests filed pursuant to Section 7-17-260, the petition may be filed in any county where voting precincts comprising the election district for the office under protest are located. In order to award costs and attorney's fees pursuant to this section, the court must find that the protestant brought the protest for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or that the protest was not warranted by existing law, the facts of the case, or that it was frivolous in nature.
(B) Upon appeal from a decision of the board, the Supreme Court may award costs and attorney's fees associated with the appeal to the party prevailing on appeal when the Supreme Court finds that there were no reasonable grounds to appeal the decision of the board. In cases where the prevailing party is the party opposing the protest, the Supreme Court may award costs and attorney's fees associated with the entire defense of the protest if it finds that the protestant brought the protest for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or that the protest was not warranted by existing law, the facts of the case, or that it was frivolous in nature.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 284, Section 1, eff May 19, 2006.
Editor's Note
2006 Act No. 284, Section 5, provides as follows:
"This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor and must not be put into practice until it receives preclearance by the United States Department of Justice." [Preclearance received September 5, 2006]