State unemployment, employed residents, broader underutilization, and employment growth.
Annual unemployment rate4.1%2024 · #14 of 50 · highest first
Civilian employed residents2,457,2872024 · #23 of 50 · highest first
U-1 · unemployed 15 weeks or longer1.3%2025 · 11-month average · #28 of 50 · highest first
South Carolina over time
Explore South Carolina readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. South Carolina officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a South Carolina effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a South Carolina change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Annual unemployment rate South Carolina · source units
South CarolinaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
11 of 11 reviewed South Carolina actions match · 11 date markers shown. 17 major events shown separately.
South Carolina · 2024: 4.1% · Rank #14 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 4%
Unemployed residents as a percentage of the civilian labor force, using BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics annual averages. LAUS estimates are revised each year through the program's annual processing cycle. Employment is residence-based civilian employment, not a count of jobs located in the state. Annual averages smooth within-year changes. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
View observations and export data
South Carolina Annual unemployment rate · source units
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
South Carolina · state comparison
Employment and unemployment over time
LAUS annual averages measure state residents. Compare unemployment rates or the number of employed residents.
South Carolina · 20244.1%
South Carolina rank#14among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Annual unemployment rate
Unemployed residents as a percentage of the civilian labor force, using BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics annual averages.
LAUS estimates are revised each year through the program's annual processing cycle. Employment is residence-based civilian employment, not a count of jobs located in the state. Annual averages smooth within-year changes.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
2024 · South Carolina: 4.1% · Rank #14 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 4% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Annual unemployment rate history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
2015
5.9%
2016
4.9%
2017
4.2%
2018
3.4%
2019
2.8%
2020
6%
2021
3.9%
2022
3.2%
2023
3%
2024
4.1%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · 1.8%Higher value · 5.4%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · 4.1%2024 · Rank #14 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Annual unemployment rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Nevada
5.4%
—
#2
California
5.3%
—
#3
Illinois
5%
—
#4
Kentucky
4.8%
—
#5
Michigan
4.7%
—
#6
New Jersey
4.6%
—
#7
Alaska
4.5%
—
#7
Washington
4.5%
—
#9
Ohio
4.4%
—
#10
Louisiana
4.3%
—
#10
Oregon
4.3%
—
#12
New York
4.2%
—
#12
Rhode Island
4.2%
—
#14
Colorado
4.1%
—
#14
New Mexico
4.1%
—
#14
South Carolina · your comparison
4.1%
—
#14
Texas
4.1%
—
#14
West Virginia
4.1%
—
#19
Indiana
4%
—
#19
Massachusetts
4%
—
#21
Delaware
3.9%
—
#22
Pennsylvania
3.8%
—
#23
Arizona
3.7%
—
#23
Missouri
3.7%
—
#23
North Carolina
3.7%
—
#26
Idaho
3.6%
—
#27
Arkansas
3.5%
—
#27
Kansas
3.5%
—
#29
Florida
3.4%
—
#29
Georgia
3.4%
—
#29
Tennessee
3.4%
—
#32
Connecticut
3.3%
—
#32
Utah
3.3%
—
#34
Iowa
3.2%
—
#34
Maryland
3.2%
—
#34
Mississippi
3.2%
—
#34
Oklahoma
3.2%
—
#38
Minnesota
3.1%
—
#38
Wyoming
3.1%
—
#40
Alabama
3%
—
#40
Maine
3%
—
#40
Montana
3%
—
#40
Wisconsin
3%
—
#44
Virginia
2.9%
—
#45
Hawaii
2.8%
—
#46
Nebraska
2.7%
—
#47
New Hampshire
2.6%
—
#48
North Dakota
2.4%
—
#49
Vermont
2.3%
—
#50
South Dakota
1.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The reviewed 2025 CPS snapshot includes both U-3 and the broader U-6 measure. It is separate from the LAUS annual history.
South Carolina · 2025 · 11-month average1.3%
South Carolina rank#28among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark1.6%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
U-1 · unemployed 15 weeks or longer
Unemployed 15 weeks or longer as a share of the civilian labor force.
2025 CPS averages exclude October because data were not collected during the federal shutdown. Not strictly comparable with other-year averages. These directly surveyed CPS estimates differ from LAUS model-based estimates. All states use the same 11 months here.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · 0.6%Higher value · 2.4%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · 1.3%2025 · 11-month average · Rank #28 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
U-1 · unemployed 15 weeks or longer · 2025 · 11-month average · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
2.4%
—
#2
Oregon
2.2%
—
#3
Illinois
2.1%
—
#3
New York
2.1%
—
#5
Connecticut
2%
—
#5
Rhode Island
2%
—
#5
Washington
2%
—
#8
Massachusetts
1.9%
—
#8
Nevada
1.9%
—
#8
New Jersey
1.9%
—
#11
Delaware
1.8%
—
#11
Virginia
1.8%
—
#13
Louisiana
1.7%
—
#13
Michigan
1.7%
—
#13
West Virginia
1.7%
—
#16
Alaska
1.6%
—
#16
Florida
1.6%
—
#16
Mississippi
1.6%
—
#16
New Mexico
1.6%
—
#16
Ohio
1.6%
—
#16
Pennsylvania
1.6%
—
#22
Colorado
1.5%
—
#22
Kentucky
1.5%
—
#22
Maryland
1.5%
—
#22
Texas
1.5%
—
#26
Arizona
1.4%
—
#26
Georgia
1.4%
—
#28
Arkansas
1.3%
—
#28
Iowa
1.3%
—
#28
North Carolina
1.3%
—
#28
Oklahoma
1.3%
—
#28
South Carolina · your comparison
1.3%
—
#33
Kansas
1.2%
—
#33
Minnesota
1.2%
—
#33
New Hampshire
1.2%
—
#33
Wisconsin
1.2%
—
#37
Tennessee
1.1%
—
#37
Utah
1.1%
—
#39
Idaho
1%
—
#39
Indiana
1%
—
#39
Nebraska
1%
—
#42
Alabama
0.9%
—
#42
Maine
0.9%
—
#42
Missouri
0.9%
—
#42
Wyoming
0.9%
—
#46
Hawaii
0.7%
—
#46
Montana
0.7%
—
#46
South Dakota
0.7%
—
#46
Vermont
0.7%
—
#50
North Dakota
0.6%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Annual real output growth and BEA job growth provide economic context. Neither is the unemployment rate.
South Carolina · 20253.3%
South Carolina rank#4among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.3%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Annual real GDP growth
Change in annual real GDP from the prior year.
Annual estimates; the downloaded BEA snapshot is retained with a source hash. Revisions can change historical values and ranks.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
2025 · South Carolina: 3.3% · Rank #4 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.3% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Annual real GDP growth history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
2015
3.5%
2016
3.4%
2017
2%
2018
3%
2019
3.2%
2020
-2.6%
2021
4.9%
2022
4.7%
2023
3.7%
2024
4.9%
2025
3.3%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · -0.4%Higher value · 5.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · 3.3%2025 · Rank #4 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Annual real GDP growth · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Delaware
5.1%
—
#2
Alaska
4.7%
—
#3
California
3.5%
—
#4
South Carolina · your comparison
3.3%
—
#5
Washington
3.2%
—
#6
Idaho
3.1%
—
#7
Kentucky
3%
—
#8
Georgia
2.9%
—
#9
Texas
2.8%
—
#10
West Virginia
2.8%
—
#11
Florida
2.8%
—
#12
Rhode Island
2.8%
—
#13
Utah
2.7%
—
#14
Illinois
2.6%
—
#15
New York
2.5%
—
#16
Connecticut
2.5%
—
#17
Ohio
2.4%
—
#18
Virginia
2.3%
—
#19
Oklahoma
2.2%
—
#20
Michigan
2.2%
—
#21
Tennessee
2.1%
—
#22
New Jersey
2%
—
#23
Nevada
2%
—
#24
Montana
2%
—
#25
Alabama
2%
—
#26
Vermont
1.9%
—
#27
Colorado
1.9%
—
#28
Indiana
1.9%
—
#29
Pennsylvania
1.8%
—
#30
North Carolina
1.8%
—
#31
New Mexico
1.8%
—
#32
South Dakota
1.8%
—
#33
New Hampshire
1.7%
—
#34
Louisiana
1.5%
—
#35
Hawaii
1.5%
—
#36
Arizona
1.5%
—
#37
Maine
1.4%
—
#38
Oregon
1.4%
—
#39
Massachusetts
1.3%
—
#40
Mississippi
1.3%
—
#41
Nebraska
1.3%
—
#42
Missouri
1.2%
—
#43
Kansas
1%
—
#44
Arkansas
0.9%
—
#45
Wisconsin
0.8%
—
#46
Maryland
0.8%
—
#47
Minnesota
0.7%
—
#48
North Dakota
0.5%
—
#49
Wyoming
0.1%
—
#50
Iowa
-0.4%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
A state unemployment rate does not capture all unused labor or job-market turnover.
South Carolina · December 2025103,000
South Carolina rank#22among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark6,550,000Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Openings · number
Number of jobs or monthly employment flows; published thousands converted to individual units.
Seasonally adjusted state JOLTS estimates, July–December 2025 as printed in the captured table. Recent estimates are preliminary and revisions can change ranks. Openings are a month-end stock; hires, quits, and layoffs are monthly flows, not distinct workers.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
December 2025 · South Carolina: 103,000 · Rank #22 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 6,550,000 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Openings · number history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
July 2025
117,000
August 2025
120,000
September 2025
120,000
October 2025
117,000
November 2025
111,000
December 2025
103,000
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11,000Higher value · 674,000Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · 103,000December 2025 · Rank #22 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Openings · number · December 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
674,000
—
#2
Texas
608,000
—
#3
New York
431,000
—
#4
Florida
404,000
—
#5
Ohio
287,000
—
#6
Georgia
279,000
—
#7
Pennsylvania
235,000
—
#8
Michigan
221,000
—
#9
Virginia
213,000
—
#10
North Carolina
212,000
—
#11
Illinois
211,000
—
#12
New Jersey
172,000
—
#13
Tennessee
143,000
—
#14
Minnesota
135,000
—
#15
Massachusetts
129,000
—
#16
Missouri
128,000
—
#17
Maryland
127,000
—
#18
Indiana
123,000
—
#19
Arizona
121,000
—
#20
Wisconsin
115,000
—
#21
Washington
110,000
—
#22
South Carolina · your comparison
103,000
—
#23
Louisiana
101,000
—
#23
Oklahoma
101,000
—
#25
Colorado
100,000
—
#26
Kentucky
92,000
—
#27
Alabama
91,000
—
#28
Oregon
72,000
—
#29
Connecticut
67,000
—
#30
Utah
64,000
—
#31
Kansas
61,000
—
#32
Arkansas
60,000
—
#33
Mississippi
59,000
—
#34
Iowa
57,000
—
#35
Nevada
52,000
—
#36
West Virginia
42,000
—
#37
Nebraska
38,000
—
#38
Idaho
34,000
—
#39
New Mexico
32,000
—
#40
Maine
28,000
—
#41
Delaware
23,000
—
#42
Montana
22,000
—
#42
New Hampshire
22,000
—
#42
Rhode Island
22,000
—
#45
South Dakota
20,000
—
#46
Hawaii
19,000
—
#47
North Dakota
18,000
—
#48
Alaska
16,000
—
#49
Vermont
11,000
—
#49
Wyoming
11,000
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
11 of 11 reviewed South Carolina actions · newest first
May 26, 2023 · SB 284 · Development of Workforce Housing · EnactedSouth Carolina Legislature · SB 284
Development of Workforce Housing
May 26, 2023 · Enacted
Sen. Tom Davis · Sponsored / Sen. Ross Turner · Sponsored / Sen. Darrell Jackson · Sponsored / Sen. George E. "Chip" Campsen III · Sponsored / Sen. Ronnie A. Sabb · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Allows up to 15% of specified accommodations-tax revenue to support workforce housing, including rental housing, through December 2030. The program must also include homeownership.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 57 (2023-05-26). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(7) development of workforce housing, which must include programs to promote home ownership. However, a county or municipality may not expend or dedicate more than fifteen percent of its annual local accommodations tax revenue for the purposes set forth in this item. The provisions of this item are no longer effective after December 31, 2030. […] (ix) development of workforce housing, which must include programs to promote home ownership. However, a county or municipality may not expend or dedicate more than fifteen percent of its annual local accommodations tax revenue for the purposes set forth in this item (4)(b)(ix). The provisions of this item (4)(b)(ix) are no longer effective after December 31, 2030. […] (9) "Workforce housing" means residential housing for rent or sale that is appropriately priced for rent or sale to a person or family whose income falls within thirty percent and one hundred twenty percent of the median income for the local area, with adjustments for household size, according to the latest figures available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Henry McMaster signed SB 284. Allows up to 15% of specified accommodations-tax revenue to support workforce housing, including rental housing, through December 2030. The program must also include homeownership.
Signed By Governor. This records the historical action; current enforceability and implementation are not inferred.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(7) development of workforce housing, which must include programs to promote home ownership. However, a county or municipality may not expend or dedicate more than fifteen percent of its annual local accommodations tax revenue for the purposes set forth in this item. The provisions of this item are no longer effective after December 31, 2030. […] (ix) development of workforce housing, which must include programs to promote home ownership. However, a county or municipality may not expend or dedicate more than fifteen percent of its annual local accommodations tax revenue for the purposes set forth in this item (4)(b)(ix). The provisions of this item (4)(b)(ix) are no longer effective after December 31, 2030. […] (9) "Workforce housing" means residential housing for rent or sale that is appropriately priced for rent or sale to a person or family whose income falls within thirty percent and one hundred twenty percent of the median income for the local area, with adjustments for household size, according to the latest figures available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Specifies the unemployment weekly-benefit calculation and minimum and maximum amounts, requires publication of the maximum, and ratifies the department’s previous maximum-benefit determinations dating to July 2007.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 229 (2022-06-28). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
"Section 41-35-40. (A) An insured worker's weekly benefit amount is fifty percent of his weekly average wage, as defined in Section 41-27-140, and the weekly benefit amount, if not a multiple of one dollar, must be computed to the next lower multiple of one dollar. However, no insured worker's weekly benefit amount may be less than forty-two dollars nor greater than sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the statewide average weekly wage most recently computed before the beginning of the individual's benefit year. (B) The maximum weekly benefit amount set each year by the department within the range established in subsection (A) must be published on the department's website. (C) The procedure for reconsideration of determinations pursuant to Section 41-35-640 is the sole and exclusive procedure and remedy for disputing the department's determination of an insured worker's weekly benefit amount." B. The General Assembly ratifies and affirms that the department has reasonably and faithfully interpreted, executed, and enforced the provisions contained in Section 41-35-40 in accordance with its charge of the administration of the statute and the General Assembly's intent. The provisions of this SECTION shall apply retroactively to govern all claims for unemployment insurance benefits on or after July 1, 2007, so that all such claims are subject to the maximum weekly benefit amount set by the department at the time the claim was filed.
Henry McMaster signed SB 1090. Specifies the unemployment weekly-benefit calculation and minimum and maximum amounts, requires publication of the maximum, and ratifies the department’s previous maximum-benefit determinations dating to July 2007.
Signed By Governor. This records the historical action; current enforceability and implementation are not inferred.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
"Section 41-35-40. (A) An insured worker's weekly benefit amount is fifty percent of his weekly average wage, as defined in Section 41-27-140, and the weekly benefit amount, if not a multiple of one dollar, must be computed to the next lower multiple of one dollar. However, no insured worker's weekly benefit amount may be less than forty-two dollars nor greater than sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the statewide average weekly wage most recently computed before the beginning of the individual's benefit year. (B) The maximum weekly benefit amount set each year by the department within the range established in subsection (A) must be published on the department's website. (C) The procedure for reconsideration of determinations pursuant to Section 41-35-640 is the sole and exclusive procedure and remedy for disputing the department's determination of an insured worker's weekly benefit amount." B. The General Assembly ratifies and affirms that the department has reasonably and faithfully interpreted, executed, and enforced the provisions contained in Section 41-35-40 in accordance with its charge of the administration of the statute and the General Assembly's intent. The provisions of this SECTION shall apply retroactively to govern all claims for unemployment insurance benefits on or after July 1, 2007, so that all such claims are subject to the maximum weekly benefit amount set by the department at the time the claim was filed.
Rep. James Mikell "Mike" Burns · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Chumley · Sponsored / Rep. Josiah Magnuson · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Taylor · Sponsored / Rep. Patrick B. Haddon · Sponsored / Rep. Steven Wayne Long · Sponsored / Rep. Cally R. "Cal" Forrest, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Donald Ryan McCabe, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Melissa Lackey Oremus · Sponsored / Rep. Marvin "Mark" Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Chris Wooten · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Ballentine · Sponsored / Rep. Joseph M. "Joe" Bustos · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. Mark N. Willis · Sponsored / Rep. John R. McCravy III · Sponsored / Rep. Travis A. Moore · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Hixon · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Provides unemployment-benefit eligibility for state or local-government employees when a federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate requires termination to avoid forfeiting federal funds, subject to ordinary benefit requirements. It also prohibits vaccination-based compensation reductions for specified first responders.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 142 (2022-05-02). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(B) If the State or any political subdivision thereof, including a school district, is subject to a federal requirement that would lead to the forfeiture of federal funds due to a failure to require employees, independent contractors, or nonemployee vendors to receive a COVID-19 vaccination: (1) the employer may require an unvaccinated employee, independent contractor, or nonemployee vendor to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing if the federal requirement allows for testing as an alternative to vaccination; or (2) the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits subject to the benefit amounts, duration, and requirements as provided in Article 1, Chapter 35, Title 41 if the federal mandate gives the employer no alternative to terminating the employee without forfeiting federal funds. […] "Section 8-15-80. (A) Neither the State, nor any of its political subdivisions, may terminate, suspend, or otherwise reduce the compensation of a person employed as a first responder if the first responder does not undergo a COVID-19 vaccination.
Henry McMaster signed HB 3126. Provides unemployment-benefit eligibility for state or local-government employees when a federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate requires termination to avoid forfeiting federal funds, subject to ordinary benefit requirements. It also prohibits vaccination-based compensation reductions for specified first responders.
Signed By Governor. This records the historical action; current enforceability and implementation are not inferred.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(B) If the State or any political subdivision thereof, including a school district, is subject to a federal requirement that would lead to the forfeiture of federal funds due to a failure to require employees, independent contractors, or nonemployee vendors to receive a COVID-19 vaccination: (1) the employer may require an unvaccinated employee, independent contractor, or nonemployee vendor to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing if the federal requirement allows for testing as an alternative to vaccination; or (2) the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits subject to the benefit amounts, duration, and requirements as provided in Article 1, Chapter 35, Title 41 if the federal mandate gives the employer no alternative to terminating the employee without forfeiting federal funds. […] "Section 8-15-80. (A) Neither the State, nor any of its political subdivisions, may terminate, suspend, or otherwise reduce the compensation of a person employed as a first responder if the first responder does not undergo a COVID-19 vaccination.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified South Carolina officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about unemployment, jobs and workforce issues from FactVote’s South Carolina candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
29 statements from 11 candidates
2026 South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 5 statements
Using the $40 million Growing Agribusiness Fund established in 2024 as the public investment anchor, we will invest in sustainable, locally rooted processing facilities. By expanding meat processing, packing, lumber mills, and manufacturing closer to where food and trees are grown, we will create jo…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Pillar 1: processing
Candidate campaign source
Using the $40 million Growing Agribusiness Fund established in 2024 as the public investment anchor, we will invest in sustainable, locally rooted processing facilities. By expanding meat processing, packing, lumber mills, and manufacturing closer to where food and trees are grown, we will create jobs, reduce transportation costs, keep more food dollars in South Carolina, and provide farmers with more profitable markets. Priority will go to partnerships between local governments, farmers, cooperatives, and private industry with incentives for facilities that are worker-owned cooperatives and community-governed enterprises, ensuring the wealth they generate stays in local communities, gives workers a direct ownership stake, and creates lasting economic opportunity across rural South Carolina.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Regional Agricultural Infrastructure & Innovation Network Build a statewide research and innovation network of four Regional Agriculture Innovation Centers through public-private partnerships with local governments, Clemson University, SC State University, and the state’s technical college system. E…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Sustainable Locally Rooted Processing Facilities
Candidate campaign source
Regional Agricultural Infrastructure & Innovation Network Build a statewide research and innovation network of four Regional Agriculture Innovation Centers through public-private partnerships with local governments, Clemson University, SC State University, and the state’s technical college system. Each center includes shared-use processing facilities, cold storage, aggregation capacity, a business incubation component, and direct connection to Clemson and SC State Extension services, and each center integrates processing, research, entrepreneurship, and workforce development for its regional commodity base.Lowcountry/Coastal Center — Aquaculture, seafood processing, and coastal fisheries. Hub for South Carolina’s growing shrimping, shellfish, and fish farming sectors with shared processing and cold chain infrastructure.Upstate/Western Piedmont Center — Livestock operations, poultry producers, and pasture-based agriculture. Addresses the gap in small- and mid-scale meat processing that forces SC livestock farmers to send animals out of state.Pee Dee/Midlands Center — Commodity growers, fruit and vegetable producers, and specialty crop farmers. Anchored to the Florence State Farmers Market, connecting row crop producers to value-added markets and direct local supply chains.Central Coastal Plain/I-26 Corridor Center — Forestry, milling, and wood products manufacturing. Supports the timber sector, which covers over 60% of SC’s land base, with sustainable forestry innovation and rural manufacturing.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
South Carolina should become a hub for agricultural input and biomanufacturing by attracting and expanding businesses that produce fertilizer, animal feed, seed, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, bio-based products, renewable materials, and other essential agricultural inputs. Strengthening thes…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Agricultural & Bio Manufacturing
Candidate campaign source
South Carolina should become a hub for agricultural input and biomanufacturing by attracting and expanding businesses that produce fertilizer, animal feed, seed, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, bio-based products, renewable materials, and other essential agricultural inputs. Strengthening these industries will create good-paying jobs, reduce supply chain disruptions, lower costs for farmers, expand markets for South Carolina-grown crops, and position our state as a leader in the next generation of agricultural innovation.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Agricultural & Bio Manufacturing South Carolina should become a hub for agricultural input and biomanufacturing by attracting and expanding businesses that produce fertilizer, animal feed, seed, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, bio-based products, renewable materials, and other essential agricu…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Farm & Food Aggregation Hubs
Candidate campaign source
Agricultural & Bio Manufacturing South Carolina should become a hub for agricultural input and biomanufacturing by attracting and expanding businesses that produce fertilizer, animal feed, seed, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, bio-based products, renewable materials, and other essential agricultural inputs. Strengthening these industries will create good-paying jobs, reduce supply chain disruptions, lower costs for farmers, expand markets for South Carolina-grown crops, and position our state as a leader in the next generation of agricultural innovation.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Sustainable Locally Rooted Processing Facilities Using the $40 million Growing Agribusiness Fund established in 2024 as the public investment anchor, we will invest in sustainable, locally rooted processing facilities. By expanding meat processing, packing, lumber mills, and manufacturing closer to …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Pillar 1: processing
Candidate campaign source
Sustainable Locally Rooted Processing Facilities Using the $40 million Growing Agribusiness Fund established in 2024 as the public investment anchor, we will invest in sustainable, locally rooted processing facilities. By expanding meat processing, packing, lumber mills, and manufacturing closer to where food and trees are grown, we will create jobs, reduce transportation costs, keep more food dollars in South Carolina, and provide farmers with more profitable markets. Priority will go to partnerships between local governments, farmers, cooperatives, and private industry with incentives for facilities that are worker-owned cooperatives and community-governed enterprises, ensuring the wealth they generate stays in local communities, gives workers a direct ownership stake, and creates lasting economic opportunity across rural South Carolina.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Alan Wilson will lead the charge to cut taxes and slash government red tape. He will fight to eliminate the state income tax to reduce the overall tax burden on South Carolina families. Wilson supports exploring every avenue to reduce and eliminate the burden of personal property taxes for seniors a…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability
Candidate campaign source
Alan Wilson will lead the charge to cut taxes and slash government red tape. He will fight to eliminate the state income tax to reduce the overall tax burden on South Carolina families. Wilson supports exploring every avenue to reduce and eliminate the burden of personal property taxes for seniors and veterans, while ensuring essential government services remain funded. He will launch a comprehensive audit of state and local governments to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, returning that money to the taxpayers. The Wilson Administration will prioritize small business growth, workforce development, and creating good-paying jobs. It’s time to Make South Carolina Affordable Again. No more losing business to neighboring states. No more South Carolina families feeling the squeeze from high costs.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
As governor of South Carolina, Hakim would take many steps to restructure law enforcement. We have created an unnecessary burden on law enforcement by envisioning the “do it all cop.” Law enforcement, traffic enforcement, first responder to car crashes, first responder to attempted suicide, first r…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
As governor of South Carolina, Hakim would take many steps to restructure law enforcement. We have created an unnecessary burden on law enforcement by envisioning the “do it all cop.” Law enforcement, traffic enforcement, first responder to car crashes, first responder to attempted suicide, first responder to mental health emergencies, first responder to animal attacks, and the list goes on. Police were not trained to respond to every situation, yet they are expected to. This creates a dangerous situation for both law enforcement and the general public when we send people to do jobs they were not trained to do. By mandating the hiring, (academy) training, and employment of SLED social workers deployed with local law enforcement, we can allow police to get back to doing what they were hired to do: enforce laws. Social workers would respond to nonviolent mental health situations and work as a victims' advocate for domestic violence, child abuse/endangerment, mental health emergencies and rape. The social worker would complete paperwork related to these events and act as the victims advocate, which would allow police to get back to what they were trained to do more quickly: enforce the laws they were sworn to uphold.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Hakim believes that a strong state begins with strong education. Instead of cutting funding, South Carolina must invest deeply in its schools and students. He proposes the creation of “South Carolina College Investment Grants” for students pursuing critical careers; such as nursing, medicine, engine…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training
Candidate campaign source
Hakim believes that a strong state begins with strong education. Instead of cutting funding, South Carolina must invest deeply in its schools and students. He proposes the creation of “South Carolina College Investment Grants” for students pursuing critical careers; such as nursing, medicine, engineering, education, social work, and therapy. Rather than burdening graduates with debilitating student loans, this plan allows them to repay the state through service. Every graduate who accepts a grant would commit to living and working in South Carolina for 10–20 years; as taxpayers, homeowners, consumers, and parents. Their contributions to the state’s economy and communities would serve as repayment for their education. This initiative would ensure that the most educated and capable workforce in the world lives right here in South Carolina, making its citizens highly sought after in every field imaginable.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Expand access to targeted tax credits for small businesses that are hiring, increasing wages, or investing in their workforce, especially in high-cost areas like the Lowcountry.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability
Candidate campaign source
Expand access to targeted tax credits for small businesses that are hiring, increasing wages, or investing in their workforce, especially in high-cost areas like the Lowcountry.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Increase multifamily housing needed for our local workforce by tying federal money for infrastructure / transportation / federal housing in the district.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Transportation and infrastructure
Candidate campaign source
Increase multifamily housing needed for our local workforce by tying federal money for infrastructure / transportation / federal housing in the district.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Invest in workforce training and apprenticeship programs that connect local workers to in-demand industries, including hospitality, trades, and small business operations.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training
Candidate campaign source
Invest in workforce training and apprenticeship programs that connect local workers to in-demand industries, including hospitality, trades, and small business operations.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
This section matches specific unemployment, jobs and workforce issues terms in retained, attributed source text from published South Carolina candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
South Carolina incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current South Carolina legislators and South Carolina’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from South Carolina’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
50 matching sponsorships or proposals · 48 South Carolina incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Annie E. McDaniel
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 41 · D–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Annie E. McDanielSouth Carolina Legislature · HB 3998
Workforce and Senior Affordable Housing Act
May 19, 2020 · Enacted
Rep. Bruce W. Bannister · Sponsored / Rep. Beth E. Bernstein · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Ammons Crawford · Sponsored / Rep. Kambrell H. Garvin · Sponsored / Rep. William G. "Bill" Herbkersman · Sponsored / Rep. Lonnie Hosey · Sponsored / Rep. Terry Alexander · Sponsored / Rep. Leonidas E. "Leon" Stavrinakis · Sponsored / Rep. William R. "Bill" Whitmire · Sponsored / Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter · Sponsored / Rep. Chandra E. Dillard · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. JA Moore · Sponsored / Rep. J. Todd Rutherford · Sponsored / Rep. Jerry N. Govan, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Jackie E. "Coach" Hayes · Sponsored / Rep. Annie E. McDaniel · Sponsored / Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. J. David Weeks · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored / Rep. Michael F. Rivers, Sr. · Sponsored / Rep. Robert Q. Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Rosalyn D. Henderson-Myers, Ph.D. · Sponsored / Rep. Wendell G. Gilliard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Creates a state housing tax credit tied to the federal low-income housing credit for qualifying restricted-rent projects. Applicants must explain tenant benefits or why the credit is needed for the project.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 137 (2020-05-19). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4) 'Project' means a housing project that has restricted rents that do not exceed thirty percent of income for at least forty percent of its units occupied by persons or families having incomes of sixty percent or less of the median income, or at least twenty percent of the units occupied by persons or families having incomes of fifty percent or less of the median income. (5) 'Qualified project' means a qualified low-income building as that term is defined in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that is located in South Carolina and receives approval for tax credits from the South Carolina Housing and Finance Development Authority provided pursuant to this section. […] (B)(1) A state tax credit pursuant to this section may be claimed against income taxes imposed by Section 12-6-510 or 12-6-530, bank taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 12, corporate license fees imposed pursuant to Chapter 20, Title 12, and insurance premium and retaliatory taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 7, Title 38, to be termed the South Carolina housing tax credit, and is allowed with respect to each qualified project placed in service after January 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2030, in an amount equal to the federal housing tax credit allowed with respect to such qualified project. In computing a tax payable by a taxpayer pursuant to Section 38-7-90, the credit allowed pursuant to this section must be treated as a premium tax paid pursuant to Section 38-7-20. […] (2) The authority may not issue an eligibility statement until the taxpayer provides a report to the authority detailing how the state credit authorized by this section will benefit the tenants of the project, once placed in service including, but not limited to, reduced rent, or why the state credit authorized by this section is necessary to undertake the project.
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 78 · D–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Beth E. BernsteinSouth Carolina Legislature · HB 3998
Workforce and Senior Affordable Housing Act
May 19, 2020 · Enacted
Rep. Bruce W. Bannister · Sponsored / Rep. Beth E. Bernstein · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Ammons Crawford · Sponsored / Rep. Kambrell H. Garvin · Sponsored / Rep. William G. "Bill" Herbkersman · Sponsored / Rep. Lonnie Hosey · Sponsored / Rep. Terry Alexander · Sponsored / Rep. Leonidas E. "Leon" Stavrinakis · Sponsored / Rep. William R. "Bill" Whitmire · Sponsored / Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter · Sponsored / Rep. Chandra E. Dillard · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. JA Moore · Sponsored / Rep. J. Todd Rutherford · Sponsored / Rep. Jerry N. Govan, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Jackie E. "Coach" Hayes · Sponsored / Rep. Annie E. McDaniel · Sponsored / Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. J. David Weeks · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored / Rep. Michael F. Rivers, Sr. · Sponsored / Rep. Robert Q. Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Rosalyn D. Henderson-Myers, Ph.D. · Sponsored / Rep. Wendell G. Gilliard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Creates a state housing tax credit tied to the federal low-income housing credit for qualifying restricted-rent projects. Applicants must explain tenant benefits or why the credit is needed for the project.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 137 (2020-05-19). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4) 'Project' means a housing project that has restricted rents that do not exceed thirty percent of income for at least forty percent of its units occupied by persons or families having incomes of sixty percent or less of the median income, or at least twenty percent of the units occupied by persons or families having incomes of fifty percent or less of the median income. (5) 'Qualified project' means a qualified low-income building as that term is defined in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that is located in South Carolina and receives approval for tax credits from the South Carolina Housing and Finance Development Authority provided pursuant to this section. […] (B)(1) A state tax credit pursuant to this section may be claimed against income taxes imposed by Section 12-6-510 or 12-6-530, bank taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 12, corporate license fees imposed pursuant to Chapter 20, Title 12, and insurance premium and retaliatory taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 7, Title 38, to be termed the South Carolina housing tax credit, and is allowed with respect to each qualified project placed in service after January 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2030, in an amount equal to the federal housing tax credit allowed with respect to such qualified project. In computing a tax payable by a taxpayer pursuant to Section 38-7-90, the credit allowed pursuant to this section must be treated as a premium tax paid pursuant to Section 38-7-20. […] (2) The authority may not issue an eligibility statement until the taxpayer provides a report to the authority detailing how the state credit authorized by this section will benefit the tenants of the project, once placed in service including, but not limited to, reduced rent, or why the state credit authorized by this section is necessary to undertake the project.
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 86 · R–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Bill TaylorSouth Carolina Legislature · HB 3126
Vaccine mandates
May 2, 2022 · Enacted
Rep. James Mikell "Mike" Burns · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Chumley · Sponsored / Rep. Josiah Magnuson · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Taylor · Sponsored / Rep. Patrick B. Haddon · Sponsored / Rep. Steven Wayne Long · Sponsored / Rep. Cally R. "Cal" Forrest, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Donald Ryan McCabe, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Melissa Lackey Oremus · Sponsored / Rep. Marvin "Mark" Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Chris Wooten · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Ballentine · Sponsored / Rep. Joseph M. "Joe" Bustos · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. Mark N. Willis · Sponsored / Rep. John R. McCravy III · Sponsored / Rep. Travis A. Moore · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Hixon · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Provides unemployment-benefit eligibility for state or local-government employees when a federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate requires termination to avoid forfeiting federal funds, subject to ordinary benefit requirements. It also prohibits vaccination-based compensation reductions for specified first responders.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 142 (2022-05-02). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(B) If the State or any political subdivision thereof, including a school district, is subject to a federal requirement that would lead to the forfeiture of federal funds due to a failure to require employees, independent contractors, or nonemployee vendors to receive a COVID-19 vaccination: (1) the employer may require an unvaccinated employee, independent contractor, or nonemployee vendor to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing if the federal requirement allows for testing as an alternative to vaccination; or (2) the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits subject to the benefit amounts, duration, and requirements as provided in Article 1, Chapter 35, Title 41 if the federal mandate gives the employer no alternative to terminating the employee without forfeiting federal funds. […] "Section 8-15-80. (A) Neither the State, nor any of its political subdivisions, may terminate, suspend, or otherwise reduce the compensation of a person employed as a first responder if the first responder does not undergo a COVID-19 vaccination.
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 24 · R–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Bruce W. BannisterSouth Carolina Legislature · HB 3998
Workforce and Senior Affordable Housing Act
May 19, 2020 · Enacted
Rep. Bruce W. Bannister · Sponsored / Rep. Beth E. Bernstein · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Ammons Crawford · Sponsored / Rep. Kambrell H. Garvin · Sponsored / Rep. William G. "Bill" Herbkersman · Sponsored / Rep. Lonnie Hosey · Sponsored / Rep. Terry Alexander · Sponsored / Rep. Leonidas E. "Leon" Stavrinakis · Sponsored / Rep. William R. "Bill" Whitmire · Sponsored / Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter · Sponsored / Rep. Chandra E. Dillard · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. JA Moore · Sponsored / Rep. J. Todd Rutherford · Sponsored / Rep. Jerry N. Govan, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Jackie E. "Coach" Hayes · Sponsored / Rep. Annie E. McDaniel · Sponsored / Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. J. David Weeks · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored / Rep. Michael F. Rivers, Sr. · Sponsored / Rep. Robert Q. Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Rosalyn D. Henderson-Myers, Ph.D. · Sponsored / Rep. Wendell G. Gilliard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Creates a state housing tax credit tied to the federal low-income housing credit for qualifying restricted-rent projects. Applicants must explain tenant benefits or why the credit is needed for the project.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 137 (2020-05-19). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4) 'Project' means a housing project that has restricted rents that do not exceed thirty percent of income for at least forty percent of its units occupied by persons or families having incomes of sixty percent or less of the median income, or at least twenty percent of the units occupied by persons or families having incomes of fifty percent or less of the median income. (5) 'Qualified project' means a qualified low-income building as that term is defined in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that is located in South Carolina and receives approval for tax credits from the South Carolina Housing and Finance Development Authority provided pursuant to this section. […] (B)(1) A state tax credit pursuant to this section may be claimed against income taxes imposed by Section 12-6-510 or 12-6-530, bank taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 12, corporate license fees imposed pursuant to Chapter 20, Title 12, and insurance premium and retaliatory taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 7, Title 38, to be termed the South Carolina housing tax credit, and is allowed with respect to each qualified project placed in service after January 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2030, in an amount equal to the federal housing tax credit allowed with respect to such qualified project. In computing a tax payable by a taxpayer pursuant to Section 38-7-90, the credit allowed pursuant to this section must be treated as a premium tax paid pursuant to Section 38-7-20. […] (2) The authority may not issue an eligibility statement until the taxpayer provides a report to the authority detailing how the state credit authorized by this section will benefit the tenants of the project, once placed in service including, but not limited to, reduced rent, or why the state credit authorized by this section is necessary to undertake the project.
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 39 · R–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Cally R. "Cal" Forrest, Jr.South Carolina Legislature · HB 3126
Vaccine mandates
May 2, 2022 · Enacted
Rep. James Mikell "Mike" Burns · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Chumley · Sponsored / Rep. Josiah Magnuson · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Taylor · Sponsored / Rep. Patrick B. Haddon · Sponsored / Rep. Steven Wayne Long · Sponsored / Rep. Cally R. "Cal" Forrest, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Donald Ryan McCabe, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Melissa Lackey Oremus · Sponsored / Rep. Marvin "Mark" Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Chris Wooten · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Ballentine · Sponsored / Rep. Joseph M. "Joe" Bustos · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. Mark N. Willis · Sponsored / Rep. John R. McCravy III · Sponsored / Rep. Travis A. Moore · Sponsored / Rep. William M. "Bill" Hixon · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Provides unemployment-benefit eligibility for state or local-government employees when a federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate requires termination to avoid forfeiting federal funds, subject to ordinary benefit requirements. It also prohibits vaccination-based compensation reductions for specified first responders.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 142 (2022-05-02). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(B) If the State or any political subdivision thereof, including a school district, is subject to a federal requirement that would lead to the forfeiture of federal funds due to a failure to require employees, independent contractors, or nonemployee vendors to receive a COVID-19 vaccination: (1) the employer may require an unvaccinated employee, independent contractor, or nonemployee vendor to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing if the federal requirement allows for testing as an alternative to vaccination; or (2) the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits subject to the benefit amounts, duration, and requirements as provided in Article 1, Chapter 35, Title 41 if the federal mandate gives the employer no alternative to terminating the employee without forfeiting federal funds. […] "Section 8-15-80. (A) Neither the State, nor any of its political subdivisions, may terminate, suspend, or otherwise reduce the compensation of a person employed as a first responder if the first responder does not undergo a COVID-19 vaccination.
South Carolina House of Representatives · District 23 · D–SC
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Chandra E. DillardSouth Carolina Legislature · HB 3998
Workforce and Senior Affordable Housing Act
May 19, 2020 · Enacted
Rep. Bruce W. Bannister · Sponsored / Rep. Beth E. Bernstein · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Ammons Crawford · Sponsored / Rep. Kambrell H. Garvin · Sponsored / Rep. William G. "Bill" Herbkersman · Sponsored / Rep. Lonnie Hosey · Sponsored / Rep. Terry Alexander · Sponsored / Rep. Leonidas E. "Leon" Stavrinakis · Sponsored / Rep. William R. "Bill" Whitmire · Sponsored / Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter · Sponsored / Rep. Chandra E. Dillard · Sponsored / Sen. Jason Elliott · Sponsored / Rep. JA Moore · Sponsored / Rep. J. Todd Rutherford · Sponsored / Rep. Jerry N. Govan, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. Jackie E. "Coach" Hayes · Sponsored / Rep. Annie E. McDaniel · Sponsored / Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. · Sponsored / Rep. J. David Weeks · Sponsored / Rep. Sylleste H. Davis · Sponsored / Rep. Michael F. Rivers, Sr. · Sponsored / Rep. Robert Q. Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Rosalyn D. Henderson-Myers, Ph.D. · Sponsored / Rep. Wendell G. Gilliard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Creates a state housing tax credit tied to the federal low-income housing credit for qualifying restricted-rent projects. Applicants must explain tenant benefits or why the credit is needed for the project.
The official record’s latest entry is Act No. 137 (2020-05-19). This records enactment, not present enforceability.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set South Carolina’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. An action after the measurement period cannot explain an earlier observed value.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4) 'Project' means a housing project that has restricted rents that do not exceed thirty percent of income for at least forty percent of its units occupied by persons or families having incomes of sixty percent or less of the median income, or at least twenty percent of the units occupied by persons or families having incomes of fifty percent or less of the median income. (5) 'Qualified project' means a qualified low-income building as that term is defined in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that is located in South Carolina and receives approval for tax credits from the South Carolina Housing and Finance Development Authority provided pursuant to this section. […] (B)(1) A state tax credit pursuant to this section may be claimed against income taxes imposed by Section 12-6-510 or 12-6-530, bank taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 12, corporate license fees imposed pursuant to Chapter 20, Title 12, and insurance premium and retaliatory taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 7, Title 38, to be termed the South Carolina housing tax credit, and is allowed with respect to each qualified project placed in service after January 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2030, in an amount equal to the federal housing tax credit allowed with respect to such qualified project. In computing a tax payable by a taxpayer pursuant to Section 38-7-90, the credit allowed pursuant to this section must be treated as a premium tax paid pursuant to Section 38-7-20. […] (2) The authority may not issue an eligibility statement until the taxpayer provides a report to the authority detailing how the state credit authorized by this section will benefit the tenants of the project, once placed in service including, but not limited to, reduced rent, or why the state credit authorized by this section is necessary to undertake the project.
Only current South Carolina officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a South Carolina statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
South Carolina snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to South Carolina, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.