South Carolinians sat down together. Here is what they said.
In June and July 2026, 568 South Carolinians signed up for eight online and five face-to-face conversations in Columbia, Florence, Greenville, Rock Hill, and Charleston. They discussed four issues, based on the input of thousands of residents in Phase One.
Every voice was captured, anonymized and synthesized. This report is a record of these conversations by the numbers.
How these conversations worked.
In Phase One, we asked South Carolinians, “What should state leaders and residents work together to fix in our state?”
Thousands of people responded with a total of 1,241 issues. Issues were narrowed down to 25 using data analytics. Participants across the state ranked the four top issues.
Phase Two asks the next question: what should the Legislature DO about them?
We invited people to the table
Everyone got the same briefing
Participants talked it through
Every table was recorded
A note on what follows: these are table-level proposals, not finalized or ranked recommendations. Under every issue there was real, unresolved disagreement. We have kept it in.
Who took part.
568 South Carolinians signed up across thirteen conversations; 258 checked in or joined. All demographic data below is self-identified.
Political lean
| Category | Share |
|---|---|
| Very Conservative | 3.5% |
| Conservative | 13.4% |
| Moderate | 32.0% |
| Liberal | 30.0% |
| Very Liberal | 8.9% |
| Not Sure | 4.5% |
| Other | 1.2% |
| Unknown | 6.5% |
Age
| Category | Share |
|---|---|
| 18-29 | 5.0% |
| 30-39 | 5.2% |
| 40-49 | 15.1% |
| 50-59 | 15.4% |
| 60-69 | 19.9% |
| 70+ | 15.1% |
| Unknown | 24.3% |
Race / ethnicity
| Category | Share |
|---|---|
| White | 52.4% |
| Black | 15.6% |
| Unknown | 22.8% |
| Prefer not to say | 5.7% |
| Hispanic | 2.0% |
| Asian | 0.7% |
| Am. Indian | 0.2% |
| Native Hawaiian | 0.2% |
| MENA | 0.2% |
Age, race and lean cover the 403 in-person sign-ups; the 165 online registrations are counted separately.
What South Carolinians would tell their legislators.
Thirteen proposals came out of the Community Conversations, across four issue areas. Each one carries the trade-offs participants raised and the level of agreement they reached. Open a proposal to read both. An online survey ran alongside the events on each issue; its results close out each section.
Growth, Infrastructure, & Roads
The top-voted issues indicated shared concern about rapid growth in South Carolina and its impact on roads, infrastructure, and natural resources. This Community Conversation surfaced opportunities to focus on accommodating the state’s dynamic growth and planning for its impacts.
Broad agreement that the state needs to look for new sources of funding.
Participants noted that people don’t like being taxed if they don’t know where the money is going, so it’s important to have any taxes also include greater transparency.
Some residents cited the efficiency gains from centralized planning, while others remained skeptical of removing local control. Was a consensus recommendation in Charleston.
Some worried that removing local control would allow the state to go against residents’ wishes.
Broad agreement that maintenance needs to be factored in, but many participants want to see expanded infrastructure.
Participants weighed the expense of expanding infrastructure against the need to maintain what is already there. Some worried the state was putting too much money towards capital projects and not enough towards maintenance.
Sharp disagreement over whether new taxes are essential for improvements or if the state should prioritize keeping costs low.
Some participants argued that South Carolina’s low taxes are one reason that infrastructure is suffering, while others want to maintain SC’s low taxes.
Participants widely agreed this could be a low-cost fix.
Participants felt that SC was not using quality contractors to repair roads and pushed for more standards and transparency in bidding.
Open-ended responses similarly suggested there is general agreement that the burden should not fall disproportionately on lower- and middle-income residents, with some favoring taxes on wealth, luxury assets, high-value properties, or new revenue sources such as medical cannabis. Other participants preferred reducing government spending or using state and local bonds to fund infrastructure rather than raising taxes. The greatest disagreement was over whether growth itself should continue, with one participant arguing that South Carolina should limit or stop further development rather than determine how to pay for it.
Responsive Elected Leaders
Among the top issues garnering comments, reactions, and votes was concern that the state’s elected leaders fail to respond to constituent priorities, whether because of unlimited terms or other weak accountability mechanisms. Community Conversations explored ways to strengthen the connection between elected leaders and constituents.
Very strong support where the idea was discussed.
Some worried about how independent the commission would be. Others noted that keeping redistricting on the ten-year cycle would help.
Very strong support where the idea was discussed.
Some participants were worried about how neutral information would be selected and disseminated.
Open-ended responses reinforced concerns about entrenched political power, gerrymandering, limited community meetings, lack of responsiveness, and residents feeling powerless to influence decisions. Overall, the findings suggest broad agreement that accountability is weakened by concentrated influence, polarization, and limited transparency, while there is more variation in whether respondents see the primary problem as the behavior of elected officials, the structure of elections, or low levels of citizen engagement.
Rising Cost of Living
According to our participants, housing, utility bills, and taxes are all putting the squeeze on South Carolinians. The rising cost of living appeared in three of six top-voted issues and advanced to Community Conversations as a broad area of exploration and problem-solving.
Broad agreement when discussed.
Participants broadly agreed that consumers feel like the utility company has all the power.
Agreement that learning financial responsibility is important but divergence over how to best accomplish that goal.
Concerns about how such a program should be implemented and whether it is the state’s responsibility.
The highest support was for limiting or removing vehicle taxes since it has the most direct effect on working people.
Participants noted that the money needed to come from somewhere.
Open-ended responses broadened the affordability discussion to include healthcare and food costs, including calls for more affordable healthcare, support for farmers, and greater access to fresh local food. Overall, there is more agreement than disagreement in this data, but the agreement is about the direction of support rather than one single preferred policy: respondents generally favor reducing major household costs while directing help toward people with the least financial flexibility.
Slow Wage Growth
In addition to the rising cost of living, many issue contributors and voters cited slow wage growth as a concern impacting overall affordability in our state. With many factors determining job availability, mobility, and compensation in South Carolina, this rich topic deserved its own focus and advanced to Community Conversations.
Participants agreed that the state could raise the minimum wage for workers over 18. This would allow independent adults to earn more than teenagers with an after-school job.
Could limit upward mobility of younger South Carolinians.
Strong agreement that such programs could help people land better, higher-paying jobs.
Concerns that the programs mostly helped large businesses like Boeing and BMW and that there was little awareness of such programs.
Agreement that employers should be incentivized to pay a living wage, but some divergence on funding and implementation.
Where the money will come from. There was some disagreement about whether employers should get a tax credit or direct bonuses from the state.
The main disagreement was over how much government should intervene and who should benefit, with some respondents favoring higher wages and targeted support for groups such as teachers and healthcare workers, while others preferred letting the market determine wages and cautioned that raising wage floors could reduce opportunities for younger or less-skilled workers. Overall, respondents agreed on the need to improve earnings, but differed on whether the best path is regulation, workforce and employer strategies, or a more market-driven approach.
In the room.
Five in-person conversations, plus eight online rooms. Real tables, real neighbors, real disagreement.
In their words.
“I was at a table with people I agreed with despite us being from very different backgrounds. I felt like if we can have a meaningful and edifying conversation like that, imagine how many more people could do the same and create some real change!”
“The ability to have an open discussion about actual issues without having politics/politicians influence our conversation. It allowed us to focus on what matters most for the citizens of the same.”
“It was very productive because we all understood we were there because we care about the future of our communities, state and Country. We all wanted to hear what each other had to say regardless of political belief.”
What happens next.
These proposals are not the end of the process. Here is the road from a table conversation to a bill.
-
SEPTEMBER 10 AND 15, 2026
Working Group review
A small, representative working group reviewed these proposals alongside legislative and expert perspectives, helping decide which constituent-generated proposals go to the civic assembly. -
OCTOBER 9–11, 2026
The Civic Assembly
100 delegates chosen by lottery gather for three days at the University of South Carolina Law School to evaluate, sharpen, and ratify proposals. Only those with at least 70% cross-partisan support advance to the South Carolina Legislature. -
OCTOBER 2026 – EARLY 2027
South Carolinians carry it to Columbia
Citizen champions mobilize to advance the consensus proposals and encourage state legislators to sponsor and pass corresponding bipartisan legislation.
Become an SC Forum Champion
Proposals only become law when South Carolinians push for them. Sign up to help advance the consensus proposals with your legislators — or join the newsletter for regular updates.