A third and fourth bill in the same term

Two other 2025-2026 bills carried sign provisions inside broader packages.

H. 4006 proposed a Section 27-30-360 protecting signs from 90 days before an election through 10 days after — a window three times longer than S. 68's — with the association retaining authority over size up to 24 by 36 inches, placement and content standards. It was referred to House Judiciary on February 13, 2025 and never acted on.

S. 366 proposed its own Section 27-30-180, barring an association from interfering with a homeowner's freedom of speech "without a compelling interest." It was referred to Senate Judiciary on February 20, 2025 and never acted on.

So three separate bills proposed rules numbered 27-30-180 or 27-30-360 for the same subject, with protection windows of 30/5, 90/10 and an open-ended speech standard. The pattern repeats across terms: H. 3258 in 2023-2024 proposed a Section 27-30-180 on political signs and died in House Judiciary on the same day it was introduced to committee.

A citation worth correcting

H. 3258 is frequently cited as South Carolina's political-sign bill without a session qualifier, and that is now misleading. In the 126th General Assembly, H. 3258 is a school mobile panic-alert bill with different sponsors, which was still moving in April 2026. The political-sign bill by that number belongs to the 2023-2024 session. A bill number identifies a bill only in combination with its General Assembly.

What actually governs a sign dispute

With no statute, the analysis is entirely private-law:

• The recorded restriction. If the declaration or properly recorded rules prohibit or limit signs, the limitation binds as a covenant running with the land.
• The recording gate. Section 27-30-130 makes an unrecorded governing document unenforceable, and requires rules and regulations to be recorded by January tenth of the year following adoption to remain enforceable. A sign rule adopted at a board meeting and never recorded faces that objection before any question of its content.
• Ambiguity. Where a restriction can reasonably be read two ways, South Carolina construes it in favour of the free use of property.
• Consistency. Selective enforcement — permitting some signs while fining others — is the usual defence, and it is a fact question about the association's practice rather than about the covenant's words.

The First Amendment does not reach the question directly. A covenant is a private agreement among owners, not state action, which is why a legislature has to act for any protection to exist. South Carolina's legislature has acted once in this area, in 2002, and only for the United States flag.

What the data says people want

The Department of Consumer Affairs' 2026 complaint report does not break out signs as a category. Its largest single complaint type — failure to adhere to or enforce covenants and bylaws, at 16.8% of 1,104 concerns — is the heading under which inconsistent sign enforcement would fall, alongside every other uneven-enforcement grievance.

For the current position, see how South Carolina treats political signs in HOA communities. Nothing in the 2026 session changed it, and everything filed must be refiled from first reading in 2027.