South Carolina Democrats knock governor’s rejection of federal summer food assistance program

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCBD)- Democratic lawmakers in South Carolina are challenging a recent decision by Gov. Henry McMaster to opt out of a new federal program offering nutritional assistance over the summer.

South Carolina is one of more than a dozen states that did not sign a letter of intent to participate in the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer program, or Summer EBT, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates will give nearly 21 million children access to grocery benefits.

Under the program, families with children who qualify for free or reduced lunches — those at or below 185% of the federal poverty line — during the school year would be eligible for Summer EBT.

Those families would receive $40 each month for each child, totaling $120 for the entire summer, which would be loaded onto a card that could be used at grocery stores, farmers markets, and other stores that accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

According to Feeding America, 1 in 8 children in South Carolina face hunger.

“It’s something that we haven’t addressed in any kind of meaningful way and so when you reject these funds, then you’re going to have to deal with the impacts of kids going hungry on the streets of South Carolina during the summer months which is a precious time for many of these kids who are out of school,” State Rep. Marvin Pendarvis (D-Charleston).

The Summer EBT program is similar to the temporary Pandemic-EBT program, or P-EBT. However, P-EBT was fully funded by the federal government. The new Summer EBT program splits 50% of the administrative costs with states and the federal government. As of now, the government has not provided any guidance on what that cost would be.

States were required to notify the USDA of their intent to participate in Summer EBT by the start of the year. State Sen. Deon Tedder (D-Charleston) argued South Carolina should have done that, even without all the details ironed out.

“All we had to do was send a letter of intent to opt in and if we looked down the line and saw that perhaps this was too expensive, maybe then we could figure out something,” Tedder said. “This is not a mandatory thing. It’s just to opt in and we missed that window and because of that there will be people that suffer.”

In defending his decision, McMaster pointed to the program’s original purpose as a COVID-related benefit and said that the state needed to “get back to doing normal business.”

“We just can’t continue that forever,” McMaster continued.

Since the deadline has passed, states who missed their chance will have to wait until 2025 to opt into the program.

In the meantime, Tedder said he and some of his colleagues are exploring ways to reverse the governor’s decision.

“We’re going to urge the governor to opt in when he can but also reach out to our congressional members to see if they can extend the period, reopen it, for those states that missed the opportunity,” he said.