Could a South Carolina county council set term limits for its members under the law reviewed in 1995?

Official title

Reviewing Op. Att’y Gen. No. 93-45 to determine whether the conclusion reached therein may have changed in the years since the opinion was issued.

Requester

Jeff M. Anderson, Esquire, Lexington County Attorney

Plain-English summary

Lexington County asked the AG to revisit an earlier opinion on county council term limits. The 1995 informal letter reaffirmed the earlier conclusion that a county council could not set term limits for its own members and that the authority rested with the General Assembly.

The author explained that AG opinions were presumed correct until shown clearly erroneous. The letter found no statutory amendment or court decision undermining the earlier analysis and no basis to change its conclusion. It did not reproduce the enclosed earlier opinion’s full reasoning.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the county council impose its own member term limits? A: The 1995 letter said no, reaffirming the earlier AG view that the authority belonged to the General Assembly.

Q: Why did the AG keep the earlier opinion?
A: The author found no intervening statutory or judicial change and did not find the earlier opinion clearly erroneous.

Q: Did this letter reproduce all of the 1993 opinion’s analysis? A: No. It stated and reviewed the conclusion, while identifying the earlier opinion as an enclosure.

Background and statutory framework

The request asked whether AG Opinion No. 93-45 should be changed. The 1995 letter applied the office’s standard for revisiting opinions and concluded the earlier county-council term-limit result remained intact.

Citations and references

• AG Opinion No. 93-45, identified and reviewed in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-14-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug14anderson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

August 14, 1995

I
I

Jeff M. Anderson, Esquire
Lexington County Attorney
Post Office Box 489
Lexington, South Carolina 29071
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Anderson: ·

l.l
I

As Lexington County Attorney, you had requested on behalf of Lexington County Council that I review Op. Att'y Gen. No. 93-45 (copy enclosed) to determine whether the conclusion reached therein may have changed in the years since the opinion was issued. In that opinion, it was concluded that a county council did not have authority to set term limits for its members, that instead such authority rested with the General Assembly. Once issued, an opinion of this Office is presumed to be correct until it has been shown to be clearly erroneous. Only after such opinion is shown to be clearly erroneous will the opinion be overruled or superseded. Occasionally a judicial decision or an amendment to relevant statutory or constitutional provisions will result in an opinion being deemed "clearly erroneous" and thus superseded or overruled. I have reviewed the opinion in question and have not found that the law cited therein has been amended or superseded by judicial decision or act of the General Assembly. I observe too that since the 1993 opinion was rendered by this Office, no legislative changes have been forthcoming. It is well recognized that the absence of any legislative amendment following the issuance of an opinion of the Attorney General strongly suggests that the views expressed therein were consistent with legislative intent. Scheff v. Township of Maple Shade, 149 N.J. Super. 448, 374 A.2d 43 (1977); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 84-69. Indeed, the General Assembly has on occasion acted swiftly in amending RE\fllERT

c Df'.\;IS Bl ILDl'iG

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLLMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Jeff M. Anderson, Esquire
Pa~e 2
August 14, 1995
statutes following the issuance of an opinion by this Office; but such amendment has not been forthcoming in this instance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the authority cited in Op. Att'y Gen. No. 93-45 still represents the current state of the law in this State. I am further of the opinion that the conclusions reached in that opinion are not clearly erroneous. I can determine no basis at this time to change the conclusions of that opinion.

I
I

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a fonnal opinion. I trust that the foregoing has satisfactorily responded to your inquiry and that you will advise if clarification or additional assistance should be necessary. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure