Could a county-specific bill change how Georgetown’s water and sewer district board was elected?

Plain-English summary

Counsel for the Georgetown County Water and Sewer District asked whether S.448 was constitutional. The bill would amend the district’s 1967 creating act to require board members to live in single-member districts and be elected at large in nonpartisan elections. Because the water and sewer district was wholly within Georgetown County, the Assistant AG treated S.448 as legislation for a specific county.

He cited South Carolina decisions invalidating comparable county-specific laws under Article VIII, Section 7 and concluded the proposal’s constitutionality appeared doubtful. He also stressed that laws carry a presumption of constitutionality and only a court may declare an act void. The opinion did not say S.448 had passed or that a court had ruled on it. It was a separate letter to district counsel, although a same-day letter to a legislator discussed the same bill and an additional appointment measure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Did the letter say the district election bill was valid? A: No. The author described its constitutionality as doubtful under the county-specific-law restriction.

Q: Did the AG invalidate the bill?
A: No. He said only a court could declare an act unconstitutional.

Q: What change would S.448 have made?
A: It proposed single-member residency districts with at-large nonpartisan elections for the board.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared S.448’s proposed amendment to Act 733 of 1967 with Article VIII, Section 7. It cited Pickens County v. Pickens County Water and Sewer Authority and Hamm v. Cromer among cases involving county-specific legislation.

Citations and references

Authorities discussed: S.448; Act 733 of 1967; Article VIII, Section 7. Cases discussed: Pickens County v. Pickens County Water and Sewer Authority; Hamm v. Cromer.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-19-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/97aug19doar.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

August 19, 1997

I

William W. Doar, Jr., Esquire
Post Office Drawer 418
Georgetown, South Carolina 29442
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Doar:
Attorney General Condon has forwarded your opinion request to me for reply. As attorney for the Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, you have asked for this Office's opinion as to the constitutionality of S.448. In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1938); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.

S.448 would amend Act 733 of 1967, as amended, relating to the Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, so as to provide that the members of the governing body of the Water and Sewer District must reside in single-member districts and be elected at-large for the district in nonpartisan elections. The act further provides for the time of the election and the manner in which the election must be conducted. The Georgetown County Water and Sewer District is a special purpose district. Ex Parte Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, 284 S.C. 466, 327 S.E.2d 654

Re

REMBERT

c. D EN NI S B UILDING

•

fU«d'- ~

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr.Doar
Page 2
August 19, 1997
(1985). Additionally, the Water and Sewer District is located wholly within Georgetown County. Thus, S.448 is an act for a specific county.

I
I

Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to S.448 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section

7. See, Pickens County v. Pickens County Water and Sewer Authority, 312 S.C. 218, 439
   S.E.2d 840 (1994); Hamm v. Cromer, 305 S.C. 305, 408 S.E.2d 227 (1991); Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976). Thus, in light of Article VIII, Section 7, the constitutionality of S.448 would appear to be doubtful. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated 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 formal opinion. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

ZIA~~
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General

~
i
i