Could Beaufort County put the word “accelerate” in a transportation sales tax ballot question?

Plain-English summary

Beaufort County planned to ask voters to approve a special sales and use tax to supplement state transportation funds. Its ballot question said the money would “accelerate” completion of a listed project. The county attorney asked whether that word improperly altered the statutory referendum form. The opinion concluded that, in the ordinance as a whole, the term described the project’s purpose and was unlikely to sway voters unfairly. It therefore found the wording permissible in the question presented.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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: Was “accelerate” an unlawful editorial addition to the Beaufort County ballot question?
A: The opinion said no, because it read the word as descriptive in the context of the entire ordinance.

Q: What standard did the opinion use for a referendum description?
A: It said a ballot description should be true and impartial and should not likely create prejudice for or against the measure.

Q: What tax was the proposed referendum about?
A: It concerned a county sales and use tax for transportation projects, subject to voter approval.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion described the county transportation sales and use tax statute as requiring a referendum question that reads substantially like the statutory form. It compared the county’s wording about supplementing transportation funds with a general standard for impartial ballot descriptions.

Citations and references

• Referendum question: § 4-37-30(A)(3).

Source passage:

“In my opinion, when the ordinance is read as a whole, the word
"accelerate" is merely a descriptive term. It is unlikely that the
inclusion of the word "accelerate" in the referendum question will
create a prejudice either for or against the ordinance.”

Official opinion PDF

Official title

Regarding S.C. Code Ann. 4-37-30(A)(3)(Supp.1995), inquires whether the inclusion of the word “accelerate” in the ordinance to be placed on the referendum ballot is an improper use or unlawful editorial addition to the referendum question.

Requester

Ladson F. Howell, Beaufort County Attorney

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-30-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96aug30howell.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES t'v10LONY Cn.'iDON
ATTORNEY GEl\ERAL

August 30, 1996

Ladson F. Howell
Beaufort County Attorney
155 Sea Island Parkway
Post Off ice Box 40
Beaufort, South Carolina 29901
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Howell:
You have requested an opinion from this Off ice on behalf of the Beaufort County Council regarding S.C. Code Ann. § 4-3730(A)(3)(Supp.1995). You advise that pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 4-37-10 et seq. (Supp.1995), the County Council has recently passed an ordinance which contains the specific question to be placed on the referendum ballot. You ask whether the inclusion of the word "accelerate" in the ordinance to be placed on the referendum ballot is an improper or unlawful editorial addition to the referendum question in violation of§ 4-37-30(A)(3). As provided by§ 4-37-10 et~., counties are empowered to impose a sales and use tax to fund certain transportation projects. Subject to a referendum, the governing body of a county may vote to impose a sales and use tax by enacting an ordinance. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-37-30(A)(l)(Supp.1995). Upon receipt of the ordinance, the county election commission shall conduct a referendum on the question of imposing the optional sales and use tax in the jurisdiction. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-37-30(A) (2) (Supp.1995). The question to be placed on the referendum ballot must read substantially as follows: "I approve of a special one percent sales and use tax to be imposed in (county) for not more than (time) to fund the following project or projects: . " You have advised that the ordinance to be placed on the referendum ballot reads as follows: "I approve a special purpose one (1%) percent sales and use tax to be imposed in Beaufort County

for not more than sixty-nine (69) months, beginning June 1, 1997, to supplement available South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) funds to accelerate the completion of the following project:
. . . " (emphasis added).
A ballot description must give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language as not intentionally to be an argument or to be likely to create prejudice either for or against the measure. 42 Am.Jur.2d Initiative and Referendum § 46 (1969). In my opinion, when the ordinance is read as a whole, the word "accelerate" is merely a descriptive term. It is unlikely that the inclusion of the word "accelerate" in the referendum question will create a prejudice either for or against the ordinance. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not improper to include the word "accelerate" in the referendum question. 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 question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

4;;;;om,
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General