Could a South Carolina DMV employee run for town council in 2006?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, the South Carolina Attorney General found no state statute that generally barred a Department of Motor Vehicles employee from running for a Mt. Croghan Town Council seat. It also concluded that service as a council member would not violate the constitutional dual office holding rule for the requester: the council seat was an office, but her DMV Administrative Specialist II job was employment rather than another public office.

The office did not approve or disapprove the candidacy and expressly declined to decide whether campaigning or service would comply with the Ethics Reform Act. It directed that question to the State Ethics Commission. It also noted that an agency might have its own employee policy restricting political activity and suggested checking with the employer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 state law categorically bar this DMV employee from running?
A: The Attorney General identified no such general state statute in its 2006 review.

Q: Would winning the council seat create prohibited dual office holding?
A: The opinion said no for the requester because her DMV administrative position was an employee role, not a second office.

Q: Did the Attorney General rule that the campaign was ethical?
A: No. It said Ethics Reform Act interpretation belonged to the State Ethics Commission and could not approve a candidacy.

Q: Could a DMV policy still affect employee political activity?
A: The opinion said agency policies or regulations could impose limits even without a general state-law ban and suggested employer guidance.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion separated three issues the request combined: a general bar to state employee candidacy, the constitutional ban on simultaneous public offices, and ethics or workplace rules. It answered the first two for the described job and left ethics interpretation and any agency-specific policy outside its conclusion.

Citations and references

The original opinion quotes South Carolina's dual office provision and cites prior Attorney General opinions on state employee candidacy.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-4-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06aug4Hewett.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMA.sTER
ArroRNEY GENERAL

August 4, 2006

Ms. Tammy B. Hewett
21 7 Burch Street
Mt. Croghan, South Carolina 29727
Dear Ms. Hewett:
We issue this opinion in response to your letter concerning your desire to run for a position on the Town Council for the Town of Mt. Croghan ("Town Council"). In your Jetter, you state: I work at the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles as an Administrative Specialist II. I am seeking a seat with the town council on the Town of Mt. Croghan S.C. Would it be unethical for me to run for this position? Additionally, you indicate your desire to obtain approval from the State to run for this position.

r

Initially, if you desire an analysis of whether your campaigning for or service as a member of Town Council violates the Ethics Refonn Act, you must contact the State Ethics Commission. The State Ethics Commission is specifically granted the authority to interpret the Ethics Reform Act. In addition, this Office cannot approve or disapprove of your running for a particular position. Nevertheless, we will attempt to provide you with guidance as to possible issues that may arise due to your employment with the Carolina Department ofMotor Vehicles ("OMV"). However, because of the time constraints under which you desire a response to your request, our review of potential issues will be brief and may not include all issues that may arise due to your employment with the OMV while running or serving on Town Council. First, if elected, your service on the Mt. Croghan Town Council does not appear to violate article XVU, section I A of the South Carolina Constitution (Supp. 2005). This constitutional provision prohibits a person from holding "two offices of honor or profit at the same time, but any person holding another office may at the same time be an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or a notary public." S.C. Const. art. XVII,§ 1A. Although we determined on numerous occasions that membership on a town council is office holding for dual office holding purposes, your position as an Administrative Specialist n with the OMV is clearly a position of an employee and not an officer. See Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171 ,

J
i

Ms. Hewett
Page2
August 4, 2006
174, 58 S.E. 762, 763 (1907) (distinguishing between an officer and an employee). Therefore, we do not believe your service on Town Council would violate the dual office prohibition. Second, as we noted in previous opinions, no statutory provision prohibits a state employee from running for elected office. Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., June 12, 1992; June 4, 1986. However, in these opinions we cautioned the requester that despite the absence of a state law prohibiting his or her ability to seek elected office, some state agencies have their own policies and regulations that limit or prohibit an employee from engaging in such activities. Id. Thus, we suggest you seek guidance from your employer as to whether such a policy exists.

I

We hope this information proves useful to you in your decision to run for a position on Town Council. Very truly yours,

{t/~J
Cyd ey M. illing
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

i

b

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

(f