Was Jasper County bound by a South Carolina legislative resolution requesting a road name?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, a legislator asked about naming a Jasper County road for John Smith. The Attorney General concluded that the General Assembly’s 1989 concurrent resolution requesting a street-name change had no force of law. It therefore did not bind later action concerning that road.

The AG separately discussed Jasper County Council’s resolution to name part of a county road John Smith Road. He said state statutes recognized local authority to name roads and concluded the county apparently had authority to rename the road within its borders.

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 the General Assembly’s concurrent resolution legally fix the road name? A: No. The AG said a concurrent resolution expressed a request and did not operate as binding legislation.

Q: Could Jasper County name or rename a road within the county? A: The AG said the county apparently had that authority under statutes governing local street and road names.

Q: Did the opinion say the state resolution controlled later county decisions? A: No. Because the resolution was not law, the AG said it did not bind later action involving the road.

Background and statutory framework

A 1989 General Assembly resolution requested the Warren Street name change in Hardeeville, while a Jasper County Council resolution requested that S-141 be named John Smith Road from Hardeeville’s outer limits to Highway 170. The AG distinguished the legal effect of the state resolution from statutory local road-naming authority. He cited Section 6-29-1200(A) on planning commission approval of road names and S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-320 on county planning commissions.

Citations and references

Statutes: Section 6-29-1200(A); S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-320.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-12-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06dec12-Rivers.pdf

Original opinion text

/

l

HENRY McMAsTER
AnoRNEY GENERAL

December 12, 2006

I
I

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Chairman, Jasper County Legislative Delegation
P. 0. Box 104
Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936
Dear Representative Rivers:

In a letter to this office you questioned the renaming of the John Smith Road in Jasper County.

.'··

•
ff:"

According to the enclosures forwarded with your letter, a concurrent resolution was adopted by the General Assembly in 1989 requesting that the name of Warren Street in the Town of Hardeville be changed to John Smith Road. The Jasper County Council also approved a concurrent resolution on May 1, 1989 to rename S-141 between the outer limits of Hardeville and the intersection of Highway 170 in Jasper County the John Smith Road. As to the effect of a concurrent resolution adopted by the General Assembly, as determined in a prior opinion of this office dated April 14, 2006, " ... a concurrent resolution does not have the force and effect of the law...." It was determined that as a result, a concurrent resolution is not considered as binding. Reference was also made to another prior opinion of this office dated June 17, 1987 which stated that
...the general rule is that a joint or concurrent resolution adopted by the legislature is not a statute, does not have the force or effect of law, and cannot be used for any purpose for which an exercise oflegislative power is necessary. Also cited was another prior opinion of this office dated October 18, 1993 which had concluded that

0

(e]ven though legislative resolutions are entitled to deference and respect, they are not law. While a concurrent resolution may bind the members of the legislative body, they are not statutes and do not have the force and effect oflaw ... Moreover, a concurrent resolution binds only the particular legislature which enacts it and not future ones ... Resolutions are but temporary measures and die when the subject matter is completed.

~qY~

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Page2
December 12, 2006

I
I

An opinion of this office dated March 11, 1980 dealt with a concurrent resolution which had established a portion of a state highway as the "Jim Bilton Boulevard". In that opinion we stated that the particular resolution "does not have the effect or power of an act. It is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express an opinion as to some given matter or thing or, as in the present case, to submit a request." Another opinion also issued March 11, 1980 similarly concluded that the noted resolution did not have the full force and effect oflaw and, as a result, was not legally binding. It concluded that "[t]he decision of the Highway Commission to name that portion of U.S. 78 as Jim Bilton Boulevard is subject to modification by the Town of St. George if they so desire." Consistent with the above, in the opinion of this office, the concurrent resolution of the General Assembly requesting the name of Warren Street in the Town ofHardeville be changed to John Smith Road did not have the force and effect of a law. As a result, it is not considered binding on any subsequent action with regard to the particular road. As to the concurrent resolution issued by the Jasper County Council to rename the particular road the John Smith Road, state statutes recognize the authority of a county to name the streets and highways within its borders. See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann.§§ 5-27-170, 5-27-180, and 6-29-1200. In particular, Section 6-29-1200(A) states that A local planning commission created under the provisions of this chapter shall, by proper certificate, approve and authorize the name of a street or road laid out within the territory over which the commission has jurisdiction... Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-320, the county council in each county is authorized to create a county planning commission. Subsection (B) of Section 6-29-1200 authorizes the changing of the name of a street or road within the boundaries of the territorial jurisdiction
... (1) when there is duplication of names or other conditions which tend to confuse the traveling public or the delivery of mail, orders, or messages; (2) when it is found that a change may simplify marking or giving of directions to persons seeking to locate addresses; or (3) upon any other good and just reason that may appear to the commission. Additional authority for assigning street names by local governments is set forth in S.C. Code Ann.
§ 23-47-60. Such authority is set forth in association with providing 911 service in a particular locality.

f

J

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Page3
December 12, 2006

Consistent with the above, in the opinion of this office, a county is given the authority to provide names to particular roads and highways within county boundaries. As a result, the county would apparently have had the authority to rename a particular road as it saw fit. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

clfe,rt /U cdL---

I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

tkJ-SJ,~
~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General