Did a South Carolina county Senate delegation have to use weighted voting to approve magistrate nominees?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether a county Senate delegation had to use weighted voting when approving magistrates for consideration by the full Senate. The February 2001 informal opinion said yes under the interim federal court order then in force. The court's formula covered single branch delegations as well as delegations combining House and Senate members.

The opinion traced that temporary remedy to a Fourth Circuit decision finding the former equal vote system for county legislative delegations unconstitutional under one person, one vote principles. It explained that a federal district judge had adopted an interim weighted voting method while the General Assembly worked on a permanent remedy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

County Senate delegations

The AG read the district court's order as applying weighted voting to any county delegation action, whether taken by senators alone or a bicameral body. Magistrate approval by the senatorial delegation therefore required the formula.

Magistrate nominees

The opinion addressed the delegation's approval step before a nomination went to the full Senate. It did not describe the full Senate's voting rule.

Common questions

Did weighted voting apply when only senators voted?
A: Yes. The AG said the interim order covered a single branch delegation.

Why was the former equal vote system changed?
A: The opinion said the Fourth Circuit found it diluted votes of residents represented in more populous delegation districts.

Was the weighted method described as permanent?
A: No. The letter called it an interim court remedy pending legislation and court approval.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion discussed the Fourth Circuit's Vander Linden decision and the federal district court's 2000 order adopting a weighted voting formula for county legislative delegations. It applied that formula to a county Senate delegation's magistrate approval.

Citations and references

• The AG said “weighted voting must be used” for this delegation action.

Official title

Concerning weighted voting.

Requester

The Honorable Joe Wilson, Senator, District No. 23

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-23-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01feb-23-wilson.pdf

Original opinion text

,.{

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
C H A RLI E CON D ON
A TTO RN E Y GEN ER AL

February 23, 2001
The Honorable Joe Wilson
Senator, District No. 23
P.O. Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator Wilson,
By your letter of February 9, 2001 , you have requested an opinion of this Office concerning weighted voting. You ask if "magistrates must be approved by a weighted majority of the County Senatorial Delegation in which they serve before being sent for the advice and consent of the full Senate?" By way of background, "weighted voting" was implemented as an interim remedy as a result of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down as unconstitutional the prior voting allocations of South Carolina's legislative delegation system in Vander Linden v. Hodges, 193 F.3d 268 (1999). The legislative delegations for each county are comprised of all members whose districts contain property within the county. Under the prior system, all members of the delegation, regardless of the actual number of constituents represented, had equal voting power in actions of the delegation. The Fourth Circuit held that this system violated the one person, one vote rule of the equal protection clause by diluting the votes of the constituents in more densely populated constituent areas. See Vander Linden at 281. The Court in Vander Linden granted the South Carolina General Assembly some time to construct an appropriate remedy. After much dispute and many revisions to pending legislation in the General Assembly, in May of 2000 a South Carolina District Court imposed an interim remedy until the General Assembly could pass appropriate legislation, subject to the court's approval. United States District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy's order of June 22, 2000 provides the interim guidelines for weighted voting. One of the contentious points between the House and Senate involved the scope of the weighted voting to delegation areas. The Senate favored the imposition of weighted voting for various kinds of governmental entities. The House objected to the Senate's version because it extended beyond county legislative delegations. In response, Judge Duffy held that "any remedy imposed by this court will be limited to curing the 'one person, one vote ' defect in the method of electing county legislative delegations." ORDER at 7. The Court further adopted

)

RntnrnT ~ · ;y.:-.:N ~~ Bt ;n .u1N<;

~· ~/_,(. ,

•

PosT 0 FHCE Box 11549

•

Cou ;MBIA. S.C. 29211 - 1549

•

T Et.EPllONE: 803-D-l->970

•

FAcs 1M 11.E: X0.1- 25-n28.1

r

'I

Senator Wilson
February 23, 2001
Page 2 of2
the formula set forth in Senate Bill 3811 (C), stating. ''Bill 3811 subsection (C) also provides a method of weighing the votes for both the single branch delegation and the bicameral legislative delegation." Order at 9. In the order Judge Duffy included Bill 381 l(C), which states, in part: (4) to determine the weight of the vote for each member of the Senate and the House of Representatives, when voting as a legislative delegation, each calculation to the fourth decimal place in items (1) and (2) must be multiplied by one hundred;

L
I
~

I

(5) to determine the weight of the vote for each member of the Senate or the House of Representatives, when voting as a single branch delegation, each calculation to the fourth decimal place in either item (1) or (2) must be multiplied by two hundred; 0RDERat4.

Thus, in accordance with the guidelines established by Judge Duffy's order, any act of a legislative delegation, whether by single branch or bicameral, must apply the formula for weighted voting referenced above. Because the Senatorial Delegation votes to approve the magistrates offered for appointment by the Governor, it is the opinion of this Office that weighted voting must be used. 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 nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain Very truly yours,

Susannah Cole
Assistant Attorney General