Could Greenwood alter its World War memorial through a joint resolution under South Carolina's Heritage Act?

Plain-English summary

In 2015, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that Greenwood's World War I and World War II memorial was covered by the Heritage Act. A proposed joint resolution to alter names on the monument could not bypass the Act. The office said the proposed change required an amendment to the Act, which its text required to pass by a two thirds vote on third reading in each house of the General Assembly.

The opinion also said an alleged violation would have to be enforced in court. A party with legal standing, such as the monument owner, could seek an injunction or a declaratory judgment. These were the office's answers to the proposed 2015 resolution, rather than a determination that any change had already occurred.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. 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 Heritage Act cover the Greenwood memorial discussed in the request?
A: Yes. The office concluded that the monument commemorating the two World Wars fell within the Act's protection for covered monuments on public property.

Q: Could the proposed joint resolution avoid the Act's voting requirement?
A: The office said no. It concluded that the Act had to be amended before the proposed alteration, using the two thirds vote specified in its text.

Q: Who could enforce the Act if a covered monument were changed?
A: The opinion identified a court action by someone with standing, such as the owner, seeking an injunction or declaratory judgment.

Background and legal framework

A legislator asked whether a proposed resolution changing names on a Greenwood war memorial would have statewide implications, circumvent the Heritage Act, or require a particular enforcement authority. The office relied on the Act's statewide language and an earlier opinion concerning a flag at The Citadel. It treated court action as the means to enforce the Act.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed § 10-1-165 and H. 3574, the proposed joint resolution described in the request.

Official title

Regarding the Heritage Act.

Requester

The Honorable Michael A. Pitts, Representative, District No. 14.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-25-2015-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Pitts-M.-OS-9895-FINAL-Opinion-2-25-2015-00565434xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

^•S'OUTtt
Alan Wilson
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Februarv 25, 2015

The Honorable Michael A. Pills
Representative. District No. 14
327-C Blatl Building

Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Representative Pitts:

You have requested our opinion regarding the Heritage Act. By way of background, you

reference H. 3574. a Joint Resolution altering the placement of names on a WW1 and WWII monument, located at 332 Main Street in Greenwood. You have asked the following: Would this resolution, should it pass, have statewide implications in

regard to the Heritage Act? Would this allow the City of Greenwood to circumvent the Heritage Act? Who would the enforcing authority of the

Heritage Act be should a violation occur?
Law/Anajysis

Enclosed, please find an Opinion of this Office, dated June 10, 2014, which provides the guidance you are seeking.

The Opinion addressed the question of whether the Heritage Act,

codified at S.C. Code Ann. Section 10-1-165, must be followed before the Confederate Battle Flag (sometimes referred to as the "Naval Jack"), "first placed in The Citadel's Summerall

Chapel in 1939", could be moved. In that Opinion, we concluded that "the flag does fall under the provisions of the Heritage Act and requires the protection of law." Section 10-1-65 was enacted in 2000 as part of a hard fought compromise to remove the Confederate Flag from atop the Statehouse Dome. Such a provision states as follows; (A) No Revolutionary War. War of 1812, Mexican War, War Between

The States. Spanish-American war, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Native American, or African American History monuments or memorials erected on public property of the State or any of its political subdivisions may be relocated, removed, disturbed or altered.

No street, bridge,

structure, park, preserve, reserve or other public area of the State or any of its political subdivisions dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic name may be renamed or rededicated. No

person

may

prevent

the

public

body

responsible

for

the

monument or memorial from taking proper measures and exercising

RemsertC. Dennis Building

. Post Office Box it 549 . Columbia, SC 2921 1-1549

• Telephone 803-734-3970 . Facsimile 303-253-6283

The Honorable Michael A. Pitts
Page 2

February 25, 2015

proper means for the protection, preservation and care of these monuments, memorials or nameplates.

(B) The provisions of the Section may only be amended or repealed upon passing of an act which has received a two-thirds vote, on the third reading of the bill in each branch of the General Assembly. Based upon the foregoing, as well as the broad language of § 10-1-165 of the Heritage Act, it is our opinion that the WW1 and WWI monument in Greenwood would be covered by that Act. Accordingly, in order to make the changes to the monument proposed, the provisions of the Heritage Act would have to be followed. This means that such changes which may be proposed to the monument could not be made without an amendment to the Heritage Act.

Such

amendment would require a "two thirds vote on the third reading of the bill in each branch of the

General Assembly."
Conclusion

Your specific questions are answered as follows:
1.

Yes.

The Resolution you reference would have statewide implications.

The Heritage Act

applies statewide and must be followed in order to make the changes proposed. Failure to follow the Act's requirements would set a statewide precedent.

2.

No.

The Heritage Act is applicable to your situation and may not be ignored.

While,

generally speaking, one General Assembly may not bind another, the provisions of § 10-1 165 facially require a two-thirds vote of each house in order to amend the Act. Such provision is binding. See S.C. Op. Att'v. Gen.. No. 80-53 (May 1 6, 1 980) [Act requiring a

two-thirds vote of each house to take specific action must be followed].

3.

Enforcement of violations of the Heritage Act would have to be through the courts. A party with legal standing, such as the owner of the monument in question, would have to seek relief in the form of an injunction or a declaratory judgment action to enforce the provisions of the Heritage Act.

In summary, the Heritage Act's requirements are binding before a covered monument may be altered, removed or moved. The Greenwood monument you reference is included within the Act's coverage and must be followed. Sincerely,

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General
Enclosure