Could Bluffton submit the same annexation petition again after a council motion died for lack of a second?

Plain-English summary

In January 2004, South Carolina’s Attorney General said Bluffton could present the same annexation petition to town council again after an earlier motion to accept it died for lack of a second. The office noted that the statute governing the petition-and-election method did not expressly address whether a petition could return.

The AG relied on earlier opinions recognizing resubmission of annexation petitions. One earlier South Carolina opinion had permitted a petition rejected for too few signatures to return after signatures were added promptly; the Bluffton opinion applied that broader recognition to a motion that never received a second.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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

Petitioners and town councils

The AG treated the failed motion as leaving room for the same petition to be brought back. It did not say that the council had accepted the petition or resolve any separate question about the petition’s signatures or election process.

Common questions

Did failure to get a second on the council motion bar the petition forever?
No. The AG said the same petition could be presented a second time.

Did the annexation statute expressly authorize repeat presentation?
No. The opinion said the statute was silent on the question and drew support from earlier AG opinions on resubmission.

Did the opinion decide whether the petition would ultimately pass?
No. Its answer concerned presenting the petition again after the earlier motion died.

Background and statutory framework

The town attorney asked about a petition under the twenty-five-percent elector petition and election method. Months earlier, a council member had moved to accept it, but no one seconded the motion. The AG reviewed the statutory silence and prior opinions on annexation petitions.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed S.C. Code Ann. Section 5-3-300 and earlier AG opinions from 1962 and 1983.

Official title

Referencing that an annexation petition was previously presented to the Bluffton town council pursuant to the twenty-five percent elector petition/ election method. And specifically questioning whether the same petition can be presented a second time.

Requester

Terry A. Finger, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-12-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04jan13finger.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
A1TORNEYGENERAL

January 12, 2004

I
Terry A. Finger, Esquire
Bluffton Town Attorney
Post Office Box 24005
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29925-4005

I
I

Dear Mr. Finger:
In a letter to this office you referenced that an annexation petition was previously presented to the Bluffton town council pursuant to the twenty-five percent elector petition/election method. Such procedure is outlined in S.C. Code Ann. Section 5-3-300 (Supp. 2002). You indicated that a motion to accept the petition was originally made by a town council member but the motion died for lack of a second and no further motions were made. Such occurred several months ago. You now indicate that the proponents of the annexation petition have indicated that they are going to present the same petition again. You question whether the same petition can be presented a second time.

Section 5-3-300 does not specifically comment on the question raised. A prior opinion of the Louisiana Attorney General dated November 29, 1983 determined that "an annexation petition that failed to reach thefloormayberesubmitted." A prior opinion of this office dated November 19, 1962 determined that as to an annexation petition that did not contain sufficient signatures when originally presented, I am of the opinion that if the sole reason for the rejection of a petition was the absence of a sufficient number of signatures and if additional signatures were secured promptly, that in such case, the same petition could be presented to the city council. I should like to emphasize that the same petition could, in my opinion, only be presented ifit were presented the second time with reasonable dispatch and diligence, so that it could not be termed a stale petition.... Therefore, there is recognition for a petition being submitted more than once. Consistent with such, it is my opinion that the petition you referenced that died for lack of a second to a motion could be presented a second time.

,J..J .

7

c.

(,t o....bJ OIOO>llS BUILDING
RM/VA J! "FT:~/;'/, I

• POST OFFICE Box 11549 •

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

f

!
!

Mr. Finger
Page2
January 12, 2004

With kind regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

l

r
I
I

I

r

I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General