Could a retired South Carolina legislator’s son join the state transportation commission?

Plain-English summary

In 2013, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a legislator’s son likely counted as an “immediate family member” under the law governing the Department of Transportation commission. The office believed a son could not be elected or appointed while the parent served in the General Assembly or within four years after the parent left it. The statute did not define the phrase. The AG read its ordinary meaning to include children without adding a same-household condition. It described its answer as a prediction of how a court would interpret the law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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 opinion include a retired legislator’s son in “immediate family”? A: Yes. The AG concluded that the phrase likely included a son even though the transportation statute did not define it.

Q: Did eligibility return immediately upon a legislator’s retirement? A: No. The statute quoted in the opinion extended the restriction for four years after the legislator ceased serving, or failed to file for election as specified there.

Q: Did the son have to live in the same household?
A: The office found no household limitation in the statute and declined to read one into the phrase.

Q: Did the AG decide a named candidate’s eligibility?
A: No. It gave a legal opinion about a likely court interpretation, not a court ruling on a particular candidate.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked whether a retired legislator’s son could be elected to the transportation commission. The AG examined the commission’s eligibility restriction for legislators and their immediate families. It used ordinary meaning because the statute supplied no definition and concluded a son was covered.

Citations and references

The opinion analyzes South Carolina Code Section 57-1-310 and discusses statutory interpretation and the repealed nepotism law.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-15-2013/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cleary-r-e-iii-os-9525-1-15-13-dot-commission-immediate-family-member.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Janua1y 15, 2013

The Honorable Raymond E. C leary Ill
Senator, District No. 34
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator C leary:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter of December I 0, 20 12 to the Opinions section for a response. The followi ng is our understanding of your question presented and the opinion of this Office concerning the issue based on that understanding. Issue: Does South Carolina Code Section 57-1-310 (1976, as amended) prohibit the son of a retired legislator from being elected to the Department of Transpo11ation commission?

Short Answer: South Carolina Code Section 57-1-3 10 does not define an " immed iate family member,'' but a court is likely to interpret an " immediate fam ily member" of a former legislator to include his/her son. Law/Analysis: South Carolina Code Section 57- 1-310 describes the commission of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter " DOT"), along with its composition, screen ing and the qualifications required to be a member the commission. Section 57- 1-3 IO(D) says:

of

(D) No member of the General Assembly or member of his immediate family shall be elected or appointed to the commission while the member is serving in the General Assembly; nor shall a member of the General Assembly or a member of his immediate family be elected or appointed to the commission for a period of four years after the member e ither: (I) ceases to be a member of the General Assembly; or (2) fails to tile for election to the General Assembly in accordance with Section 7-11-15 . South Carolina Code Section 57-1-3 I O(D) clearly prohibits an "immediate family member" of a cun-ent member of the General Assembly from serving on the DOT commission. In addition, S.C. Code Section 57-1-3 I O(D) prohibits an " immediate family member" of a former member of the General Assembly (within the past four years) from serving on the DOT commission. South Carolina Code Section 57-13 10 does not define an " immediate fami ly member" anywhere in the statute. Therefore we must look to statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of an " immediate family member."

R EMBERT

c. D ENNIS B UILDING • POST OFFICE B ox 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 292 11 -1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Raymond E. Cleary III
Page 2
January 15, 2013

As a background on statutory interpretation, the cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and to accomplish that intent. Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31 , 39, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003). The true aim and intention of the legislature controls the literal meaning of a statute. Greenville Baseball v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813 (1942). The historical background and circumstances at the time a statute was passed can be used to assist in interpreting a statute. Ml An entire statute's interpretation must be "practical, reasonable, and fair" and consistent with the purpose, plan and reasoning behind its making. Ml at 816. Statutes are to be interpreted with a "sensible construction," and a " literal application of language which leads to absurd consequences should be avoided whenever a reasonable application can be given consistent with the legislative purpose." U.S. v. Rippetoe, 178 F.2d 735, 737 (4th Cir. 1950). This Office looks at the plain meaning of the words, rather than analyzing statutes within the same subject matter when the meaning of the statute appears to be clear and unambiguous. Sloan v . SC Board of Physical Therapy Exam., 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (2006). Therefore, we will not look to other statutes to determine the meaning of an "immediate family member" but will look to a clear and unambiguous meaning. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the tem1, it would seem a son would be included as an "immediate" member of the family. If the legislature intended to limit the term to a son residing in the same household or any other limitation, it would have been expressly listed. Otherwise, the logical and plain meaning of immediate family would include a spouse and children and could include others such as siblings and parents. Please note South Carolina's statute on nepotism (S.C. Code Section 8-5-10) has been repealed but was interpreted to apply to departments of state government and not to boards and political subdivisions, and thus its definition of an immediate fami ly member wou ld not apply for mu ltiple reasons. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1983 WL 181869 (Apri l 29, 1983). Additionally, even though the courts would likely discourage interpretation based on other statutes, most other statutes generally define an immediate family member to include a child, with exceptions (see S.C. Code Section 8-13-100( 18)). See S.C. Code Section 7-25-200, 4-13-20(9), et al.

Conclusion: Based on the conclusion that an " immediate family member" would include a son, it appears any son of a legis lator (active or retired within the last four years) would be ineligible for commission on such a Department of Transportation board. However, this Office is only issuing a legal opinion based on the information given . Until a court or the legislature specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this Office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter. If it is later determined otherwise or if you have any additional questions or issues, please let me know. Sincerely,

~s;f.1i~
Anita Smith Fair
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~I Gw2-___

~Ok
Deputy Attorney General
; ,/ /