Could Citadel alumni living outside South Carolina vote on appointments to its Board of Visitors?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether only South Carolina residents could vote in the Association of Citadel Men’s process for choosing three members of The Citadel’s Board of Visitors. In 1996, the AG said the association’s inclusion of nonresidents did not make the statutory delegation unconstitutional. The opinion found no express state constitutional limit requiring residency for the people participating in that association’s selection process.

The opinion addressed only this proposed residency restriction. It did not evaluate every feature of the association’s voting rules or other qualifications for board membership.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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

Did alumni have to live in South Carolina to participate in the selection?

The AG concluded that the presence of nonresident association members did not violate the state constitution on the ground raised.

Who set the method for choosing those board members?

The opinion described the statute as leaving the means and methods for three appointments to the Association of Citadel Men.

Did the AG decide whether any particular nominee could serve?

No. It analyzed nonresident participation in the association’s appointment process.

Background and legal framework

The opinion considered the statute delegating three Board of Visitors selections to the Association of Citadel Men. It reasoned from the absence of an express South Carolina constitutional restriction and cited a California decision allowing appointments through a body that included people who were not local qualified electors.

Citations

• 59-121-10.
• In Re Bulger.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-17-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96jan17wright.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M OLON Y COND ON
ATTO RNEY G ENE RAL

J anuary 17 , 1996

The Honorable David Wright
Member, House of Representatives
P • O. Box 2·2 3 7
Irmo, s.c. 29063
Dear Representative Wright:
You have requested advice as to whether the right to vote for members of the Board of Visitors of The Citadel must be limited to residents of this State. Your question arises under S. C. Code Ann. S 59-121-10, et seg. (Supp. 1994) which provides for the appointment of three of the Board's members by " .•. such means and methods as may be determined by the Association of Citadel Men. _••• 11 An early California decision provides some guidance on this issue. A case summarized at 97 ALR 2d 382 upheld the appointment of a fire commissioner for the city and county of San Francisco by a board of underwriters which included agents who were not United States citizens and agents who were otherwise not qualified electors of that city and county. In Re Bulger, 45 Cal. 553 ( 187 5) • " .•. ( T] he court concluded the appointment could be made in the manner directed by the legislature, since in none of the provisions of the constitution was any limitation placed upon the exercise of this power." Similarly, because the South Carolina Constitution imposes no express limitations as to this matter and because authority exists for delegation of appointment authority to private groups having nonresident members, the General Assembly's delegation of appointment authority to the Association of Citadel Men does not appear to be contrary to the Constitution on the basis that the Association's members include non-residents. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal

Ri:\IKERT c. Di:~s1s B 1·1Lo1:-.G

•

PoST OmcE Box 11549

•

C OLLIMBJA. S.C. 292 11- 1 ~9

•

TELF.PHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FAcs1\t1LE: &ffl-253-6283

The Honorable David Wright
January 17, 1996
Page 2
opinion.
If you have further questions, please let me know. Yours ~veFy

truly,

. - ... --·-:?.--; /

...< . .:·~-~-,.,,
. . __...--;

.~;/" -

~.,,,.,

,.·

/

·J • • Emory Sm! t!h · Jr . -

Assistant Deputyl'.Attorrtey General
JESjr