Could Clemson’s law-enforcement director also serve as mayor of Easley under South Carolina’s dual-office rule?

Plain-English summary

Clemson University’s director of law enforcement asked whether he could continue in that role while serving as mayor of Easley. He said his police authority came solely from a state constable commission. The 1999 informal opinion concluded that the constitutional exception for constables apparently prevented the two positions from violating South Carolina’s dual-office prohibition.

The writer regarded a mayor as a public office. He then analyzed the university director role through its source of law-enforcement authority: campus security departments were staffed by commissioned constables, and this director’s powers derived solely from his constable commission. The letter recommended contacting SLED about any agency rules or regulations on simultaneous service; it did not determine their content.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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: Was mayor of Easley a public office for the dual-office rule? A: Yes. The AG office had repeatedly treated municipal mayors as holding public office.

Q: Why did the director’s constable commission matter? A: The writer said the director’s law-enforcement authority came solely from that commission, so he applied the Constitution’s express constable exception.

Q: Did the opinion say the two roles violated the state dual-office prohibition? A: No. On the stated facts, it said service in both roles would apparently fall within the constable exception.

Q: Did the opinion resolve SLED employment or commission rules? A: No. The writer recommended contacting SLED to determine whether its rules addressed the arrangement.

Background and statutory framework

The requester served as a Clemson law-enforcement director and parking-enforcement supervisor and was considering a mayoral run. The opinion quoted Article XVII, Section 1A’s ban on simultaneous public offices and its exception for a constable. It noted prior AG opinions treating mayors as officeholders, then focused on the requester’s state constable commission and the statute governing campus constables. Its conclusion depended on the stated source of his police authority.

Citations and references

• Article XVII, Section 1A: Quoted for the dual-office prohibition and constable exception.
• S.C. Code Ann. § 59-116-20; Section 23-1-60: Discussed for campus constables and their commissions.

Official title

Whether Clemson University’s director of law enforcement could also serve as mayor of Easley under the dual-office rule.

Requester

Lonnie J. Saxon

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-25-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99jan25saxon.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M . CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 25, 1999

Mr. Lonnie J. Saxon
201 Glen Laurel Drive
Easley, South Carolina 29642

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Saxon:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have informed this Office that you presently serve as Director of Law Enforcement and supervisor of the parking enforcement personnel for Clemson University (hereinafter "Director"). You are paid by Clemson University and your law enforcement authority is derived from a State constable' s commission. You indicate that you are now considering running for mayor of Easley, South Carolina. You have asked whether the dual office holding prohibitions of the State Constitution would be violated if you were to simultaneously serve in these positions. Article XVII, Section IA of the State Constitution provides that "no person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time, but any person holding another office may at the same time be an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or a notary public." (emphasis added). For this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two public offices which have duties involving an exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 (1907). Other relevant considerations are whether statutes, or other such authority, establish the position, prescribe its duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980). This Office has concluded on numerous occasions that one who serves as a mayor of a municipality holds an office for dual office holding purposes. Ops . Any. Gen. dated September 18, 1997, April 9, 1997 and November 2, 1994. In regards to the position of Director, you state that your law enforcement authority is derived solely from a State constable commission signed and issued by the Governor and

~ ../ AJ~"!,8~R')C ~~l}PJ~G • PoH OFFICE Box 11 549 •

C OLUMBIA, S.C. 292 11 -1 549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FA CS I\ 11 1.E: 803-253-6281

Mr.Saxon
Page 2
January 25, 1999

I

I
I

the Chief of SLED. State law provides that campus security departments are staffed by constables commissioned pursuant to Section 23-1-60 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. S.C. Code Ann. § 59-116-20. Therefore, since the Director's law enforcement powers are derived solely from the constable commission, the position must be analyzed for dual office holding purposes in the same manner as any other constable position. As such, the Director's position would fall under the exception provided for constables found in the Constitution. Based on the foregoing, due to the exception found in the Constitution for constables, it would appear that the dual office holding prohibitions would not be violated if you were to serve as Director and the mayor of Easley. However, I would recommend that you contact SLED to determine whether that agency possesses any rules and regulations on this subject. 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 questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I remain

737/lJ

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General