How did the South Carolina AG address school-bond election protests, joint party notices, and shared candidates?

Plain-English summary

The Election Commission asked three groups of questions. For school-bond elections, the Deputy AG pointed to Section 59-71-60, which allowed results to be questioned only through a suit or proceeding within the period specified after filing. She said a protest presumably belonged in that litigation, not in an unstated county or state canvasser procedure. Her discussion was tied to the school-bond statute, even though the request also used the phrase “school board election.”

For political-party notices, she said the statutes envisioned each party giving notice of its own activities but contained no absolute ban on a joint published notice. Different event dates or a confusing notice could defeat the purpose of informing voters and candidates. On nominations, she said two parties could conceivably list the same candidate if both actively consented, but a primary candidate’s one-party pledge created an ethical conflict. She said votes should be tallied by each party and reported to the appropriate authority. The letter was informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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: Where did the opinion place a challenge to school-bond election results? A: It pointed to a court suit or proceeding under Section 59-71-60, rather than a canvasser protest route not specified in the cited law.

Q: Could parties publish a joint notice? A: The author found no absolute statutory prohibition, but said timing and clarity could be problems.

Q: Could two parties list the same candidate? A: She said it was conceivable with both parties’ consent, while the primary pledge could conflict with that arrangement.

Q: How did the letter say shared-candidate votes should be reported? A: It said each party’s votes should be tallied and reported to the appropriate authority.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion discussed Section 59-71-60 for school-bond contests, Section 7-13-45 and Section 7-9-50 for party notices, and §7-11-210 for the primary candidate pledge. It treated several election scenarios as unresolved or dependent on party conduct rather than announcing a blanket rule.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Section 59-71-60; Section 7-13-45; Section 7-9-50; §7-11-210. Case cited: Morgan v. Feagin.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-6-1998-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98jan6hendrix.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERA L

January 6, 1998
·,

i
James F. Hendrix, Executive Director
Election Commission
Post Off ice Box 5987
Columbia, South Carolina 29250
Dear Jim,
You have raised various questions regarding election issues. Specifically you have asked the following questions:

(1)

In school board referenda where there is a desire to protect the results of the election, with whom is the protest filed? Would the appropriate county election commission hear any protest concerning the conduct of the election as provided in Title 7, with possible appeal to the State Board of Canvassers; or, would Section 59-71-60 of the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws control, with any protest filed directly with the courts and the county election commission and the State Board of Canvassers being left out entirely?

The Code is silent as to any procedure for a protest of a school board election to a County or State Board of Canvassers. The statutes do, however, provide a specific procedure to contest a school bond election. Section 59-71-60 provides that the results of the (school bond] election shall not be open to question except by a suit or proceeding instituted within thirty days from the date of filing thereof. (Emphasis Added]

() -

REMBERT,:

DENNIS B UILDING

•

P OST O FACE Box 11549

~~7/..,; "

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 292 1!- 1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-7 34-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-628 3

James F. Hendrix, Executive Director
January 6, 1998
.Page 2

Any basis for protesting or questioning the school board election on any grounds, therefore, must presumably be handled in this litigation. 1 (2)

IL

I
I

I am enclosing a copy of a letter from
the chairman of the York County Patriot
Party posing questions relating to party organization and nomination of candidates that are not specifically addressed by Title 7 (7-9-50, 7-9-70, 7-9-10, 7-11-10, 7-13-45 and possibly other statutes). Basically, as I understand his letter, he is asking if more than one political party can share the cost of the notices of organizational meetings and filing information required by State law.

The purpose of a notice being given is to ensure that the public is aware of the activities of the party should they choose to participate by attending, becoming a delegate, becoming a candidate, or to otherwise participate.

I

The statutes clearly envision that each political party would give notice regarding the activities of their own party. As examples Section 7-13-45 requires that " [ i) n every general election year, the county chairman shall place an advertisement to appear two weeks before the filing period begins in a newspaper ... that notifies the public . . . "; Section 7-9-50 concerning the reorganization of clubs states that "[a] notice must be published by the county committee ... before the meeting date in a newspaper having general circulation in the county." However, there is no specific statutory prohibition that would absolutely prevent several parties publishing a joint notice. Although there is no direct prohibition, the practicalities of two or more parties giving joint notices may be unworkable in that the political parties would have to be holding conventions, elections, etc., on the same or almost identical dates to meet the timeline requirements set out in some of the applicable statutes. Additionally, if notification of two or more parties is given in one notice that results in confusion to the public, it would defeat the 1

This statutory procedure has been upheld and justified on the grounds of government needing a quick and definite decision on if the bonds have been properly issued. See, Morgan v. Feagin, 95 S.E.2d 621 (1956).

f
1

James F. Hendrix, Executive Director
January 6, 1998
Page 3

r
purpose of giving legal notice of the parties activities. Should confusion of, the electorate or candidates occur it would not only defeat the purpose of giving notice, it could open up additional grounds for protesting or contesting an election.

L

If this is a serious problem, the parties should perhaps seek legislative clarification of what joint activities regarding notices, etc., would be permissible. You further state that

I
I
f

I

Additionally, he asks if there is any
prohibition against the nomination of the same candidate for an off ice by more than one political party and how, if permissible, should the total votes received by that candidate be certified. Two or more parties could conceivably list the same candidate. 2 However, this would take the active consent of both parties as to do so would violate the pledge each candidate takes to affiliate with one party and to abide by the results of the primary. s.c. Code Ann. §7-11-210 (Supp. 1996). The oath authorizes the political party to bring an ex parte action against a defeated candidate should the candidate try to off er again as a candidate in that election. As only the party can raise this issue, if the parties agree to allow a candidate to run in both of their elections, it would be possible for a candidate to offer as a candidate in two or more political parties; however, it would place the candidate in an ethical conflict as he would have signed a pledge that he may not be able to honor. Votes received should be tallied by each party and reported to the appropriate authority to be tallied. This letter is an informal opinion and represents only the opinions of the undersigned attorney. It has not, however been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of formal opinions.

2

Elections.

Except, as Mr. Bell already points out, in Presidential

r
I

James F. Hendrix, Executive Director
January 6, 1998
Page 4

If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Very truly yours,

~1'-UJC...
[

I
i
f

I
k
I

Treva Ashworth
Deputy Attorney General
TA:bvc