Could Dorchester school board candidates file after a new deadline was precleared a day late in 2000?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether candidates for two Dorchester County school boards were bound by a new filing deadline that had closed on July 17, 2000, when the Justice Department did not preclear the statute until July 18. Under the former rule, candidates could file sixty days before the election. Some candidates argued that the new deadline should not bar them.

The AG letter supported construing election rules to permit candidacy when eligibility was in doubt. It also acknowledged authority that retroactive preclearance could make the new filing law effective for the dispute. The letter reached no final answer on which filing period controlled and said only a court could resolve the question conclusively; it suggested a declaratory judgment action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 AG say candidates could ignore the July 17 deadline?
A: No. The letter supported a candidacy-friendly reading but did not decide that the older filing period governed.

Q: Could the July 18 preclearance affect an already closed filing period?
A: The AG recognized authority supporting an argument for retroactive preclearance, which could favor the new deadline, but did not resolve its application here.

Q: Who could settle the competing claims?
A: The opinion said only a court could decide with finality and suggested seeking a declaratory judgment.

Background and statutory framework

The dispute arose because the new filing date passed one day before federal preclearance. The letter cited Myers v. McKeithen for the principle favoring candidacy and noted competing authority, including Latham v. Molphus, on retroactive preclearance. It did not identify a numbered section of the new South Carolina statute or decide which law ultimately controlled.

Citations and references

• Myers v. McKeithen, cited on construing candidacy qualifications in favor of access.
• Latham v. Molphus, cited among authorities relevant to retroactive preclearance.

Official title

Requesting whether or not the filing period for candidates for the Dorchester County School Districts 2 and 4 boards should be considered under a statute which was passed this session, but has not  been pre-cleared  by the United States Justice Department.

Requester

The Honorable William S. Branton, Jr., Member, South Carolina Senate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-20-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00july20branton.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE C O ND ON
ATIORNEY GE NERAL

July 20, 2000

iL. ,

I

The Honorable William S. Branton, Jr.
Member, South Carolina Senate
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

i .,,,

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Senator Branton:
Attorney General Condon has forwarded your opinion request to me for reply. In your request, you state: I am writing to formally request an opinion on whether or not the filing period for candidates for the Dorchester County School Districts 2 and 4 boards should be considered under a statute which was passed this session, but has not been pre-cleared by the United States Justice Department. We are presently in a situation where the new filing date closed on July 17, 2000, under the new law. The Justice Department cleared the new statute on July 18, 2000, one day after the filing closed. The old statute allowed a candidate to file sixty days prior to an election. We have several candidates in Dorchester County who believe that they should be allowed to file because the new statute did not pass until July 18, 2000 . My research indicates that there may be a split of authority on this question . Attorney General Condon strongly supports the peoples' right to choose the candidate of their choice. Courts have also concluded that the laws governing the conduct of

· ''

,

R i\llllORT ~- - ~~-":J Bl IUll:-< c;

/(:__,(.tfr<,<f.t;.'/- ·- )(~ B .,/h-,

•

POST OrFWE Box 11549

•

CUL,l'M8 1A. S,C 292 11-1 549

•

TELEPHOS E: 803- 734-3 970

•

F-\CSI Mll Y: 80,1-25,l -n2 X,1

The Honorable William S. Branton, Jr.
Page 2
July 20, 2000
elections should be liberally construed so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy. Myers v. McKeithen, 753 So.2d 252 (La.Ct.App. 1998). Any doubt as to the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of permitting the candidate to run for public office. Id. This Office supports this view. However, there is some support for the proposition of "retroactive preclearance" of election laws which, in this case, would support an argument that the new law governs filing deadlines. Berrv v. Doles, 438 U.S. 190, 98 S.Ct. 2692, 57 L.Ed.2d 693 (1978); Latham v. Molphus, 642 So.2d 1340 (Miss. 1994). In view of the fact that only a court can decide this matter with finality, it may be wise to seek a declaratory judgment action. 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 best personal regards, I am Sincerely yours,

I

r

f.j);(,j
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General