Could a 1974 special law shorten Summerville public works commissioners’ terms?

Plain-English summary

In 1981, Summerville’s town attorney asked whether a 1974 act giving its Commissioners of Public Works four year terms was invalid special legislation. The general South Carolina law then provided staggered six year terms. The Attorney General agreed that a special exception for one town conflicted with the state constitution’s restriction on laws for a specific municipality.

The opinion explained why an earlier AG view allowing some local variation did not decide the question. That view preceded later case law and a new constitutional provision, adopted in the early 1970s, saying that laws for a specific municipality could not be enacted. The AG reasoned that a general law would have been required to alter commissioner terms rather than an act only for Summerville.

The letter did not address the attorney’s second question, because its answer depended on the special act being valid. The conclusion was the AG’s view of the law in 1981, not a court judgment on the act.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981. 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: What was different about Summerville’s 1974 act?
A: It gave town public works commissioners four year terms, while the general statute specified staggered six year terms.

Q: Why did the AG view the town specific law as unconstitutional?
A: It pointed to the state constitutional ban on laws for a particular municipality and said a change to the general term rule should have been made through a general law.

Q: Did the opinion answer every question from the town attorney?
A: No. After deciding the special legislation issue, it said the second question did not need an answer.

Background and statutory framework

The request compared a 1974 Summerville only act with the general public works commission term statute. The AG evaluated the special act under the state constitution’s municipal legislation restriction and distinguished an older opinion written before that restriction took effect.

Citations and references

• The source describes Section 5-31-210 as requiring “staggered terms of six (6) years.”
• It quotes the constitutional rule: “No laws for a specific municipality shall be enacted.”

Official title

On term limits for Summerville Public Works Commissioners (Section 5-31-210 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976).

Requester

Mr. Walter M. Bailey, Jr., Attorney, Town of Summerville.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-9-1981-4/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/7-9-Mr-Walter-M-Bailey-Jr-term-limits-for-Summerville-Public-Works-Commissioners-00672756xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

Mr. Walter M. Bailey, Jr., 1981 WL 157858 (1981)

1981 WL 157858 (S.C.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of South Carolina
July 9, 1981
*1 Mr. Walter M. Bailey, Jr.
Attorney
Town of Summerville
Post Office Drawer D
Summerville, South Carolina 29483
Dear Walter:
You have requested an opinion as the attorney for the Town of Summerville regarding the Summerville Commissioners of Public Works. You have stated that in 1974 an Act was passed giving the members of the Commissioners of Public Works four (4) year terms. This law varied from the general law as set out at Section 5-31-210 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, which requires staggered terms of six (6) years. You have requested an opinion as to whether or not the 1974 Act is invalid as special legislation. I would agree with your conclusion that the Act is unconstitutional as special legislation. A 1963 opinion of this office, which is cited following Section 5-31-210, held that a special law enacted for the City of Laurens increasing its membership from three to five was not special legislation. The opinion stated that there appeared to be a trend toward ‘. . . tightening the restrictions as to what special legislation will be allowed . . .’. However, the writer believed that the requirements of Article III, Section 34 are ‘. . . relaxed somewhat insofar as municipalities are concerned, which provides that the General Assembly may make special provisions for municipal governments.’ (A copy of this opinion is enclosed.) The reasoning in this opinion would be inapplicable to the present question due to the subsequent case law regarding Article III, Section 34 since the date of that opinion and by a new section of the South Carolina Constitution enacted by the General Assembly in 1972 and ratified in 1973, Article VIII, Section 10. This Section provides that No laws for a specific municipality shall be enacted, and no municipality shall be exempted from the laws applicable to municipalities or applicable to a particular form of government selected by any municipality as authorized by Section 9 of this article.

See also Article VIII, Section 9 and 1977 Opinion of the Attorney General, Opinion Number 77-129 which held that general legislation would be necessary to abolish the Town of Manning Water Commission and vest its power and authority in the Town of Manning. (Copy enclosed). Therefore, it would appear that a general law should have been enacted and that a special law providing an exception to the general law only for the Town of Summerville would be within the constitutional prohibition regarding special legislation. In light of the above answer it is not necessary to address your second question which requests a further opinion if we concluded that the 1974 Act was not special legislation. Very truly yours, Treva G. Ashworth Senior Assistant Attorney General 1981 WL 157858 (S.C.A.G.)
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

Mr. Walter M. Bailey, Jr., 1981 WL 157858 (1981)

End of Document

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2