Could a transportation district elect a commissioner from the same county as South Carolina’s sitting at-large transportation commissioner?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina’s transportation department asked in 2009 whether a district commissioner candidate could come from the same county as the sitting at-large commissioner. The Attorney General concluded no. The statute stated that two people from one county could not serve on the commission simultaneously, and the office read a companion provision on at-large appointments as reinforcing that design.

The letter acknowledged a textual problem: the prohibition ended with “except as provided hereinafter,” but the Attorney General found no later exception. Because of that ambiguity, it suggested a declaratory judgment as a way to settle the question with finality. Its answer was an Attorney General interpretation, not a court ruling on the candidate’s eligibility.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. 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: Could a district commissioner and the at-large member come from the same county? A: The Attorney General said no under the statutes it reviewed; it found no operative exception to the simultaneous-service prohibition.

Q: Did the at-large appointment rule alone answer the reverse situation? A: It barred appointing an at-large member from a district commissioner’s county. The letter relied on the separate, broader simultaneous-service language to answer the question about later electing a district member.

Q: Why did the opinion mention a court action?
A: An “except as provided hereinafter” phrase appeared without a later exception. The office suggested a declaratory judgment to resolve that statutory ambiguity definitively.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read S.C. Code Ann. § 57-1-310 with Section 57-1-320(B), governing county representation, and Section 57-1-330(B), governing at-large appointments. It found legislative intent against two simultaneous commissioners from one county and did not find the exception implied by the cross-reference.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: S.C. Code Ann. § 57-1-310; Section 57-1-320(B); and Section 57-1-330(B).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-10-2009-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mcdonald-l-c-os-8798-6-10-09-election-of-district-commissioner-sc-dot.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATIORNEY G ENERAL

June 10, 2009

Linda C. McDonald, Chief Counsel
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Office of Legal Services
P. 0. Box 191
Columbia, South Carolina 29202-0 191
Dear Ms. McDonald:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether a person who resides in the same county as the sitting at-large member of the State Commission of the Department of Transportation would be eligible for election as a district commissioner. S.C. Code Ann. § 57-1-310 provides that the congressional districts of this State are constituted and created as the Department ofTransportation Districts of this State designated by the numbers of the respective congressional districts. Such provision states that "[t]he Commission of the Department ofTransportation shall be composed ofone member from each transportation district elected by the delegations of the congressional district and one member appointed by the Governor from the State at large." S.C. Code Ann.§ 57-1-320(B) statesthat"[n]o county within a Department of Transportation district shall have a resident commission member for more than one consecutive term and in no event shall any two persons from the same county serve as a commission member simultaneously except as provided hereinafter." (emphasis added). S.C. Code Ann.§ 57-l -330(B) states in part that
[t]he at-large commission member shall serve at the p leasure of the Governor. The at-large commission member may be appointed from any county in the State unless another commission member is serving from that county." (emphasis added).

In your letter you stated that Section 57-1-330(B) " ... makes it clear that the Governor could not appoint a person as the at-large commissioner from the same county as a seated district commissioner. The question we have is different. Our question is whether a district commissioner could be elected from the same county as the sitting at-large commissioner." As you stated, Section 57-1-330(B) is clear in its statement that the Governor may not appoint a person as the at-large commission member from the same county as a seated district commissioner. However, Section 57-1-320(B) states that " ... inno event shall any two persons from

REMBERT

c. D ENNIS B UILDING • Pos-r O FFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 292 LJ - L549 • TaEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMLLE 803-253-6283

Ms. McDonald
Page2
June 10, 2009
the same county serve as a commission member simultaneously except as provided hereinafter." (emphasis added). The problem with this statement is the apparent lack of any further statutory exception allowing for two members to be appointed from the same county. As stated in a prior opinion of this office dated March 4, 2008,
[i]n the construction of statutes, the dominant factor is the intent, not the language of the legislature. A statute must be construed in light of its intended purposes, and, if such purpose can be reasonably discovered from the language, the purpose will prevail of the literal import of the statute. Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 S.C. 67, 74, 321 S.E.2d 258, 262 (1984). "[W]ords ought to be subservient to the intent, and not the intent to the words." Greenville Baseball v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813, 816 (1942). It appears clear from the wording of Sections 57-1-320 and 57-1-330 cited above that it was the

intent of the General Assembly that two persons from the same county not serve as a Commission member. While Section 57-1-320 states that such provision would apply "except as provided hereinafter", there is no further provision with which I am aware setting forth an exception. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that no person who resides in the same county as the sitting at-large member of the State Commission of the Department of Transportation would be eligible for election as a district commissioner. However, admittedly, because of the ambiguity of Section 57-1320, consideration could be given to seeking a declaratory judgment to resolve this issue with finality. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

cd/(}hw.'
IU
~
By:
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

}

~Al~C,~,
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General