When did an appointed Lexington County auditor have to leave office after losing a primary?

Plain-English summary

After an elected Lexington County auditor resigned, the governor appointed an interim auditor to serve until a successor was elected and qualified. The appointee later lost the primary and asked when she must leave office. The Attorney General said she would serve until a successor was elected in the November 1998 general election and qualified. That successor would complete the unexpired elected term.

The letter relied on earlier AG opinions and a court decision concerning another county auditor vacancy. It treated the next general election, rather than the primary result alone, as the event leading to a successor for the vacant elected office.

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: Did losing the primary immediately end the interim auditor's appointment?
A: No. The AG said the appointee served until a successor was elected at the general election and qualified.

Q: Would the November winner begin a new full term?
A: The letter said the successor would serve the remainder of the previous auditor's elected term.

Q: Why did the governor appoint an auditor in the first place?
A: The elected auditor had resigned, leaving the office vacant. The governor appointed an interim replacement pending election of a successor.

Background and statutory framework

The letter described the vacancy and gubernatorial appointment, then applied earlier interpretations of the county-auditor vacancy statutes and a judicial ruling on an interim appointee's term.

Citations and references

• Section 4-11-20, identified in the letter as the applicable vacancy statute in the earlier case.
• Section 1-3-220, cited as reinforcing that result.

Official title

Regarding the time at which the interim Lexington County Auditor must leave office.

Requester

The Honorable Irby Schultz, Lexington County Auditor

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-22-1998-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98june22schultz.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

I

June 22, 1998

The Honorable Irby Schultz
Lexington County Auditor
212 South Lake Drive
Lexington, South Carolina 29072
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Ms. Schultz:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. It is my understanding that Mr. Robert J. Caughman was elected to serve as Lexington County Auditor in November of 1996 for a four year term beginning on July 1, 1997. Mr. Caughman resigned as Auditor effective August 16, 1997. By Executive Order 97-28, dated August 18, 1997, you were appointed by Governor Beasley as Lexington County Auditor until such time as your successor is elected and qualified. In June of 1998, a primary election was held for the position of Auditor in which you lost. Thus, a new individual will be elected Auditor in the upcoming November General Election for the remainder of Mr. Caughman's four year term. You have asked for this Office's opinion as to when you must leave office. In opinions dated April 2, 1997 and April 1, 1993 , this Office concluded that an individual appointed by the Governor as County Auditor would serve on an interim basis, until the next general election, at which time a successor would be elected to serve the unexpired portion of the term. This conclusion is based on the relevant statutes and an April 1978 quo warranto-type action brought in Greenwood County to determine, essentially, the extent of the term of the interim appointee of the Governor serving as Greenwood County Auditor. In this case, the auditor-elect died approximately two weeks before his term was to begin. The Honorable James E. Moore detennined that Section 4-11-20 of the South R EMBERT

c. DENNIS R u tt.DING
/ "(\

(I

/

-

•

.
~~~A,

POST O r-FtCE Box

11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211·I549

•

TEL F.PlfONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACS IMILE: ROJ-253-6283

The Honorable Irby Schultz
Page 2
June 22, 1998
Carolina Code of Laws was the applicable statute, a result reinforced by the provisions
of Section 1-3-220 of the Code. Thus, the interim gubernatorial appointee would hold
office only until the next general election, at which time a successor would be elected to
serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Judge Moore continued:

I
I

Furthermore, while the statutes, of course, control my decision, I am
confident that my decision is supported by reasons of sound public policy.
When an elective office is rendered vacant by death or other reasons, it
seems apparent to me that the people should have the right to elect the
successor as soon as possible, which the Legislature has determined to be
at the next general election. Conversely, when the office was filled by
appointment in the first instance, no reason appears why the replacement
appointment should not be made to last as long as the original appointment.
No reason appears why a replacement appointment for an elective office
should be permitted to continue any longer than necessary.
Applying the foregoing to the facts of your situation, you, as the gubernatorial
appointee, would serve until a successor is elected in the general election of November
1998 and qualified, the successor being elected to serve the remainder of the term for
which Mr. Caughman was elected in 1996.

I

~

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

a1r.:?

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General