Could a South Carolina town give an ordinance its final reading in redline format?

Plain-English summary

Summerville's attorney asked whether presenting a proposed ordinance with additions and deletions shown as redlines violated the requirement that it be in the form required for final adoption. The 2016 AG predicted that redline format did not itself invalidate the ordinance. The proposal still had to comply with state adoption requirements and Summerville's local form rules.

The office reasoned that state law left much of ordinance form to municipalities and did not forbid redlining. It found no redline prohibition in Summerville's code either. Its conclusion addressed format only; it did not excuse the separate statutory readings or local requirements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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: Was a redlined text automatically invalid at a final reading?
A: The AG predicted no, provided the proposal otherwise satisfied the state and town rules for adoption.

Q: Did the opinion eliminate the required ordinance readings?
A: No. It quoted the state rule requiring two readings on separate days with the prescribed interval.

Q: Could local ordinance rules still control format?
A: Yes. The opinion said municipalities set their own form rules and considered Summerville's code before answering.

Background and statutory framework

Section 5-7-270 required a written proposed ordinance in final adoption form and set reading requirements. The opinion interpreted “form required for final adoption” with Summerville's own ordinance code. Because neither source expressly barred a redlined proposal, the AG predicted a court would accept that format when the other requirements were met.

Citations and references

• The opinion said a proposed ordinance “will not be held invalid because it was introduced in redlined format.”
• It found no “prohibition in the South Carolina Code of Laws or the Summerville Code” on that format.
• Source: South Carolina Attorney General, June 28, 2016.

Official title

On whether an ordinance presented for the second and final reading in redline is in final form because it is redlined.

Requester

G. Waring Parker, Attorney for Town of Summerville.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-28-2016/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Parker-W.-OS-10011-FINAL-Opinion-6-28-2016-01043847xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

•South
Alan Wilson
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 28,2016

Mr. G. Waring Parker, Esq.
Attorney for Town of Summerville
200 S. Main Street

Summerville, SC 29211

Dear Mr. Parker,

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter dated February 9, 2016 to the Opinions section regarding whether a proposed municipal ordinance presented for second and final reading in a

"redlined"' format is "in the form required for final adoption." Based on the analysis below, we believe a court will determine that a "redlined" format complies with the statutory requirement found in South Carolina Code Section 5-7-270 that "every proposed ordinance... be introduced in writing and in the form required for final adoption." Law/Analvsis

The South Carolina Code of Laws establishes the procedures for introduction and passage of municipal ordinances as follows:

Every proposed ordinance shall be introduced in writing and in the form required for final adoption. Each municipality shall bv ordinance establish its own rules and procedures as to adoption of ordinances. No ordinance shall have the force of law until it shall have been read two times on two separate days with at least six days between each reading. S.C. Code Ann.§ 5-7-270(emphasis added).

To determine what form is required for final adoption of a municipal ordinance, we are guided by "[t]he cardinal rule of statutory interpretation, [which is] is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible." Mitchell v. City of Greenville. 411 S.C. 632,634, 770 S.E.2d 391,392(2015). Statutes are to be interpreted with a "sensible construction," and a "literal application of language which leads to absurd consequences should be avoided whenever a reasonable application can be given consistent with the legislative purpose." United States v. Joshua. 607 F.3d 379, 385 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Rippetoe. 178 F.2d 735,737(4th Cir. 1949)).

This Office has explained in a prior opinion that the Legislature left discretion to municipal governing bodies to establish the rules for adoption and passage of ordinances. Op. S.C. Att'v Gen.. 1976 WL 30721 (March 17, 1976). The form required for final adoption "means only that the proposed 'Black's Law Dictionary defines "redlining" as "the process, usu. automated, of creating, for an existing document, an interim version that shows, through strike-outs and other typographical features, all deletions and insertions made in the most recent revision." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Rembert C.Dennis Building • Post Office Box 11549 • Columbia,SC 29211-1549 • Telephone 803-734-3970 • Facsimile 803-253-6283

Mr. G. Waring Parker, Esq.
Page 2

June 28, 2016

ordinance must meet such requirements as to form as may be established by the council for the adoption

of ordinances, e.g., the inclusion of a title, recitals, a preamble, an enacting clause and so on..." Id.2 Accordingly, we apply the principal here that "[t]he absence of any legislative amendment following the issuance of an opinion of the Attorney General strongly suggests that the views expressed therein were consistent with the legislative intent." Op, S.C.

Att'v Gen.. 2014 WL 2757535, at *4 (June 2, 2014)

(citing Scheff v. Township of Maple Shade. 149 NJ.Super. 448, 374 A.2d 43 (1977)).

For the reasons

stated above, it is this Office's opinion that the Legislature did not intend to establish form requirements for proposed municipal ordinances in the South Carolina Code of Laws, but rather left the establishment

of such requirements to the discretion of municipal governing bodies. We next look to the Summerville Code to determine whether additional form requirements have been established for the municipality.

In fact, the Summerville Code does establish the following

requirements regarding ordinances:
(a) Style. The style of all ordinances shall be "Be it Ordained by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Summerville, in Council Assembled."

(b) Codification. In the event of a codification or recodification of the general ordinances of the town, the engrossing thereof in the book of ordinances shall not be required.

The ratification thereof shall be sufficient if a copy of such codification shall be

signed by the mayor and clerk and treasurer with the seal of the town affixed. Notation thereof shall be made in the ordinance book, and a copy of such codification shall be carefully preserved in the archives of the town.

(c) Notation of amendment or repeal. The clerk and treasurer shall write on the first page of every ordinance, if the ordinance has been amended or repealed, the words "amended" or "repealed," as the case may be, with a reference to the date and page of the ordinance book where the amending or repealing ordinance can be found.

Summerville, S.C., Code § 2-107. This section does mandate a style requirement for introducing or passing ordinances, but does not address the whether a redlined document can be considered in the form required for final adoption. Id.

We are unable to locate any prohibition in the South Carolina Code of Laws or the Summerville Code regarding the introduction of proposed municipal ordinances in redlined format for final adoption. Inasmuch as no express or specific provision proscribes the introduction of municipal ordinances in redlined format, "the law will not permit such a limitation to be implied." Op. S.C. Att'v Gen.. 2006 WL 2593082 (August 24, 2006). It is this Office's opinion that a proposed municipal ordinance which otherwise complies with S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-270 and Summerville, S.C., Code § 2-107 will not be held invalid because it was introduced in redlined format.

2 This Office recognizes a long-standing rule that it will not overrule a prior opinion unless it is clearly erroneous or a change occurred in the applicable law. Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2013 WL 6516330 (Nov. 25, 2013); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2013 WL 3762706 (July 1, 2013); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2009 WL 959641 (March 4, 2009); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2006 WL 2849807 (September 29, 2006); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2005 WL 2250210 (September 8, 2005); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 1986 WL 289899 (October 3, 1986); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 1984 WL 249796 (April 9, 1984).

Mr. G. Waring Parker, Esq.
Page 3
June 28. 2016

Conclusion
For the reasons described above, we believe a court will likely find a proposed municipal ordinance presented in redlined format would "in the form required for final adoption'' as required by the South Carolina Code of Laws and the Summerville Code.

This Office is, however, only issuing a legal

opinion based on the current law at this time and the information as provided to us.

Until a court or the

General Assembly specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this Office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter. Additionally, you may also petition the court for a declaratory judgment, as only a court of law can interpret statutes and make such

determinations. See S.C. Code § 15-53-20.

If it is later determined otherwise, or if you have any

additional questions or issues, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Matthew I louck

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED? AND APPROVED BY:

W,
Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General

/