Could the Edgefield County delegation adopt a school-board redistricting plan outside the General Assembly floor?

Plain-English summary

An Edgefield County school-board redistricting proposal had failed in the county legislative delegation on a tie vote. A representative asked whether the delegation could vote again elsewhere or whether the plan had to return to the General Assembly floor. The AG said the proposed redistricting required enactment on the floor of the General Assembly; county delegations had no inherent legislative power outside their role as members of that body.

The AG also observed that the particular plan appeared already to have been resubmitted to the General Assembly floor, so the immediate question had become moot. His broader answer concerned the limits on a county delegation's independent authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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

Could the county delegation enact the plan by voting somewhere else?
The AG said no. The redistricting plan had to go to the General Assembly floor for legislative action.

Why was the immediate question moot?
The opinion said the delegation appeared to have already resubmitted a bill addressing the redistricting issue to the General Assembly.

Did the delegation have legislative powers of its own?
The AG said a county delegation lacked inherent sovereign authority and could act only within powers granted by the General Assembly and constitutional limits.

Background and statutory framework

The letter addressed the constitutional location of legislative power and decisions limiting what a county delegation could do outside the General Assembly. It used that framework to answer the general procedural question after noting the specific plan's apparent resubmission.

Citations and references

The opinion cited Article Ill, Section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution and discussed Bill H.4142 in the original letter below.

Official title

Addressing redistricting in the Edgefield County school board districts. Specifically, if the redistricting plan were resubmitted, could the Edgefield County Delegation vote on it at a different location or must the plan go back to the floor of the General Assembly.

Requester

The Honorable Donald C. Smith, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-3-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05june3smith.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
A'TTORNEY GENE.RAL

June 3, 2005

I

I
I

The Honorable Donald C. Smith
Member, House of Representatives
921 West Woodlawn Avenue
North Augusta, South Carolina 29841
Dear Representative Smith:
By letter, you requested an opinion addressing redistricting in the Edgefield County school board districts. You explain that the proposed redistricting plan failed to pass the County Delegation due to a tie vote. Specifically, you have asked if the plan were resubmitted, could t he Edgefield County Delegation vote on it at a different location or must the plan go back to the floor of the General Assembly. Following review of this matter, this Office advises that a county redistricting plan must be enacted on the floor of the General Assembly. The supreme legislative power of the state is v~sted in the General Assembly. Article Ill, Section 1, South Carolina Constitution; Parker v. Bates, 216 S.C. 52, 56 S.E.2d 723, 725 ( 1949). A county legislative delegation possesses no inherent powers and cannot exercise sovereign authority, absent a delegation of authority to it by the General Assembly. State v. Watkins, 259 S.C. 185, 191 S.E.2d 135 (l 972). Jn addition, a legislative delegation is not pennitted to execute or enforce a law. See, Knotts v. S.C. Dept. ofNatural Resources, 348 S.C. 1, 558 S.E.2d 511 , 514 (2002). The members of a county delegation may not participate in a detennination as legislators because they may only exercise legislative power as members ofthe General Assembly. See, Gunter ' " B/anron, 259 S.C. 436, 441 , 192 S.E.2d 473 ( 1972). Furthermore, serious constitutional questions ari se when county delegations are empowered with executive or judicja] functions. See, Op. Atty. Gen. July 11 , 1983. We note that it appears the Edgefield County Delegation has conti11Ued forward in the legislative process by resubmitting the redistricting plan to the floor of the General Assembly. Bill H.4142 appears to deal with the same redistricting issue presented in your letter. Accordingly, the specific issue presented is moot. With respect to the general issue regarding the power of a county legislative delegation, the aforementioned law indicates that county delegations are limited in their authority. A grant of authority which would provide county delegations legislative power outside of their constitutional role as members of the General Assembly presents issues as to the constitutionality of the

v//l . ., ~ RFMl!E~
-~
/ )

477/ . -

8 UllDINO

•

Posr OmcE B ox 11549

•

COUJMDIA,

s.c. 292 11 -1549 • TEWHONE: 803-734-3970 • f ACS!MlU: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Donald C. Smith
Page 2
June 3, 2005

delegation's actions. Likewise, a legislative delegation may not exercise executive or judicial powers. Therefore, we concur with you that a redistricting plan resubmitted to a county delegation must go back to the General Assembly floor for voting.

I

;

b

Assistant Deputy Attorney General