Could a South Carolina transportation commissioner serve a second consecutive term?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a senator asked whether a South Carolina Department of Transportation district commissioner could be elected to a second consecutive four-year term. The Attorney General's office said no. It reaffirmed earlier opinions reading the law's county-rotation rule to allow one term at a time, with another county's commissioner serving before representation returned.

The office said the same individual could be elected again after the rotation returned to that person's county, assuming the selecting delegations chose the person. It noted that the legislature had not changed the language since the earlier opinions. The letter was informal and addressed consecutive terms, not all future service.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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 a district commissioner immediately succeed themselves? A: The AG said no. It read the term and county-rotation language as barring consecutive service.

Could the same person ever serve again?
A: Yes. The opinion said a former commissioner could serve another nonconsecutive term when representation rotated back to the person's county.

Why did county rotation matter?
A: The cited law restricted one county from having a resident commissioner for more than one consecutive term. The office said another county had to be represented for an intervening term.

Did the 1999 letter depart from earlier AG views?
A: No. It expressly reaffirmed the earlier opinions and noted no intervening legislative change.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted Section 57-l-320(B) as printed in the PDF and interpreted its limit on consecutive county representation together with prior AG opinions. It distinguished a second consecutive term from a later term after the county rotation.

Citations and references

Statute: Section 57-l-320(B), as printed in the PDF.

Official title

Asking whether a district commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Transportation may be elected to and serve a second consecutive four-year term.

Requester

The Honorable Warren K. Giese, Member, South Carolina Senate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-8-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/1999/06/99june8giese.pdf

Original opinion text

':

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

I

June 8, 1999

The Honorable Warren K. Giese
Member, South Carolina Senate
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

I

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Senator Giese:
Attorney General Condon has forwarded your opinion request to me for reply. You have asked whether a district commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Transportation may be elected to and serve a second consecutive four-year term.

I

This question has been addressed in previous opinions of this Office. See Ops. Attv. Gen. dated May 15, 1997, May 9, 1997, February 25, 1996 and September 20, 1995. In the February 20, 1996 opinion to the Honorable Thomas G. Keegan, we advised the language contained in Section 57-l-320(B) ("[n]o county within a Department of Transportation district shall have a resident commissioner member for more than one consecutive term ... ") meant that a district commissioner of the South Carolina Department ofTransportation could not serve consecutive terms but would be limited to serving one term only, unless another commissioner's term intervenes. In the opinion, it was stated: I am of the opinion that the language in §57-l-320(B) relative to not serving more than one consecutive term means serving one term. By way of comparison, a municipal ordinance examined in Great South Fair v. City of Petal, 548 So.2d 1289 (Miss. 1989), provided that a carnival or fair with the specified number of mechanical rides could operate "not more than one ( 1) consecutive day" in the city. The ordinance challenged therein was interpreted to mean that the carnival or fair could operate for only one day. Applying that reasoning to the instant case, I would interpret the language of §57-1-320(8) to mean that a county may have representation for one term and one term only, but that representation may return to that county after representation has rotated to another county for at least one term. Because representation is to REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

F.KSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Warren K. Giese
June 8, 1999
Page2
rotate from county to county, the commissioner may not succeed oneself but may serve again at a later date, when the rotation returns to his or her county (assuming the delegations were to re-elect the individual).

I
I

I am still of the opinion that the obvious legislative intent was to place a limitation on the number of terms that a commission member may serve on the commission, namely, one. This legislative intent would be effectuated by limiting the designated appointive members of the initial commission to serve either their two year term or four year term, as may be appropriate depending on which congressional district they represent. While a commissioner representing one of the congressional districts may therefore not succeed himself, certainly at some time in the future that individual would be eligible to serve another non-consecutive four year term on the commission when the rotation returns to his or her county. Since the issuance of the previously cited opinions, no legislative changes have been forthcoming. It is well recognized that the 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 legislative intent. Scheff v. Township of Maple Shade, 374 A.2d 43 (1977); QQ. Ally. Gen. dated April 18, 1996. Accordingly, the previously cited opinions which conclude that a district commissioner may serve only one term unless another commissioner's term intervenes remain the opinions of this Office. 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 Very truly yours,

ll~K.~
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General