Did South Carolina's constitutional lottery restriction apply to teachers, private lawyers, or National Guard members in 2006?

Plain-English summary

In a one-page cover letter, the Attorney General responded to Senator Ryberg's question about the South Carolina Constitution's restriction on lottery participation. It said teachers and private attorneys generally were not public officers and therefore were not covered. The letter described application to National Guard members as questionable in light of Sloan v. Sanford and said the powers and duties of each other position had to be considered individually.

The cover letter refers to an enclosed January 7, 2002 opinion. The official PDF contains only the cover letter, so the enclosure's reasoning is not reproduced here.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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

Did the AG say teachers could play the State Lottery?
Yes. The letter said teachers generally were not public officers and thus would not fall under the cited constitutional prohibition.

What did it say about private attorneys?
It reached the same general conclusion for private attorneys, even when described as officers of the court.

Did it decide the rule for National Guard members?
No. The letter called application of the restriction to them questionable and did not give a categorical answer.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed Art. XVII, § 8 of the South Carolina Constitution and said the inquiry depended on the powers and duties of the position at issue. It cited Sloan v. Sanford when expressing uncertainty about National Guard members. The reasoning of the referenced 2002 opinion is not available in this PDF.

Citations and references

• Art. XVII, § 8 of the South Carolina Constitution: lottery restriction discussed in the letter.
• Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.C. 431, 593 S.E.2d 470 (2004): cited concerning National Guard members.

Official title

Regarding the applicability of Act. XVII, § 8 of the South Carolina Constitution to those who play the State Lottery.

Requester

The Honorable W. Greg Ryberg, Member, SC Senate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-2-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mar2-06-Ryberg.pdf

Original opinion text

H E~RY MCMASTER
:\TTORS E.Y G ENERAL

March 2, 2006

The Honorable W. Greg Ryberg
Senator, District No. 24
203 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator Ryberg:

In response to your question regarding the applicability of Art. XVII, § 8 of the South Carolina Constitution to those who play the State Lottery, please find an opinion, issued to you on January 7, 2002, which answers your questions. As that opinion suggests, whether or not the prohibition found in Art. XVIl, § 8 of the Constitution is applicable to a particular position depends upon the powers and duties of that position. However, as to your questions regarding private attorneys (as officers of court), and teachers, the constitutional prohibition would be inapplicable to these persons. These positions are not public "officers," and therefore teachers and private attorneys (as officers of the court) would generally not be prohibited from playing the State Lottery. It is also questionable whether, in light of the recent case of Sloan v. Sanford,357 S.C. 431 , 593 S.E.2d 470 (2004), the prohibition is applicable to members of the National Guard. Again, the applicability of Art XVII, § 8 must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

VeM~~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/an
Enclosure

~··#~ }/'"'

Omco Box 11 549 • CoLUM 8'A. SC 292 11 -1549 •

Tar, '~""

KO. 714. mn • " ' "''"' •

0
"' ''" • ""