Could Spartanburg County legislators alone choose the next transportation commissioner for South Carolina’s fourth district?

Plain-English summary

A representative asked who could elect the next Department of Transportation commissioner for the fourth district. The sitting commissioner had lived in Greenville County, so the author said the next commissioner had to come from another county under the then applicable county-rotation rule. The question was whether Spartanburg County’s legislators therefore controlled the election.

The Assistant AG said they did not. Section 57-1-325 required a majority vote of the congressional district delegation as a whole. A Spartanburg resident could win without a majority of Spartanburg’s own legislators if the full district delegation supplied the required majority. The opinion made no determination whether Laurens County legislators participated, because the population figures needed to apply the split-county rule had not been supplied.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Could Spartanburg’s legislators alone elect the next commissioner? A: No. The author said the required majority came from the congressional district’s delegation, rather than the delegation of the candidate’s home county.

Q: Why could the next commissioner not come from Greenville County? A: Under the county-rotation provision discussed in the letter, the author said Greenville had held the seat for the preceding term and representation had to move to another county.

Q: Did Laurens County’s legislators get to vote?
A: The letter did not decide that. Laurens was divided between transportation districts, and the author said he lacked the population figures needed to determine its assigned district for this election.

Background and statutory framework

Sections 57-1-310, 57-1-325, and 57-1-330 supplied the district structure and election rules. Section 57-1-320(B) supplied the county-rotation limit. The author distinguished a candidate’s county residence from the delegation whose majority vote elected the commissioner.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Section 57-1-310; Section 57-1-325; Section 57-1-330; Section 57-1-320(B).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-15-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97may15hawkins.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY (" , ; ._,; 1JO">;
ATTORNEY GE!'l '-'. \ L

·May 15, 1997

The Honorable John David Hawkins
Member. House of Representatives
314-A Blatt Building
Columbia. South Carolina 29211
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Hawkins:

'*

I

L
.

1

Your recent opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. In your request, you ask questions regarding the election of members to the Commission of the Department of Transportation. The congressional districts of this State are constituted and created Department of Transpo11ation districts of the State, designated by number corresponding to the numbers of the respective congressional districts. Section 57-1-310. The Commission of the Department of Transportation shall be composed of one member from each transportation district elected by the delegations of the congressional district and one member appointed by the Governor, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, from the State at large. Id. If a county is divided among two or more Department of Transportation districts, for purposes of electing a commission member, the county is deemed to be considered in the district which contains the largest number of residents from that county. Section 57-l320(Al. The method of election for the district commissioner is found in Section 57-1-325. Legislators residing in the congressional district shall meet upon written call of a majority of the members of the delegation of each district for the purpose of electing a commissioner to represent the district. Section 57-1-325. A majority present, either in person or by vvritten proxy, of the delegation from a given congressional district constitute a quorum for the purpose of electing a district commissioner. Id. No person may be

~~_i: D~uJ:iJ,J ·, Po' r

O i+!CL Box 11549

•

C OLC\IBIA .

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803 -734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Representative Hawkins
Page 2
May 15, 1997

f

I

L

I
F

i

elected c01rumss10ner who fails to receive a maJonty vote of the members of the delegation. Id. The delegation must be organized by the election of a chairman and a secretary, and the delegations of each congressional district shall adopt rules as they consider proper to govern the election. Id. Commissioners must be elected by the legislative delegation of each congressional district. Section 57-1-330. For the purposes of electing a commission member, a legislator shall vote only in the congressional district in which he resides. Section 57-1-330. The statute provides that no county within a Department of Transportation district shall have a resident commission member for more than one consecutive term and in no event shall any two persons from the same county serve as a commission member simultaneously except as provided by the statute. Section 57-1-320(B). This Office has interpreted this section 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. Op. Atty. Gen. dated February 20, 1996. Because representation is to rotate, the commissioner may not succeed oneself but may serve again at a later date, when the rotation returns to his or her county (assuming reelection of the individual). Id. Based on the information that you have provided, the fourth circuit of the South Carolina Department of Transportation is comprised of Spartanburg, Greenville, Union and part of Laurens County. 1 Apparently, for the last four years, the commission member has been a resident of Greenville County. Therefore, the next commission member must be a resident of another county within the congressional district. You ask whether Spartanburg County would have the sole authority to elect a highway commissioner for the next term. The election of a new commission must be done in accordance with Section 57-1325. Pursuant to this statute, no person may be elected commissioner who fails to receive a majority vote of the delegates within the congressional district. This means that in order to be elected, the commission member must receive a majority of votes from the delegates

1

Since the population numbers for Laurens County have not been provided, this opinion makes no determination on whether the Laurens County Legislative Delegation would participate in the election of a commission member from district four. When a county is divided among two or more Department of Transportation districts, as Laurens County is, for the purposes of electing a commission member, the county is deemed to be considered in the district which contains the largest number of residents from the county. Section 57-l-320(A).

f
Representative Hawkins
Page 3
May 15, 1997
of the congressional district, not just a majority of the votes from the delegates of the county where the commissioner is a resident. For example, an individual from Spartanburg County could be elected commissioner without receiving a majority of votes from the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation by receiving a majority of votes from the delegates that comprise the congressional district as a whole. In other words, the vote of each member of the legislative delegations of a congressional district is of equal weight and impo11ance in the election of the commission member.

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 Very truly yours,

7.J.A. ~oJ
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General