Could York City Council extend expiring council terms to move municipal elections to a new schedule?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
York's mayor asked in 2005 whether the City Council could extend four terms due to expire in April 2006 by eighteen months. The proposed change would align municipal elections with supervision by the county election board starting in November 2007. The AG's response referred the mayor to earlier opinions rather than giving a new, detailed analysis.
The letter quoted a June 2003 opinion as allowing municipal term extensions so long as the action was reasonable, served a public purpose rather than the mayor's or council members' benefit, and received Department of Justice preclearance before implementation. Those qualifications were the substance of the response. The letter did not independently decide whether York's proposed ordinance met each one, and the referenced opinions were described as enclosures rather than reproduced in this PDF.
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
Did the 2005 letter say a council could always extend its own term?
No. It quoted an earlier AG conclusion conditioned on reasonableness, public purpose, and federal preclearance before implementation.
What election change prompted York's question?
The council was considering an eighteen-month extension of four seats to move toward county-supervised municipal elections in November 2007.
Did the letter find that York had obtained preclearance?
No. It repeated preclearance as a condition from the earlier opinion and did not report that the proposed change had been approved.
Background and statutory framework
This short response relied on a June 2003 AG opinion and other prior opinions enclosed with the letter. The available PDF contains the November 2005 response and its quoted conditions, but does not reproduce those enclosures.
Citations and references
- AG opinion dated June 6, 2003: conditional conclusion quoted in the letter.
Official title
Questioning the authority of the York City Council to extend its terms through an ordinance which would extend four council seats set to expire in April, 2006 for an additional eighteen months.
Requester
The Honorable J. Edward Lee, Ph.D., Mayor, City of York
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-4-2005/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05nov4lee.pdf
Original opinion text
The State of South Carolina
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsrER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
November 4, 2005
f
The Honorable J. Edward Lee, Ph.D.
Mayor, City of York
P. 0 . Box 500
York, South Carolina 29745
I
Dear Mayor Lee:
In a letter to this office you indicated that the York City Council has given first reading approval to an ordinance which would extend four council seats set to expire in April, 2006 for an additional eighteen months. Such is being done in order to allow the York County Election Board to begin supervision of the York municipal elections beginning in November, 2007. You have questioned the authority of the council to extend its terms.
Enclosed are copies of several prior opinions of this office which are responsive to your question. The June 6, 2003 opinion concluded that for the reasons stated in the opinion, " ...as long as the exercise of this power is reasonable, for a public purpose (not for the benefit of the council members and the mayor) and is precleared with the Department of Justice before the changes are implemented...", municipalities are authorized to extend terms. With kind regards, I am,
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
~D~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
j;J
R EMBERT
/......{ ./Jh/A'#
£·Pris BUUDIJ'I() • Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, s.c. 292 11 -1549 • T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • fACSIMfi..E: 803-253-4\:un
( )ft~/ '
What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2005. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace