Could inactive voter signatures count on a South Carolina public service district nominating petition in 1996?

Plain-English summary

In a 1996 informal opinion, an assistant attorney general addressed signatures on a nominating petition for public service district commissioner. The statute then required a specified number of qualified district electors, with the lesser of 250 signatures or five percent of district electors controlling. The author read the then-current definition of qualified elector as requiring an active voter-roster entry. Inactive voter signatures therefore could not satisfy the petition requirement.

The author also said the State Election Commission had no discretion to certify a candidate for the general-election ballot when the petition lacked enough valid active-voter signatures. The local registration board had to verify the signatures against registration applications under the petition-checking provision discussed. The opinion turned on the voter definitions in force in 1996.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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: Did an inactive voter's signature count toward the petition minimum?
A: The 1996 letter said no because the then-cited qualified-elector definition required an active roster entry.

Q: Could the Election Commission certify the candidate anyway?
A: The author said no if the petition lacked the required number of valid signatures from active voters.

Q: Who checked petition signatures?
A: The letter said the local county voter-registration board verified them against original registration applications under the cited rule.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked about a candidate's petition and possible decertification. The author read the petition requirement together with the then-current definition of qualified elector and the active voter roster. He concluded that inactive signatures were insufficient and that certification depended on meeting the numerical threshold with qualified voters.

This was an informal opinion signed by an assistant attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• The letter quotes the public service district petition threshold and the then-current qualified-elector definition.

Official title

Asking whether the nominating petition for the office of commissioner of a public service district may contain the signatures of “inactive” voters.

Requester

The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell, Senator, District No. 41, Vice Chairman, Joint Delegation, Charleston County Legislative Delegation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-28-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96oct28mcconnell.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLES M O L O;>;Y Co:-:m>N
ATTORNEY GD1ER.-\L

October 28 , 1996

Senator Glenn F. McConnell
Vice Chairman, Joint Delegation
Charleston County Legislative Delegation
Post Off ice Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Senator McConnell :
You have asked this Office whether the nominating petition for the off ice of co~"~issioner of a public service district may contain the signatures of "inactive 11 voters. You have also inquired as to whether the State Election Commission may decertify such a candidate for public service d·istrict commissioner upon learning that the candidate's peti tion lacks the appropriate signatures. South Carolina law allows a candidate for the of fic·e of commissioner of a public service district to be nominated, and placed on the general election ballot, if such candidate's nominating petition contains the signatures of "not less than two hundred fifty qualified electors of the district .
. or five
percent of the total number of electors of the district, whichever is the lessor, if such petitions are otherwise in compliance with
[the] chapter." s.c. Code Ann. §7-11-71 (Law. co-op. Supp. 1995). Thus, the statute requires a candidate for public service district commissioner to obtain no more than two hundred fifty ( 250) signatures of qualified electors. Once the requisite signatures are obtained, the petition must be verified by the local county b oard of voter registration. Every signature on a petition requiring five hundred (500) signatures or less must be checked for validity against the signatures of the voters on the original applications for registration. s.c. Code Ann. §7-11-85 (Law. Coop. Supp. 1995 ).

R1.\11\1KrC.DF'''' BtlU'!'- · •

•

Posr OFFlct' Bo:x l l:"-llJ

•

Cot.l".\Hl l ·\ , S .C. .'9~ 1 1- 1 5-19

•

T El.EPl!O:\E: ~0-~- 7 U. 1<nn

•

r-"'''"

"'"·'·n .r,, , ;

Senator Glenn F . McConnell
Page 2
October 28, 1996

The term "qualified elector , " as used in S7-ll-71, means : any person whose name' is contained on the active roster of voters maintained by the State Election Commission and whose name has not been removed from the roster for any of the reasons named in items ( 2) and ( 3) of subsection (C) of §7-3-20 and who possesses a valid registration certificate. S.C. Code Ann. S7-l-20 (Law Co-op. 1976 & Supp. 1995) (emphasis added). Section 7-3-20 mandates that the executive director of the State Election Commission shall delete from the roster of qualified electors the name of "any elector who has failed to vote in each of two consecutive State-wide general elections" and any other election held during the interval between the two general elections. s.c. Code Ann . S7-3-20 (C)(3) (Law Co-op. 1976); see also, Op. Atty. Gen. , dated September 1, 1981 (persons deleted for failure to vote are considered "inactive" voters). Therefore, by def ini ti on of the term "qualified elector," the nominating petit ion for the off ice of public service district commissioner cannot contain the signature of an inactive voter. When interpreting any statute, the predominate purpose is to ascertain legislative intent. See, State v. Martin, 293 s.c. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987) . "The words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to lirni t or expand the statute• s operation. 11 S. C. Op. Atty. Gen. (Feb. 7, 1996). Generally, there is no right to impose or look for another meaning where a word is plain, unambiguous and conveys clear and definite meaning. Wynn v. Doe, 255 s.c. 509, 180 S.E.2d 95 (1971). The words "shall" and "must" ordinarily indicate a mandatory duty. See, s.c. Dept. of Highways and Pub. Transp. v. Dickinson, 288 s.c . 189, 341S.E.2d134 (1986); s.c. Op. Atty. Gen . (Feb. 7, 1996) (citing , Merchants Credi t Serv. v . Chouteau Co . Bank, 114 P.2d 1074 (Mont. 1941); 73 Arn Jur 2d, Statutes S22 (1981). Therefore, based upon the definition of the cerm "qualified elector, the State Election Commission has no authority or discretion to certify a candidate for the general election ballot whose nominating petition does not contain · the requisite number of signatures of active voters. 11

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 questi ons referenced herein. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

Senator Glenn F. McConnell
Page 3
October 28, 1996

Should you have any other questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call our Office. With kind regards, I am Very

General
RIL/fg

. .,,.