Did South Carolina’s 2002 Sumter school-board election maps change the school districts’ boundaries?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether 2002 legislation changing the election districts for the boards of Sumter School Districts 2 and 17 also changed the school districts' own boundaries. The Attorney General concluded that it did. He compared maps showing the old District 17 boundary with maps of the newly reapportioned election districts and observed that the election lines expanded and contracted across the earlier school district line.

The acts did not expressly discuss the outer boundaries of the two school districts. The opinion said legislation of this kind sometimes included language preserving the existing district boundary despite changes to election districts, but these acts contained no such language. With no stated legislative intent to keep the earlier school district lines, the AG treated the new election-district lines as changing the school district boundaries too.

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 2002 acts expressly say they changed the Sumter school districts' outer lines?
No. The opinion said the acts did not specifically refer to those boundary lines, but also did not say they stayed unchanged.

Why did the AG conclude the school district boundaries had changed?
He relied on the maps showing the election lines crossing the former District 17 boundary and on the absence of language preserving the old school district lines.

Which school districts did the opinion address?
It addressed Sumter School Districts 2 and 17, whose board election districts the 2002 acts reapportioned.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion examined Acts Nos. 466 and 468 and maps supplied during the AG's review. It contrasted these acts with a possible savings clause stating that a school's district boundaries were not altered by election redistricting. Because no such clause appeared, the office agreed with the requester's view that both school district lines changed.

Citations and references

• Acts Nos. 466 and 468 are the 2002 measures discussed in the opinion.

Official title

Questioning whether in enacting 2002 legislation (see: Acts. Nos. 466 and 468 of 2002) reapportioning the election districts in both parties were the school district lines themselves changed.

Requester

The Honorable Murrell Smith, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-15-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05sept-15-Smith.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTE.R
ATIDRNEY GEi'IERAL

September 15, 2005

The Honorable Murrell Smith
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 580
Sumter, South Carolina 29151
Dear Representative Smith:
fu a letter to this office you referenced that Sumter County has two school districts, School District 17 and School District 2. During the 2002 legislative session, legislation was introduced which reapportioned the election districts from which members ofthe boards of trustees ofthese two school districts would be elected beginning with the election in 2002. See: Acts. Nos. 466 and 468 of2002. For instance, Act No. 468 provides that

i
\

.. .

Beginning with the election conducted in 2002, the seven defined single-member election districts from which members of the Board of Trustees of Sumter County District 17 must be elected are as follows: .... fu establishing the election districts within each district, reference was made to VTDs (voting tabulation districts) and census blocks. You have questioned whether in enacting this legislation reapportioning the election districts in both districts were the school district lines themselves changed.

In responding to your question, I met with Mr. Bobby Bowers who made available a map of School District 17 before the enactment of Acts Nos. 466 and 468 along with maps ofDistricts 2 and 17 showing the newly reapportioned election districts within School Districts 2 and 17 as established by these Acts.. It is apparent from reviewing these maps that in establishing the reapportioned election districts, the boundary lines for these districts expands and contracts at various locations the boundary line of District 17. Acts Nos. 466 and 468 do not themselves specifically refer to the boundary lines for Districts 2 and 17. However, in establishing the reapportioned election districts there was no provision stating that the boundary lines of Districts 2 and 17 were themselves not altered. I have been informed that in many instances in legislation dealing with the clarification or alteration of boundary lines for election districts of a particular school district the following type language was inserted:

~f~m:J~rNG · PosrOrncE Box 11549 •

COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211- 1549

• TEI.EPHONE: 803-734-3970 • fACSIMll.I:: 803-253-6283

)
The Honorable Murrell Smith
Page2
September 15, 2005

The boundaries of... (a particular school district) ... are not altered by the provisions of this act. These school district lines are as defined by law and any census blocks which may be divided are done so only for statistical purposes and to establish a population base. No such language was included in Acts Nos. 466 and 468 dealing with the Sumter school districts.

I
I

Inasmuch as there has been no expression of legislative intent that the school district lines for Sumter Districts 2 and 17 were not to be altered by the reapportioned election district lines within such districts, it is the opinion of this office that the district lines for Districts 2 and 17 should be considered altered so as to conform to the reapportioned election district lines. Therefore, I agree with your conclusion that the district lines for these districts have been changed.

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

c«~;ti µcJJ._
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

t
!

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

I

L

ff
i

·Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General