Ex parte Tipton
| Decision Date | 03 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17179,17179 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ex parte B. F. TIPTON, Intervening Petitioner, Appellant, In re Sherwood SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Ed B. SMITH, E. Roy Stone, Jr., Mrs. D. A. Tillinghast, John Drake, C. Douglas Wilson, L. E. Brookshire, Tom Turner, Leon Campbell, L. M. Glenn, Constituting the Board of Trustees of Greenville Memorial Auditorium District, and John P. Ashmore, Belton R. O'Neall, J. A. Barry, Ansel M. Hawkins, Constituting the County Board of Commissioners of Greenville County, Respondents. |
Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Rainey, Fant, Brawley & Horton, Wyche, Burgess & Wyche, Greenville, for appellant.
Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for respondents.
The essential issue here involved is whether or not a certain proposal to amend Article X, § 5, of the Constitution of South Carolina was properly submitted to the voters in the general election of November 2, 1954.
Article X, § 5, imposes two limitations upon the power of a municipal corporation to incur bonded indebtedness, viz.: (a) that its bonded debt shall not exceed eight per cent of the assessed value of all taxable property within its boundaries; and (b) that 'wherever there shall be several political divisions or municipal corporations covering or extending over the territory, or portions thereof, possessing a power to levy a tax or contract a debt, then each of such political divisions or municipal corporations shall so exercise its power to increase its debt under the foregoing eight per cent limitation that the aggregate debt over and upon any territory of this State shall never exceed fifteen per centum of the value of all taxable property in such territory as valued for taxation by the State.'
Greenville Memorial Auditorium District is a municipal corporation in Greenville County. In connection with the contemplated issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing a public auditorium within the district, as authorized by Act No. 534 of 1949, XLVI Stat. at L. p. 1258, it developed that the bonded debt of the district, after the issuance of said bonds, would still be within the eight per cent limitation, but would exceed the fifteen per cent overall limitation before mentioned. Validation of the proposed bond issue required, therefore, amendment of Article X, § 5, by removing the fifteen per cent overall limitation as to these bonds. To this end, on March 20, 1954, the General Assembly adopted the following Joint Resolution, XLVIII Stat. at L. p. 2175:
'A Joint Resolution Proposing An Amendment To Section 5 of Article X of The Constitution Of 1895, So As To Provide A Limitation Upon The Bonded Indebtedness Of Greenville Memorial Auditorium District, In Greenville County, South Carolina.
'Be It Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
'Section 1. There is proposed the following amendment to Section 5, Article X, of the Constitution of this State: add at the end of the section the following: 'Provided, that the limitations imposed by this Section 5, Article X, shall have no application to the bonded indebtedness of Greenville Memorial Auditorium District, in Greenville County, South Carolina, and the Greenville Memorial Auditorium District may incur bonded indebtedness for corporate purposes to an amount not exceeding eight per cent of the assessed value of all the taxable property in the district.'
'Section 2. The proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots shall be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written thereon: 'Shall Section 5, Article X of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to permit Greenville Memorial Auditorium District in Greenville County to incur bonded indebtedness to an amount not exceeding eight per cent of the assessed value of all taxable property in the district?
In favor of the amendment ()
Opposed to the amendment ()
Those voting in favor of the amendment shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the words 'In favor of the amendment', and those voting against the amendment shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the words 'Opposed to the amendment"'.
The ballot as aubmitted to the voters in the general election read as follows:
A Joint Resolution Proposing An Amendment to Section 5 of Acticle X Of The Constitution of 1895, So As To Provide A Limitation Upon The Bonded Indebtedness Of Greenville Memorial Auditorium District, In Greenville County, South Carolina.
In favor of the amendment ()
Opposed to the amendment ()'
A majority of those voting upon the question as thus submitted voted 'in favor of the amendment'.
It will be noted from the foregoing:
1. That the necessary and only purpose of the desired constitutional amendment was the removal of the fifteen per cent overall debt limitation;
2. That the title of the proposing resolution indicated that the purpose of the proposed amendment was not to remove, but 'to provide a limitation' upon the district's bonded indebtedness;
3. That the proposing resolution set out the exact words in which the question of adopting the proposed amendment should be printed or written on the ballot for submission to the voters;
4. That the question as thus phrased in the proposing resolution was in itself misleading, inasmuch as it made no clear reference to the real purpose of the desired amendment, to wit: the removal of the fifteen per cent limitation, but on the contrary referred only to the eight per cent limitation, which already existed and was not to be affected; and
5. That the ballot did not submit the question in the language prescribed by the proposing resolution, but submitted instead the misleading title of the resolution.
The Courts are slow to strike down either the legislative proceedings or the election incident to the adoption of a constitutional amendment, and will indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of their validity. As was said in State ex rel. Corry v. Cooney, 70 Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007, 1009: 'The question is not whether it is possible to condemn the amendment, but whether it is possible to uphold it, and we shall not condemn it unless in our judgment its nullity is manifest beyond a reasonable doubt'.
It is not necessary that the question on the ballot include the full text of the proposed amendment; it is sufficient that it describe the amendment plainly, fairly, and in such words that the average voter may understand its character and purpose.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kahalekai v. Doi
...properly submitted to the voters as one amendment.7 The ballot need not contain the full text of a proposed amendment. Tipton v. Smith, 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640 (1956). But in such case the ballot should contain "a description of the proposition submitted in such language as to constitut......
-
Sprague v. Cortes
...advertisement or posting in the outer areas of the polling place as Justice Baer comfortably assumes. See, e.g., Ex parte Tipton, 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640, 644 (1956) (“It is the ballot, not the posted notice, with which the voter comes into direct contact. The reasonable assumption is t......
-
Stackhouse v. Floyd
...the amendment as set forth in the proposing resolution must appear on the ballot submitted to the voters. In the case of Ex Parte Tipton, 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the question on the ballot need not include the full text of the proposed amendme......
-
Opinion of the Justices
...to uphold it, and we shall not condemn it unless in our judgment its nullity is manifest beyond a reasonable doubt. '' Tipton v. Smith (1956) 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640 (quoted with approval in Watts v. Oliphant (1965) 246 S.C. 402, 143 S.E.2d 813, We have no hesitation in saying that ther......