Martin v. Ellisor, 19993

• Decision Date: 11 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 19993,19993
• Citation: 264 S.C. 202,213 S.E.2d 732
• Parties: J. Allen MARTIN, Respondent, v. James B. ELLISOR, Executive Director of the Court Carolina ElectionCommission, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 732

213 S.E.2d 732

264 S.C. 202

J. Allen MARTIN, Respondent, v. James B. ELLISOR, Executive Director of the Court Carolina ElectionCommission, Appellant.

No. 19993.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 11, 1975.

Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen., C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., and Asst. Attys. Gen., Treva G. Ashworth and Joseph R. Barker, Columbia, for appellant.

Kenneth E. Allen, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the Richland County Court requiring appellant, as Executive Director of the South Carolina Election Commission, to allow respondent to copy computer tapes containing lists of the names of registered voters compiled by the said Election Commission. The relief was sought and granted pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (Section 1--20 et seq., 1974 Supplement to South Carolina Code of Laws) and Section 23--31(C)(11) of the Code Supplement.

Section 1--20.4 of the Freedom of Information Act authorizes injunctive relief for the enforcement of its provisions in the following language:

'Any citizen of the State may apply to the circuit court for injuntive relief to enforce the provisions of this article in appropriate cases.'

Appellant renews here the contention, unsuccessfully made in the lower court, that the quoted provisions of Section 1--20.4, by designating the circuit court as the court to which application may be made for enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act, effectively granted exclusive jurisdction to the circuit court in such matters and that the Richland County Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the present action. We agree.

Section 1--20.4, quoted above, specifically designates the remedy for a denial of access to public records and the court to which application for relief may be made. The relief is by injunction and the circuit court is the forum. The language is clear, plain, and unambiguous. Certainly, there is nothing in the provisions of this statute to indicate that, when the General Assembly designated the 'Circuit Court,' it also meant the Richland County Court.

However, Code Section 15--764, as amended in 1972 by Act No. 1567 (57 Stat. 3070), granted to the Richland County Court concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court (Court of Common Pleas) in equity matters; and respondent argues that, since concurrent jurisdiction is so granted in equity matters, a grant of jurisdiction to the circuit court to enforce the Freedom of Information Act by injunction was also a grant of like jurisdiction to the Richland County Court. We do not think that such conclusion is justified.

While the General Assembly did not specifically confer exclusive jurisdiction on the circuit court in matters pertaining to the enforcement of rights under the Freedom of Information Act, we think the intent to do so is apparent from the nature of the subject matter and the right created.

The Freedom of Information Act was designed to guarantee to the public reasonable access to certain information concerning the activities of the government. The act creates the right to such information, specifies the remedy for the enforcement of such right, and also specifically designates the court in...