Mitchell v. City of Greenville

• Decision Date: 12 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 27506.,27506.
• Citation: 770 S.E.2d 391,411 S.C. 632
• Parties: William C. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015–000270.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

411 S.C. 632

770 S.E.2d 391

William C. MITCHELL, Petitioner

v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, Respondent.Appellate Case No. 2015–000270.

No. 27506.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted March 3, 2015.

Decided March 12, 2015.

Samuel Darryl Harms, III, of Harms Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, for Petitioner.

Michael Stuart Pitts, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner asks this Court to hear this matter seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in our original jurisdiction. Respondent opposes the request. We grant the petition for original jurisdiction, dispense with further briefing, and grant declaratory relief to respondent.

Petitioner argues respondent has adopted an ordinance that improperly provides for two methods of nomination for municipal elections. Petitioner asks this Court to declare the ordinance is null and void, and that the method of election will continue to be partisan in the City of Greenville.

South Carolina Code Ann. § 5–15–60 (2004) allows one of the following methods for nominating candidates and determining the results of nonpartisan elections: (1) the nonpartisan plurality method; (2) the nonpartisan election and run-off method; and (3) the nonpartisan primary and general election method.

The ordinance challenged by petitioner states:

... [t]he city of Greenville shall cease operating under the partisan method of nominating and electing candidates in municipal elections. The City of Greenville adopts the nonpartisan plurality method as authorized by S.C.Code § 5–15–612 (2004).... To achieve this purpose, Chapter 14, “Nominations and elections,” of the City of Greenville Code of Ordinances shall be amended to conform with the amended language as set forth on the attached exhibit, which is incorporated herein, with strikes indicating words which are deleted and double underlining indicating added language.

Greenville, SC Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 2014–25 (May 12, 2014). The attachment contains the following in Section 14–2: “The methodsmethod of nomination for municipal elections shall be partisan[nonpartisan plurality / nonpartisan run off ,] as provided in this chapter and in S.C.Code 1976, § 5–15–10 et seq. and S.C.Code 1976, tit. 7.” Id.

Petitioner argues that, because the attachment to the ordinance indicates the method to be used is “nonpartisan plurality / nonpartisan run off,” and does not choose between the two methods, the ordinance is invalid, and the City must conduct partisan elections. We disagree.

Issues involving the construction of ordinances are reviewed as a matter of law under a broader standard of review than is applied in reviewing issues of fact. Eagle Container Co., LLC v. Cnty. of Newberry, 379 S.C. 564, 666 S.E.2d 892 (2008). The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible. I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000). When interpreting an ordinance, legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used. Charleston Cnty. Parks and Recreation Comm'n v. Somers, 319 S.C. 65, 459 S.E.2d 841 (1995). An ordinance must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with...