Paschal v. State Election Com'n
| Decision Date | 07 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24197,24197 |
| Citation | 317 S.C. 434,454 S.E.2d 890 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | H.W. Pat PASCHAL, Jr. as Chairman of the Greenville County Democratic Party and the Greenville County Democratic Party, Respondents, v. The STATE of South Carolina ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellant. . Heard |
N. Heyward Clarkson, III and E. Scott Sanders, Gibbes & Clarkson, P.A., Greenville, for appellant.
Michael Parham, Parham and Smith, Greenville, for respondents.
The State Election Commission (SEC) appeals an order granting Respondent, H.W. Pat Paschal, Chairman of the Greenville County Democratic Party (Paschal), summary judgment. At issue is whether filing fees paid by unopposed political candidates, whose names were not listed on the ballot for the November, 1992 election, are to be retained by the SEC or the Greenville Democratic Party.
Paschal collected fees from fifteen candidates running for political office in the November, 1992 election. He forwarded a total of $8644.88 to the SEC as filing fees for all fifteen candidates . Eight of the candidates were unopposed and their names were therefore not listed on the ballot. Thereafter, Paschal demanded the SEC return the filing fees of the eight candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot. The SEC refused, and Paschal instituted this action. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that S.C.Code Ann. § 7-13-40 (Supp.1993) did not require transmittal of filing fees of candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot and, therefore, ordered the SEC to return the filing fees paid by Paschal.
Does S.C.Code Ann. § 7-13-40 (Supp.1993) entitle the SEC to retain filing fees of unopposed political candidates whose names do not appear on the ballots to be voted in primary elections?
S.C.Code Ann. § 7-13-40 (Supp.1993) provides, in part:
The filing fees for candidates whose names are on ballots to be voted on in If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for employing rules of statutory interpretation and the court has no right to look for or impose another meaning. Miller v. Doe, --- S.C. ----, 441 S.E.2d 319 (1994). Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning. Adkins v. Varn, --- S.C. ----, 439 S.E.2d 822 (1993) (emphasis supplied ). This Court cannot construe a statute without regard to its plain and ordinary meaning, and may not resort to subtle or forced construction in an attempt to limit or expand a statute's scope. Berkebile v. Outen, --- S.C. ----, 426 S.E.2d 760 (1993).
all primaries, 1 except municipal primaries, must be transmitted by the respective political parties to the State Election Commission and placed by the executive director ... in a special account designated for use in conducting the primaries and must be used for that purpose. (Emphasis supplied).
Here, it is undisputed that the names of the eight unopposed candidates in question did not appear on the ballots in the November, 1992 election. Accordingly, under the clear, unambiguous terms of the statute, their filing fees were not required to be transmitted to the SEC.
The SEC attempts to create ambiguity by pointing to other statutes and the fact that a number of local parties did send the filing fees for unopposed candidates. However, since the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, it is not within the province of this Court to search for another meaning. 2
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
... ... McQueen opined: ... [I] am unable to state that most probably and to a reasonable ... degree of medical certainty that ... Pacesetter Corp., 355 S.C. 361, 585 S.E.2d 292 (2003); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 454 S.E.2d 890 (1995); see also ... ...
-
State v. Dupree
... ... Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 454 S.E.2d 890 (1995) ; Brassell, 326 S.C. at 560, 486 ... ...
-
Grinnell Corp. v. Wood
... ... 123, 134, 638 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2006); Houck v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 366 S.C. 7, 11, 620 S.E.2d 326, 329 (2005); ... 361, 373, 585 S.E.2d 292, 298 (2003); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 436, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995); ... ...
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund
... ... State v. Scott, 351 S.C. 584, 588, 571 S.E.2d 700, 702 (2002); Georgia-Carolina ... Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., 355 S.C. 361, 585 S.E.2d 292 (2003); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 454 S.E.2d 890 (1995); Cowan v ... ...