Taylor v. Roche, 20788

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 271 S.C. 505,248 S.E.2d 580
• Parties: In re Theodore N. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. John ROCHE, as Chairman and James Sexton, W. E. Taylor, Mrs. Sudie Wicker, Mrs. Cheryl Bannister, Heyward Amick, and David L. Ruff, Individually and as members constituting the Newberry County Board of Education, and Daniel R. McLeod as Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents. Ex parte John ROCHE, as Chairman and James Sexton, W. E. Taylor, Mrs. Sudie Wicker, Mrs. Cheryl Bannister, Heyward Amick, and David L. Ruff, Individually and as members constituting the Newberry County Board of Education, and Daniel R. McLeod, as Attorney General for South Carolina, Petitioners.
• Docket Number: No. 20788,20788
• Decision Date: 23 October 1978

Page 580

248 S.E.2d 580 271 S.C. 505 In re Theodore N. TAYLOR, Petitioner,
v.
John ROCHE, as Chairman and James Sexton, W. E. Taylor, Mrs.
Sudie Wicker, Mrs. Cheryl Bannister, Heyward Amick, and
David L. Ruff, Individually and as members constituting the
Newberry County Board of Education, and Daniel R. McLeod as
Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents.
Ex parte John ROCHE, as Chairman and James Sexton, W. E.
Taylor, Mrs. Sudie Wicker, Mrs. Cheryl Bannister, Heyward
Amick, and David L. Ruff, Individually and as members
constituting the Newberry County Board of Education, and
Daniel R. McLeod, as Attorney General for South Carolina, Petitioners. No. 20788. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Oct. 23, 1978.

[271 S.C. 506] Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Kenneth P. Woodington, Columbia, Joseph W. Hudgens, of Pope & Schumpert, Newberry, and Huger Sinkler, of Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for petitioners.

Jack F. McGuinn and Lewis C. Lanier, Columbia, for respondents.

Joseph H. Earle, Jr., Greenville, and Theodore B. Guerard, of Guerard & Applegate, Charleston, for Greenville County, O. Wayne Corley and Daniel R. McLeod, Jr., of McNair, Konduros, Corley, Singletary & Dibble, Columbia, in their own behalf, amici curiae.

Page 581

[271 S.C. 507] PER CURIAM:

This action was originally instituted on August 11, 1978 by the plaintiff below, Theodore N. Taylor, in the Court of Common Pleas for Newberry County seeking both a temporary and permanent injunction against John Roche, Chairman of the Board of the Newberry County School District, and his fellow board members, the defendants below, ¹ to prevent the School Board from issuing School Building Bonds of the School District of Newberry County in the amount of $2,700,000. On motion before this Court, of the petitioners here, and defendants below, the case was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Newberry County and was transferred to the original jurisdiction of this Court by Per curiam order dated August 24, 1978. ² The matter is now before this Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment propounded by the petitioners here, the defendants below.

The gravamen of the Complaint (styled Petition) is that new Article X of the South Carolina Constitution, which became effective from and after November 30, 1977, ³ was [271 S.C. 508] improperly submitted at the 1976 general election with the result that the amendatory process failed and new Article X is nugatory. The plaintiff contends that the form of question on the ballot used to obtain the approval of the electorate at the 1976 general election was so confusing and deceptively worded that it misled the voters. The defendants concede that the bonds may be issued only if new Article X is effective. ⁴

The proposed bonds are being issued pursuant to the provisions of S.C.Code Ann., Section 59-71-10, Et seq. (1976), known as the School Bond Act. The bonds are to be issued without the election prescribed by the School Bond Act prior to its amendment by Act 125 of the Joint Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina (1977), which was designed as the statutory implementation of new Article X. Section 6 of the Act removes the requirement of the election. It is the plaintiff's contention that the ballot question created a latent defect in the amendment by misleading him so that he did not know that the election requirement was being removed until he received notice of the proposed issuance of the bonds in Newberry County.

The Petitioners-Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) present three basic arguments in their motion for summary judgment:

Page 582

(1) Whether the failure of the plaintiff to contest the result of the general election held November 2, 1976, which submitted new Article X for the approval of the electorate, before the State Board of Canvassers, precludes him from contesting the election at this time?

[271 S.C. 509] (2) Whether the decision of this Court in Hyder v. Edwards, 269 S.C. 138, 236 S.E.2d 561 (1977) constitutes Res judicata with respect to the validity of the adoption of new Article X?

(3) Whether the question employed to submit new Article X to the electorate at the election, when read in connection with the simplified explanation of the question, both of which were printed on the ballot, fairly apprised the electorate of the scope and purpose of new Article X?

Because we have determined that the first question is dispositive of the appeal, we need not reach the issues raised in the second and third questions.

Under the common law there is no right to contest an election. The right...