Ziegler v. Dorchester Cnty.
| Citation | 828 S.E.2d 218,426 S.C. 615 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27885,Appellate Case No. 2018-000395 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gerard E. ZIEGLER; Brenda Barrington III; James Stephen Greene, Jr.; William A. Harbeson; David Messinger; South Carolina Public Interest Foundation; and Dorchester County Taxpayers Association, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. DORCHESTER COUNTY; Dorchester County Council; Charles D. Chinnis, George H. Bailey, Sr., Jay Byars, Willie R. Davis, Carroll S. Duncan, Larry Hargett and William R. Hearn, Jr., in their official capacities as members of Dorchester County Council, Respondents. |
W. Andrew Gowder, Jr., of Austen & Gowder, LLC, of Charleston and Michael T. Rose, of Mike Rose Law Firm, PC of Summerville, for Appellants.
Steve A. Matthews, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.
James G. Carpenter, Jr., of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae, Edward D. Sloan, Jr.
This case concerns the validity of a referendum question—passed during the 2016 elections—which granted the Dorchester County Council authority to issue up to $30 million in bonds for library facilities and up to $13 million for recreational facilities. Finding there was no indication the voters did not understand it, the circuit court determined it was not improper. Because the question contained two separate bond proposals and required voters to support both or neither, we hold it was unlawful.
On July 18, 2016, the Dorchester County Council passed an ordinance ordering a referendum to be held during the November 8, 2016, elections. The referendum sought to determine whether the county would be authorized to issue no more than $43,000,000 in general obligation bonds to construct new library and recreational facilities. The question as written in the ordinance and to be placed on the referendum was:
Shall Dorchester County, South Carolina be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 for funding the acquisition of land and the design and construction of new library facilities in Summerville and North Charleston and general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $13,000,000 for funding recreational facilities, including the development of the Dorchester County Courthouse Park in St. George, the Ashley River Park and the Pine Trace Natural area in Summerville, and the development of hiking, biking and pedestrian trails, together with associated infrastructure, at various locations throughout the County?
On September 8, 2016, then-State Senator Paul Thurmond requested an Attorney General's Opinion on the legality of the wording of the Dorchester County bond referendum, as he believed a separate vote was required for each specific different purpose for which bonds are to be issued. On September 30, 2016, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion agreeing with Senator Thurmond. The opinion concluded that "a court would likely determine neither the Constitution nor the General Assembly intended to give county council the authority to combine multiple separate issues for bond issuance into one referendum question."
On October 3, 2016, the Appellants—residents of Dorchester County, the Dorchester County Taxpayers Association, and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation—sent the Attorney General's Opinion to the County. Appellants requested the County correct the question by separating the parks and libraries issues into two different questions to be voted on separately, or cancel the referendum. They also filed a complaint in circuit court seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that including two questions in one referendum question was unconstitutional, violated South Carolina law and the intent of the General Assembly, violated public policy, and, as a result, the issuance of any bonds and any other action taken based on the results of the referendum would be null and void; (2) a permanent injunction enjoining Dorchester County from conducting the referendum; and (3) costs and attorneys' fees. No hearing was held prior to the election. In fact, no hearing was held until August 24, 2017.
The question remained on the ballot as written and the referendum was held as scheduled. The referendum passed with just over 60% of the vote. The Appellants did not file an amended complaint after the referendum was held. Respondents—Dorchester County and the individual members of the Dorchester County Council—filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
The circuit court granted Respondents' motion. The court determined the issue was the intent of the bond question and whether the voters of Dorchester County understood its results, and concluded there were no factual allegations to suggest they did not. Appellants filed a Rule 59(e) motion, which was denied. Appellants appealed to the court of appeals, but the case was transferred to this Court pursuant to Rule 204(a) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. To date, the bonds have not been issued.1
Did the referendum question containing proposals to authorize bonds for library facilities and for recreational facilities comply with South Carolina law?2
Whether reviewing a grant of summary judgment or a judgment on the pleadings, we apply the same legal standards as the trial court. Rodarte v. Univ. of S.C. , 419 S.C. 592, 600, 799 S.E.2d 912, 916 n.11 (2017). We review questions of law de novo . Town of Summerville v. City of North Charleston , 378 S.C. 107, 110, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008).
Article X, subsection 14(4) of the South Carolina Constitution authorizes political subdivisions, such as counties, to incur general obligation bonded indebtedness for a "public purpose" that is also a "corporate purpose."3 S.C. Const. art. X, § 14 (4). Title 7 of the South Carolina Code applies to all elections in South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. § 7-1-40 (1976). Section 7-13-400 provides, "[t]he form of ballot in an election on the issuance of bonds ... shall be a statement of the question or questions" and must permit the voter to vote "In favor of the question" or "Opposed to the question." S.C. Code Ann. § 7-13-400 (1976).
We addressed the legality of the form of a bond referendum question in a similar context over 100 years ago. In Ross v. Lipscomb , 83 S.C. 136, 65 S.E. 451 (1909), "a majority of the freeholders of the town of Gaffney" signed a petition "asking for an election to be ordered to vote $125,000 bonds for the extension of the electric lights and waterworks and the installation of a sewerage system." 83 S.C. at 137, 65 S.E. at 452. In an election conducted pursuant to the petition, a majority of Gaffney voters were in favor of the issuance of the bonds. 83 S.C. at 138, 65 S.E. at 452. As a result, the town council passed an ordinance authorizing and directing the issuance of coupon gold bonds to the amount not exceeding $125,000. Id. However, the board of public works "failed and refused" to sell the bonds. 83 S.C. at 139, 65 S.E. at 452.
Thereafter, petitioners—members of the Gaffney town council—sought a writ of mandamus requiring the board to sell the bonds.
83 S.C. at 142, 65 S.E. at 454. We noted, "The first ground of objection" by the board of public works "is ‘that said election, and the bonds issued in pursuance thereof, are invalid and unsalable, and that the proposition submitted to the voters did not separately state the items, nor the amount of bonds to be issued, for the extension of the electric lights, for the extension of the waterworks, and for the installation of a sewerage system.’ " 83 S.C. at 143, 65 S.E. at 454.
83 S.C. at 143-44, 65 S.E. at 454. Although we interpreted a statute in reaching our decision, we also noted that "even if the manner in which the different propositions were submitted to the voters is considered apart from the statute, the same result would follow." Id . at 144, 65 S.E. at 454. This is because Id .4
Here, we agree with the circuit court that the referendum question was not misleading. Indeed, it was quite clear that, if a voter wanted to authorize up to $30 million in funding for library facilities, he must also vote to fund up to $13 million for recreational facilities. Libraries and recreational facilities are distinct for funding purposes.5 See S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-30(5)(a) (Supp. 2017) (); see also id . §§ 4-9-35, 38-39. As a result, the referendum question contained two separate questions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v. Singh, Appellate Case No. 2015-000434
...abuse of discretion." BB&T v. Taylor , 633 S.. 5, 5, 6 S.. 5 (2006). "We review questions of law de novo." Ziegler v. Dorchester County , 426 S.C. 615, 619, 828 S.E.2d 218, 220 (2019).Although the family court's resolution of a motion under Rule 60(b) is addressed to its sound discretion, t......
- State v. Robinson
- Delaney v. First Fin. of Charleston, Inc.
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Estate of Houck
...& Tel. Co. , 306 S.C. 101, 114-15, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545 (1991) ). "We review questions of law de novo." Ziegler v. Dorchester County , 426 S.C. 615, 619, 828 S.E.2d 218, 220 (2019).LAW/ANALYSISI. Mortgagors' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Deutsche Bank argues the master erred by finding......