718 S.E.2d 432
S.C.2011Background
- Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment that the General Assembly neither authorized nor mandated 2012 Presidential Preference Primaries by the State and County Election Commissions.
- The 2011-2012 Appropriations Act included Provisos 79.6 and 79.12 permitting use of funds to conduct the 2012 Presidential Preference Primaries.
- SC law previously limited § 7-11-20(B)(2) to the 2008 election cycle, but the budget provisos are argued to suspend that temporal limitation for 2012.
- The Republican Party scheduled a January 21, 2012 primary; petitioners argued funds and authority were insufficient or non-existent.
- The majority holds that provisos 79.6 and 79.12 suspend the temporal limitation and authorize the 2012 primaries to be conducted by the State Election Commission and county commissions.
- Dissenting Justice Hearn would not find a statutory mandate requiring 2012 primaries, emphasizing no current statutory obligation and urging limitation to partisan conduct by parties absent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to conduct 2012 primary | Petitioners contend no statutory authority or mandate exists for 2012 primaries. | Provisos 79.6 and 79.12 authorize participation by the State Election Commission and do not shift mandate to counties; budget saves 7-11-20(B)(2). | Yes; provisos suspend the temporal limit and authorize conduct by SEC and counties. |
| Sufficiency of funds for 2012 primary | Funds appropriated are insufficient to cover counties' costs. | Funding sufficiency is a political question not justiciable; appropriations and provisos permit conduct. | Nonjusticiable; not addressed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. Jennings, 68 S.C. 411 (1904) (appropriations can suspend a general statute when irreconcilable conflict exists)
- Brooks v. Jones, 80 S.C. 443 (1908) (appropriation can control where conflict with statute exists)
- Plowden v. Beattie, 185 S.C. 229 (1937) (appropriation acts may determine salaries established by statute)
- McLeod v. Mills, 256 S.C. 21 (1971) (suspension of conflicting permanent law during the budget year)
- Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. Stewart, 347 S.C. 377 (2001) (legislative intent and failure to enact similar provisions informs interpretation)
- Joytime Distrib. & Amusement Co., Inc. v. State, 338 S.C. 634 (1999) (title/caption inform legislative intent in statutory interpretation)