718 S.E.2d 210
S.C.2011Background
- Act 308 of 2010 transferred budget oversight of Fairfield County School District from the Board to a finance committee appointed by the Fairfield Delegation.
- Governor vetoed Act 308; the House overrode the veto by 33–10, with a quorum present but only 43 voting.
- Senate purportedly overridden veto 1–0 with only one senator voting, citing local-legislation precedent.
- Board challenged Act 308 as unconstitutional veto override under Article IV, §21 and as impermissible special legislation under Article III, §34.
- Circuit court granted TRO; Court granted original jurisdiction and now determines the constitutionality of Act 308.
- Court concludes the veto override did not meet two-thirds of a quorum requirement; a judgment for the Board is entered on the veto override issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of two-thirds of that house | Board: requires two-thirds of a quorum present and acting. | State/Legislature: permits two-thirds of the full house (two-thirds of elected). | Two-thirds of a quorum required; override failed. |
| Whether Act 308 is special legislation under Art. III, §34(IX) | Act 308 is local and thus unconstitutional under IX. | Act 308 not barred; may be analyzed under subsection IX or X as appropriate. | Act 308 fails to be justified as permissible under IX; court proceeds to constitutional challenge on special legislation. |
| Whether Act 308 conflicts with general law | Budget power vested in district boards by general law; Act 308 conflicts. | No direct conflict; budget process can be tailored locally. | No direct conflict found sufficient to strike Act 308 as general-law conflict. |
| Whether a general law could standardize statewide budget-making | Uniform statewide approach necessary; Act 308 disrupts uniformity. | General-law uniformity not feasible; local variation justified. | Court ultimately resolves veto-override issue first; does not reach full statewide standardization ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Jennings, 67 S.C. 324 (1903) (two-thirds of house as then constituted and acting required to override veto)
- Morton, Bliss & Co. v. Comptroller General, 4 S.C. 430 (1873) (two-thirds of quorum or two-thirds of those present and acting; quorum governs action)
- Smythe v. Stroman, 251 S.C. 277 (1968) (local-law provisions in school matters; conflict with general law analyzed)
- Kearse v. Lancaster, 172 S.C. 59 (1934) (local law conflicts with general law governing school incorporation)
- Moseley v. Welch, 209 S.C. 19 (1946) (general vs. local legislation in school finance; special-provision analysis)
- Horry County v. Horry County Higher Educ. Com'n, 306 S.C. 416 (1991) (local-law prohibition when a general law could apply)
- United States v. Ballin, 149 U.S. 1 (1892) (quorum presence validates action despite non-voting members)