This is а declaratory judgment action to determine the validity of Acts No. R760 and No. R834 of 1978 which provide for the election of members of the Horry County Council. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the acts. We reverse, concluding they are unconstitutional as special legislation.
In August, 1975, Horry County voters selected the council-administrator form of government and expressed a preference for election of council members at large. In 1976, the general assembly enacted Act No. 845, providing for the election of eight council members and a chairman. Candidates were subsequently elected in the general election of November, 1976, and served as the governing body of Horry County until March, 1979.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits states from implementing any change in a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, praсtice, or procedure with respect to voting” without either obtaining a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” or submitting the plan to the Attоrney General of the United States *138 and receiving no objection within sixty days. 42 U. S. C. A. § 1973c.
An actiоn was instituted in the District Court for the District of Columbia to determine the validity of Act No. 845. The elected council members were permitted, by federal court order, to remain in office pending Justice Department approval. When the 1978 acts challenged here were enacted, the action was dismissed prior to any determination.
The 1978 acts increase the number of the Horry County Council members from eight to eleven, аnd provide for the election of council members from single member districts. As the Justice Department interposed no objection to these changes within the sixty day period, an election was held on March 20, 1979, and a new Horry County Council was elected.
The trial court concluded the 1978 acts were constitutional under the rationale of
Duncan v. County of York,
267 S. C. 327,
“There can be no doubt but that Act No. 448 is an act for a specific county. We think, however, it is constitutionаlly permissible as a ‘One-shot’ proposition, in view of § 1 of Article VIII . . . This constitutional prоvision contemplates that legislation by the General Assembly would be required to bring abоut an orderly transition, but such authority is a temporary nature and extends only to the point necessary to place Article VIII fully into operation.”
The trial court erred in concluding that our decision in
Duncan v. County of York
validates the aсts challenged here. The limited exception recognized in
Duncan
is cast against the overriding considerations of Article VIII, Section 7 which prohibits the general assembly from еnacting special legislation. In guaranteeing home rule to the counties, Arti
*139
ele VIII, Section 7 contemplates that the general assembly will play limited role in effеctuating the transition. This Court stated in
Knight v. Salisbury,
262 S. C. 565,
“It is clearly intended that home rule be given to the counties and that county government should function in the county seats rather than at the State Capitol. If the counties are to remain units of government, the power to function must exist at the county level.”
As we recognized in Duncan v. County of York, supra, the general law permits the general assembly to aсt to a very limited extent by special law in the establishment of each initial county gоvernment. See Code §§ 4-9-10 (a) and 4-9-90 (1976). It does not, however, allow the general assembly to repeatedly inject its will into the operation of county government. While we rеcognize the necessity for compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we conclude our constitution does not permit the general assembly to enact successive special legislation in an attempt to secure Justice Department sanction.
In view of our holding that the 1978 acts represent unconstitutional special legislаtion, the results of the recent election held pursuant to those acts are rеndered void. Accordingly, the previous council members elected in November, 1976, shall resume office and continue to govern until their successors are elected and duly qualified.
Reversed.