Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Leatherman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 18, 2017

Tom Davis, individually, and as a Citizen, Resident, Taxpayer, Qualified Elector and State Senator of South Carolina, Petitioner,
v.
Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., in his capacity as President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate; James H. Lucas, in his capacity as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives and as a member of the Legislative Council; Henry D. McMaster, in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor and President of the South Carolina Senate and as a member of the Legislative Council; Nikki R. Haley, in her capacity as Governor of South Carolina; Alan M. Wilson, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Luke A. Rankin, in his capacity as a member of the Legislative Council; F. Gregory Delleney, Jr., in his capacity as a member of the Legislative Council; Mark Hammond, in his capacity as a member of the Legislative Council; and the State of South Carolina, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2016-002473

          Submitted January 17, 2017

         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

          Petitioner Tom Davis, of Beaufort, pro se, Petitioner.

          William W. Wilkins, Andrew A. Mathias, and Konstantine P. Diamaduros, all of Greenville and Richard L. Tapp, Jr., of Charleston, all for Respondents Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., and Luke A. Rankin.

          Patrick G. Dennis, Charles F. Reid, Emma T. Dean, Richard L. Pearce, James H. Goldin, and Roland M. Franklin, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondents James H. Lucas and Francis G. Delleney, Jr.

          Henry D. McMaster, of Columbia, pro se, Respondent.

          Karl S. Bowers, Jr., and Richele K. Taylor, both of Columbia, for Respondent Nikki R. Haley.

          Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook, and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondents Alan M. Wilson and the State of South Carolina.

          Eugene H. Matthews and Melissa B. Manning, both of Columbia, for Respondent Mark Hammond.

          Larry A. Martin, of Pickens, pro se, as Amicus Curiae.

          PER CURIAM

         We granted the petition for original jurisdiction in this declaratory judgment matter to consider the questions posed by petitioner of whether "the provisions of Article III and Article IV of the South Carolina Constitution have been amended by virtue of" Act 289 of 2012 and Act 214 of 2014, as well as the vote of the general electorate in the 2012 general election, and if the articles have been amended, "what is the text of those amendments." Petitioner also requests that this Court, upon answering those questions, direct the Legislative Council to take action as necessary to ensure the text of the South Carolina Constitution, as published and made publicly available, conforms with this Court's decision.

         At the core of these questions is whether the amendments become effective "following the general election of 2018, " as specifically stated in Act 289 and similarly stated in the ballot text presented to and approved by the general electorate in 2012, [1] or May 29, 2014, the date of ratification of Act 214, as published by the Legislative Council.

         All of the parties who filed memoranda of law in this matter agree that the amendments at issue become effective beginning with or upon the general election of 2018. We likewise agree that this is evident from the language of the Acts and the ballot text. We therefore declare that Articles III and IV of the South Carolina Constitution have been amended by, and as set forth in, Acts 289 and 214, and that the text of those Acts, along with the text of the ballot presented to and approved by the voters in the 2012 general election, states the amendments shall ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.