"'.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and Edward D. Sloan, Jr., individually, and on
Petitioners,
behalf of all others similarly situated,
v.
The S.C. House of Representatives, The S.C. Senate, The Hon. James H. "Jay" Lucas, as
Speaker of the House, The Hon. Henry D. McMaster, as President of the S.C. Senate, and
The State of South Carolina,
Respondents.
. • .,
~ l '} OJ'' J.". .~...;.; t.t "r,..
.' - .
PETITION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Petitioners move this Court to take original jurisdiction of the matters alleged in
the attached Complaint for reasons set forth herein, in the Complaint and in the Affidavit
filed herewith.
October 18,2016
THE CARPENTER LAW FIRM, PC
James G. Carpenter, Esq. S.C. Bar No. 1136
Jennifer 1. Miller, Esq., S.C. Bar No. 13611
L. Warren Clayton III, S.C. Bar No. 72500
819 East North Street
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
(864) 235-1269 Tel.
(864) 331-3083 Fax.
Attorneys for Petitioners
Petitioners incorporate by reference the factual and legal allegations in their Complaint, filed herewith, and the sworn testimony in the affidavit of Petitioner Edward D.
Sloan, Ir.
S.C. Constitution Article III § 17 states, "Every Act ... shall relate to but one
subj ect, and that shall be expressed in the
titl~"
(emphasis added). Act 275 of 20 16 re-
lates to more than one subject, and thereby violates S.C. Constitution Article III § 17.
Pari I of Act 275 restructures- the gO'vern~ce of the Department of Transportation
and the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank.
Part II of Act 275 addresses the funding of the Department of Transportation and
provides for the issuance of $2.2 billion in new bond funding for the DOT.
Part III makes other structural changes including transferring the Chief Internal
Auditor of the Department of Transportation, all his associated support staff, and all associated appropriations to the State Auditor's Office.
1.
The Public Interest Is Involved in This Matter.
These issues are matters of public great public importance in the purest sense and
justify the use ofthe original jurisdiction in this Court. SCACR 245 (a) states,
If the public interest is involved, or if special grounds of emergency or
other good reasons exist why the original Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court should be exercised, the facts showing the reasons must be stated in
the petition with supporting affidavits.
!d. Because further delay in the lower courts before a final determination of this matter
does not protect public interest, this Court has the constitutional right and responsibility
to take original jurisdiction.
It may well be as stated in plaintiffs brief that the framers of the Constitution, by adding the embracing words, "and other original and remedial
2
Petition
\VTits," intended to grant to the Supreme Court the right to take original jurisdiction of such matters as might in emergencies and in protection of the
public interest be more properly determined in the original jurisdiction
than relegated to ;he equity calendars of lower courts with the attendant
delay before final determination.
Daniel v. Conestee Mills, 183 S.C. 337,191 S.E. 76 (1937), citing King v. Aetna Ins. Co.,
168 S.C. 84, 167 S.E.12 (1932). Thus, this case addresses matters of great public importance, requiring the immediate attention of this Court.
II.
The ¥~!fec '~.f.p&p,tJ3~ D~ternringd iin a Lower Court in the First Instance
Without Material Prejudice to the Rights of the Parties Because an Appeal of
a Lower Court Decision Would be Likely and the Ultimate D~cision Delayed.
SCACR 245 (a) requires,
The Supreme Court will not entertain matters in its original jurisdiction
,vhen the matter can be determined in a lower court in the first instance,
without material prejudice to the rights of the parties.
ld.
Petitioners respectfully submit that these matters require immediate consideration
by this Court because of the gravity of the Constitutional violations and the likelihood of
continued violation while a lower court action and appeal consider this matter. Any delay
required by appeals of a lower court decision would prolong the Constitutional violation,
as well as the harm to this State that-the Constitution seeks to prevent. Accordingly, Petitioners will suffer prejudice if this Court does not grant original jurisdiction. For the
foregoing reasons, Petitioners move this Court to take original jurisdiction of this matter.
3
...
Petition
Respectfully submitted,
THE CARPENTER LAW FIRM, PC
ent , .C. Bar No. 1136
orth Street
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Tel. (864) 235-1269
Fax (864) 331-3083
Attorneys for Petitioners
October 18,2016
4
Petition
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
South Carolina Public Interest Foundation )
and Edward D. Sloan, Jr., individually, and )
)
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners, .
)
)
v.
)
)
The S.C. House of Representatives, The
)
S.C. Senate, The Hon. James H. "Jay" Lu- )
)
cas, as Speaker of the House, The Hon.
)
Henry D. McMaster, as President of the
S.c. Senate, and The State of South Caro- ~
lina,
-"\
-)
Respondents.
)
IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
OF THE SUPREME COURT
CASE NO: 2016- _______
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
--------------------------~)
Petitioners, complaining of the Respondents would show unto the Court:
1.
Petitioner South Carolina Public Interest Foundation is a not for profit corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and dedicated
to the public interest, including the upholding and proper application of the South
Carolina Constitution.
2.
Petitioner Edward D. Sloan, Jr. is a citizen, resident, taxpayer, and registered elector
oftlle State of South Carolina. He brings this action individually on his behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated.
3.
Respondents include the Sout!l Carolina House-of Representatives, the South Carolina Senate, and the State of South Carolina.
4.
Respondents James H. "Jay" Lucas and Henry D. McMaster are officers of the S.C.
General Assembly and are named as Respondents in their official capacities.
5.
This Court possesses jurisdiction under SCACR 245; the South Carolina Constitution Article III § 17; S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-10 et seq., known as the Uniform
Declaratory Judgment Act; and the following decisions: South Carolina Public In-
terest Foundation v. Lucas, 416 S.C. 269, 786 S.E.2d 124 (2016); South Carolina
Public Interest Foundation v. South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank,
403 S.c. 640, 744 S.E.2d 521 (2013), American Petroleum Institute v. S. C. Dep't
of Revenue, 382 S.C. 572, 677 S.E.2d 16 (2009), South Carolina Public Interest
Foundation v. Harrell, 378 S.C. 441, 663 S.E.2d 52 (2008), Sloan v. Department
o/Transportation, 379 S.C. 160,666 S.E.2d 236 (2008), Sloan v. Hardee, 357 S.C.
495,640 S.E.2d 457 (2007); Cornelius v Oconee County, 369 S.C. 531, 633 S.E.2d
492 (2006); Sloan v. Department of Transportation, 365 S.C. 299,618 S.E.2d 876
(2005), Sloan v. Wilkins, 362 S.C. 430, 608 S.E.2d 579 (2005); Sloan v. Sanford,
357 S.C. 431,593 S.E.2d 470 (2004); Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531,
590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003), Sloan v. School District o/Greenville County, 342
S.C. 515, 537 S.E.2d 299 (Ct. App. 2000), Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C.
519, 511 S.E.2d 69 (1999), Newman v. Richland County Historic Preservation
Commission, 325 S.C. 79, 480 S.E.2d 72 (1997).
6.
Petitioners possess standing based on the great public importance of the issues they
raIse.
7.
Sloan possesses standing as a citizen, resident, taxpayer, and registered elector of
the State of South Carolina.
8.
S.C. Constitution Article III § 17 states, "Every Act ... shall relate to but Q!!!:
subject, and that shall be expressed in the title".
9.
On June 2, 2016 Respondents enacted Act 275 of2016.
10/18/20162:10 PM
2
10.
Part I of Act 275 restructures the governance of the Department of Transportation
and the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank.
11.
Part II of Act 275 addresses the funding of the Department of Transportation and
provides for the issuance of $2.2 billion in new bond funding for the DOT.
12.
Part III makes other structural changes including transferring the ChiefInternal Auditor of the Department of Transportation, all his associated support staff, and all
associated appropriations to the State Auditor's Office.
--
13.
---
--- -
-
-
~
-- -
~
~---
---------------
The Supreme Court ruled that changing the Governor's appointment power over
the Secretary of Transportation is not "reasonably and inherently related to the raising and spending of tax monies." South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v.
Lucas, 416 S.C. 269, 277, 786 S.E.2d 124, 129 (2016).
14.
Act 275 of2016 relates to more than one subject, and thereby violates S.C. Constitution Article III § 17.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray the Court to declare that Act 275 violates the S.C.
Constitution, III § 17 and is therefore null and void; to grant Petitioners their costs and
attorneys' fees under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-77-300 ff.; and to grant such other and further
relief as the 9o.urt de~m~ just and. proper.
Respectfully submitted,
THE CARPENTER LAW FIRM, P.e.
es
r, S.C. Bar No. 1136
819 East North Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Tel. (864) 235-1269
Fax (864) 331-3083
Attorney for the Petitioners
10/18/20162:10 PM
3
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows:
1. My name is Edward D. Sloan, Jr. I am a citizen, resident, taxpayer, and registered elector
of Greenville County, in the State of South Carolina. I petition the Court to take this
action in its original jurisdiction. I submit this affidavit pursuant to Rule 245 of the South
Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice.
2. S.C. Constitution Article III § 17 states, "Every Act ... shall relate to but one subject,
3. On June 2, 2016 Respondents enacted act 275 of2016.
4. Part I of Act 275 restructures the governance ofthe Department of Transportation and the
State Transportation Infrastructure Bank.
5. Part II of Act 275 addresses the funding of the Department of Transportation and
provides for the issuance of $2.2 billion in new bond funding for the DOT.
6. Part III makes other structural changes including transferring the Chief Internal Auditor
of the Department of Transportation, all his associated support staff, and all associated
appropriations to the State Auditor's Office.
7. Act 275 of 2016 relates to more than one subj ect, and thereby violates S. C. Constitution
Article III § 17.
---"-"--"
-~"-~-"
8. The taxpayers, citizens, and electors of South Carolina are entitled to have their
government representatives abide by the South Carolina Constitution.
9. If this matter were heard in the Circuit Court, the normal time of the trial process would
likely extend for several years, including appeals, during which time ongoing and
additional Constitutional violation would likely occur.
2
Affidavit
10. I anticipate that Respondents will" not dispute the contents or authenticity of
Constitutional and Statutory provisions quoted above and that facts alleged herein.
11. I anticipate that this case will raise no factual issues, but will simply require the
interpretation and application of the South Carolina Constitution to the legislation in
question.
12. I respectfully submit that this case involves strong public interest and presents special
grounds of emergency, and that the Supreme Court should exercise its original
jurisdiction.
Further the Affiant saith naught.
Petitioner
SUbS~1?ed
and sworn to before me
thisj ti<:lay of ~he'l' 2016.
Notary Public, State of So
My commission expires ..>.....<."'-'-"''-''+-'-'-'---,-''---='----'=_
3
Affidavit