Where respondents placed two separate bond proposals in the same referendum, requiring voters to support both or neither, the referendum question was invalid.
We reverse the circuit court’s order upholding the validity of the referendum.
Pursuant to the referendum question, if a voter wanted to authorize up to $30 million in funding for library facilities, he must also vote to fund up to $13 million for recreational facilities. Libraries and recreational facilities are distinct for funding purposes. As a result, the referendum question contained two separate questions; therefore, it was not possible to vote “in favor” of one and “opposed” to another. S.C. Code Ann. § 7-13-400.
Our precedent and the statutory requirements for referendum questions render the question here unlawful. Home Rule delegated municipalities broad power to enact regulations, resolutions, and ordinances, so long as they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of the state. S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-30. The rule requiring separation of distinct county bond propositions into different referendum questions—espoused in Ross v. Lipscomb, 83 S.C. 136, 65 S.E. 451 (1909), and reflected in § 7-13-400—is part of this general law.
Reversed and remanded.
Ziegler v. Dorchester County (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-030-19, 7 pp.) (Kaye Hearn, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Dorchester County (Edgar Dickson, J.) W. Andrew Gowder and Michael Rose for appellants; Steve Matthews for respondents. S.C. S. Ct.