It was a recent opinion from Mr. McMaster's office that renewed the question of whether there can be only one answer to a three-part question on whether the tax should be levied and its proceeds used to fund the area's mass-transit system, road projects and the purchase of green space. The opinion concluded that one state law allows the issues to be merged into one question while another law requires separate yes or no answers.

Some county officials questioned the motivation behind the opinion, contending that it came too late to get the kind of judicial guidance it recommended. They challenged the attorney general's office to help get that guidance, contending that was the only realistic way to obtain a final resolution before the November general election. No question, the request from three local state senators was 11th-hour. But Mr. McMaster points out his office is legally required to respond to opinion requests from state lawmakers.

While Mr. McMaster initially agreed to do all he could to help get an answer, the sideline role he offered to play didn't sit well with the county's legal staff. Council Chairman Barrett S. Lawrimore let the attorney general know that in no uncertain terms in a letter late this week. He maintained that several state statutes permit the attorney general to become a party to such a suit. "I would ask if a matter arising from an opinion of your office, at the request of the president pro tem of the South Carolina Senate, about the interpretation of a South Carolina statute [involving a referendum] ... that would generate revenues in excess of 1 billion dollars does not constitute a matter in which the state is 'interested,' then what does?" Mr. Lawrimore asked.

Mr. McMaster still believes there is a better procedural way to approach the problem because of questions about the legal "standing" of his office in such a suit. But he also agrees that his office can ask the court to ignore that issue and will do so in an effort to get the matter before the court prior to the election. That was the right answer. The county had persuasively argued for the need to have the state's chief legal officer directly involved.

County attorneys note that the court had the opportunity to comment on the form of the referendum question when it struck down a favorable vote on the half-cent sale tax two years ago because of biased language. Indeed, the issue of the three-part question and single answer was specifically raised by opponents in the previous lawsuit. But the attorney general's opinion contends that the court's failure to respond directly to that question can't be taken as a presumption of legality.

The best-case scenario for referendum supporters is that the high court will give the ballot question a clear green light. If not, surely the governor could rescind his executive order that set the new election and schedule a new date.

These are uncharted legal waters and there are bound to be some differences along the way regarding procedure. It is to the benefit of all voters that those differences are being quickly resolved.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/092504/edi_25edit1.shtml