Assistant Deputy Attorney General Robert D. Cook, a seasoned veteran of that office, advised several Charleston senators of his legal reservations in an opinion Monday. Here was his bottom line:

"It would be prudent to seek a judicial resolution before the November election rather than to subject taxpayers to the possibility of a second court challenge after the vote has been held."

We're encouraged to hear from Council Chairman Barrett Lawrimore that council is at least thinking about taking Mr. Cook's advice. Time clearly is of the essence.

The potential referendum flaw, according to the opinion, is the fact that the three projects to be funded by the half percent tax -- mass transit, road projects and green space acquisition -- are tied to one yes or no answer. The opinion notes that a state law passed four years ago clearly allows projects to be grouped in one question in a referendum. But it disagrees that a multi-part question can only have one answer. That, according to Mr. Cook, would be a form of "bobtailing."

Interestingly, that is the contention of a letter today on this page by William Mitchell of the Isle of Palms written before the attorney general's opinion. The term "bobtailing" generally is used to describe the attachment of non-germane amendments to state legislation that couldn't pass on their own. The state constitution specifically prohibits passing legislation that relates to more than one subject.

While the county's sales tax referendum doesn't fall under that constitutional prohibition, the opinion does question whether it meets the test of a state statute that requires a separate vote on the issues. According to the opinion, the 2000 state law that allows numerous projects to be bundled in one question doesn't negate the provision of the older law on separate votes.

We take the point made in the attorney general's opinion and by our letter writer that the "all or nothing" approach does smack of a version of "bobtailing." No question the strongest advocates of merging the issues into one question believed that approach would provide the best chance of passage.

At the same time, it should be noted that the decision to bundle the projects into one question was made two years ago when the referendum first went to the voters. Even though it was approved by the voters, it was struck down by the state Supreme Court because the wording was biased in favor of passage. Because this election is a rerun, officials have felt that absent the biased language, the question had to remain the same.

Further, county officials note that while the Supreme Court had much to say about the details of the referendum, it gave no indication it had any concern about the single vote on the three projects. In a memo on the subject to council, the legal staff wrote: "Although the issue of whether the county could legally have multiple projects in a single question was asked in the lawsuit before the court, the Supreme Court did not say the county's question erred in that manner." However, the attorney general's opinion points out that the court has never ruled directly on the question.

We appreciate council's frustration that those with concerns waited so late to ask for an attorney general's opinion. Indeed, only days remain before ballot questions have to be submitted in order to make the deadline for the mailing of absentee ballots.

But if council fails to at least try to get some judicial guidance, it will only add fuel to the opposition's fire. We don't know how far council could get up the judicial rung at this late date, but at least it can say it went the extra mile. In view of the importance of the referendum to this community -- from saving the bus system to helping fund the new Cooper River bridge -- it should do no less.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/091504/edi_15edit1.shtml