THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

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 

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 

Opinion No. 27699 

Submitted January 17, 2017 – Filed January 18, 2017 

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 become effective "[b]eginning with the general 

election of 2018" and "upon the joint election" of the Governor and 

Lieutenant Governor. 

As to petitioner's request that we direct the Legislative Council to take action 

to correct the effective dates as published in the Code of Laws of South 

Carolina, our ruling in this matter establishes the effective date of these 

amendments regardless of what is published in the Code of Laws. However, 

we trust, and certain members of the Legislative Council named as parties to 

this action have indicated, that the Legislative Council will take measures to 

publish the correct effective date of the amendments without direction from 

this Court. 

Finally, the Attorney General urges this Court to take this opportunity to 

interpret the provisions of the current version of Section 9 of Article IV of the 

South Carolina Constitution addressing the duties of the President Pro 

Tempore of the South Carolina Senate in the absence of the Lieutenant 

Governor. This issue is not properly before us; therefore, we decline to 

address it. West v. West, 263 S.C. 146, 208 S.E.2d 530 (1974). 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ISSUED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur. 

1

 The ballot text specifically stated that the amendments to Section 8 of Article IV, 

providing for the joint election of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, would 

take effect "[b]eginning with the general election of 2018," and the remaining 

amendments to Articles III and IV would take effect "upon the joint election."