Court Opinion

ID: 9606810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:52:43.260774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:46.289263
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
The South Carolina Election Commission, through its Executive Director, is required to maintain a complete roster of all qualified electors by county and precincts and to “furnish at reasonable price any and all precinct lists to any qualified elector requesting same.” Section 23-31, Supplement to 1962 Code of Laws. Respondent requested a list of all registered electors and appellant agreed to furnish the information in the form of a computer print-out or microfiche. Respondent, instead, demanded that the list of registered voters be furnished in the form of a computer tape. A computer tape of the information is, admittedly, considerably less expensive to respondent than the computer printout or microfiche.
The majority opinion, in effect, holds that the mandate to the appellant to furnish the list of registered voters “at reasonable price” means that appellant is required to furnish the list to an applicant in the least expensive form. I disagree.
The list of registered voters is maintained solely for use in conducting elections in South Carolina, and appellant has the duty and responsibility to take all reasonable measures and precautions to see that the -integrity of the list of voters is maintained for that purpose.
*384While the motives of respondent are not questioned, it is undisputed that the potential for misuse of the list maintained by appellant is great and that his decision to refuse to furnish the list to any applicant in the form of the computer tape was based solely upon the conclusion, that the more expensive computer print-out would minimize the danger of the use of the list for commercial exploitation.
The statute, as the majority says, does plainly and unambiguously require that the information be furnished at a “reasonable price.” No where have I found, nor does the majority cite, authority for the embraced proposition that “reasonable price” means the “least price.” What is a “reasonable price” depends upon a variety of considerations. Here it would depend upon the form in which the information is required to he furnished. No one argues that the price asked by appellant for the computer print-out is not a reasonable price for furnishing the list of voters in that form.
The question then is not whether the price is reasonable but whether respondent can dictate the form in which the information will be furnished, based solely upon the fact that another method or form is cheaper than that offered by appellant. Neither Section 23-31, supra, nor the Freedom of Information Act (Code Section 1-20 et seq.) explicitly, or by reasonable interpretation, confers any such right upon the respondent, or any other applicant for a list of registered voters.
While the majority argues, at length, that the statute is “plain and unambiguous,” it has failed to state the plain and unambiguous provisions which require appellant to furnish the list of voters in a particular form simply because it is least expensive to the applicant. No other reason is claimed as the basis for the majority’s conclusion.
Appellant had the right to determine the form in which the information would be furnished and his decision should not be reversed in the absence of a showing that it was *385arbitrary and unreasonable. Such has not been shown, asserted by respondent, or found by the majority.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court.
Joseph R. Moss, Acting Associate Justice, concurs.