Court Opinion

ID: 9563700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:44:58.232429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:02.263511
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent. I would hold the Statute [S. C. Code Ann. § 11-35-1520(9)(d) (Cum. Supp. 1984)] unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under the State and Federal Constitutions.
The disputed section is in conflict with the entire Procurement Code [S. C. Code Ann. § 11-35-10, et seq. (Cum Supp. 1984)]. One of the purposes of the Code is to require competition and fairness in procurement procedures. S. C. Code Ann. § 11-35-20(c) and (e) (Cum. Supp. 1984). Furthermore, the system is designed to maximize economy in the use of state funds. Section 11-35-20(f). To allow the preference of the disputed section to stand is to ignore the basic premise of the Code, thereby increasing the burden on the state treasury and all taxpayers to favor a small select group of South Carolina residents.
Under equal protection, the classification must bear a reasonable relation to the legislative purpose. State ex rel. *507Medlock v. S. C. Family Farm Dev. Authority, 279 S. C. 316, 306 S. E. (2d) 605 (1983). Section 11-35-1520(9)(d) not only fails to meet the reasonable relationship test, but is also in direct conflict with the express legislative purposes of the Procurement Code. Section 11-35-20.
I would reverse.
Chandler, J., concurs.