Court Opinion

ID: 9562380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:27:26.413094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.646109
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TOAL.
Although I concur in the majority’s decision to deny Appellant Wilson’s petition for a writ of mandamus, I write separately because I believe that this dispute is not a proper matter for this Court’s consideration. In seeking the disclosure of the financial records in such a particular form and manner, Appellant essentially asks the Court to delve into internal disputes among Anderson County Council members and to overturn the Council’s decisions.5 In my view, issues related to the propriety of Respondent’s actions in this case present purely political questions, the resolution of which rests *361solely within the Council’s domain. In my opinion, any ruling from this Court would impermissibly operate as judicial review of the Council’s policy decisions, and I would decline Appellant’s request to intrude in this area. See S.C. Pub. Interest Found, v. Judicial Merit Selection Commn., 369 S.C. 139, 142-43, 632 S.E.2d 277, 279 (2006) (observing that adjudication of nonjusticiable political questions would place a court in conflict with a coequal branch of government, and thus, a court will not rule upon questions which are political in nature rather than judicial). For these reasons, I would hold that this is a nonjusticiable political question and would therefore deny Appellant’s request for a writ of mandamus.
PLEICONES, J., concurs.

. For example, the Council declined Appellant’s motion to compel Respondent to disclose the documents and the Council passed a specific ordinance prioritizing Respondent's job responsibilities.