Simms, 011421 SCAGO, AGO 2386

• Case Date: January 14, 2021
• Court: South Carolina

Scott N. Simms AGO 2386 No. 2386 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion State of South Carolina Office of the Attorney General January 14, 2021          Scott N. Smms          112 Henston Drive          West Columbia, SG 29172          Dear Mr. Simms:          You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding whether it would be dual office holding for you to serve on both the Pine Ridge Town Council and on the Respiratory Care Committee.          LAW/ANALYSIS          Dual office holding is prohibited by the South Carolina Constitution, which states:

[n]o person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time, but any person holding another office may at the same time be an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or a notary public... The limitation above set forth does not prohibit any officeholder from being a delegate to a constitutional convention.

S.C. Const, art. XVII § 1 A.          The South Carolina Supreme Court explains that an "office" for dual office holding purposes is:

"One who is charged by law with duties involving an exercise of some part of the sovereign power, either small or great, in the performance of which the public is concerned, and which are continuing, and not occasional or intermittent, is a public officer." Sanders v. Belue` 78 S.C. 171, 174, 58 S.E. 762, 763 (1907), "In considering whether a particular position is an office in the constitutional sense, it must be demonstrated that "[t]he power of appointment comes from the state, the authority is derived from the law, and the duties are exercised for the benefit of the public." Willis v. Aiken County. 203 S.C. 96, 103 26 S.E.2d 313, 316 (1943). "The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged with regard to a public office must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority ..."63C Am Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees § 5 (2009).

Segars-Andrews v. Judicial Merit Selection Commission. 387 S.C. 109, 691 S.E.2d 453 (2010). Other relevant...