South Carolina Elections, 2006 - Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional Amendments

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 added Section 15 Article XVII of the state constitution, denying recognition of any domestic union other than a marriage between one man and one woman in South Carolina and all its political subdivisions. This also abolished common-law marriages and civil unions in the state. The amendment easily passed, although state statute already defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Amendments 2A and 2B

These amendments modified Article III. 2A amended Section 9 to allow the State Senate to, at any point, recess for up to 30 days with a simple majority vote, or recess for more than 30 days with a 2/3 majority vote. This basically extended to the Senate the same powers of recess already possessed by the House. 2B deleted a legal prohibition from Section 21 that prevented either legislative body from adjourning for more than 3 days without the consent of the other. Both easily passed.

Amendments 3A and 3B

3A modified Article X, Section 16 to allow state retirement funds to be invested in equity securities. 3B modified the same section, deleting language providing for a State Retirement Systems Investment Panel, an advisory body that oversees the investment of state retirement funds. Both easily passed

Amendment 4

This amended Articles III and X of the constitution, allowing the General Assembly to cap changes in reassessment of property values for tax purposes at 15% over a five-year period. This amendment was part of a tax reform plan introduced by state Republicans during the summer of 2006, that centered around cutting property taxes and replacing them with an increased sales tax. Essentially, this amendment limited increases or decreases in millage to 15% of the property's pre-assessment value.

Amendment 5

Amendment 5 amended Article I, Sections 13 and 17, and Article XIV, Section 5, to limit the circumstances in which local governments can use eminent domain to seize private property. This amendment was part of a national political movement to limit the powers of eminent domain following the famous 2005 Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case, in which the Supreme Court backed the power of governments to seize land for the use of private development projects. The amendment prevented governments in South Carolina from doing so, as well as eliminating constitutional clauses that give certain counties slum-clearing and redevelopment power.