Today, the Court of Common Pleas concluded that voters will have to wait until after the November election to challenge Charleston County’s ballot language for its transportation sales tax referendum.
This is an issue for all Charleston County voters.
The County’s ballot language clearly fails to meet the requirement of South Carolina law to give voters a clear choice in the voting booth about how their taxpayer dollars are spent. The Court of Common Pleas dismissed a lawsuit seeking a transparent and lawful ballot question, citing it as premature before the November 5 election occurs.
The proposed tax will cost taxpayers $5.4 billion over 25 years. As worded, the ballot unlawfully forces voters into an all-or-nothing vote and fails to inform voters that the I-526/Mark Clark Extension, a controversial and costly project, is the only priority project for the tax proceeds. If voters approve the tax in November, the sales tax would primarily fund this project, which is currently estimated to cost $2.3 billion.
This ballot language significantly hampers a voter’s ability to make an informed vote, raising serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process.
Mary Edna Fraser, Glenda Miller, and the Coastal Conservation League brought the lawsuit against Charleston County. The Southern Environmental Law Center, W. Andrew Gowder, Jr., and W. Jefferson Leath represent the plaintiffs.
“When you go to vote, the referendum language won’t tell you that at least half of the funds would be spent on a project that would destroy neighborhoods and wetlands and pollute our Stono River,” said Faith Rivers James, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation League. “We remain committed to telling Charleston County voters the truth about this referendum.”
“We firmly believe that it is illegal under the statute to design a referendum that coerces voters into an all-or-nothing vote,” said Chris DeScherer, South Carolina Office Director at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Our groups are unwavering in our commitment to transparency and upholding the law.”
“I’m deeply disappointed in this ruling,” said Glenda Miller, a plaintiff in the case. “The voters of Charleston County deserve to know how their $5.4 billion dollars will be spent, particularly in light of how County Council has not spent previous tax money according to the wishes of the voters.”
“It’s horrible to think that voters won’t have a clear picture of what they are voting for and could end up supporting a project that would displace families and destroy the wetlands and rivers that make Charleston such a unique place,” said Mary Edna Fraser, a plaintiff in the case. “I don’t think people realize how many of us will be impacted if the I-526 Extension is built.”