South Carolina Capital Reserve Fund Amendment, Amendment 4 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 07:49, 14 June 2012 by JWilliams (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
South Carolina Constitution
Flag of South Carolina.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIVIII-AIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVII
The South Carolina Capital Reserve Fund Amendment, also known as Amendment 4 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in South Carolina as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. Approveda The measure was proposed to authorize that the Capital Reserve Fund be used to replenish the General Reserve Fund at the "applicable percentage".[1]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official election results of the measure follow:

Amendment 4 (Capital Reserve Fund)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 906,328 72.61%
No341,89327.39%

Official results via the South Carolina State Election Commission.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title that voters saw on their ballots read as follows:[1][2]

Must Section 36(A), Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to increase from three to five percent in increments of one-half of one percent over four fiscal years the amount of state general fund revenue in the latest completed fiscal year required to be held in the General Reserve Fund and to allow the percentage amount to be subsequently increased or decreased by separate legislative enactment passed by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Senate and a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the House of Representatives?
Explanation
A ‘Yes' vote will require that the Capital Reserve Fund's first priority is to replenish the State's General Reserve Fund (its "rainy day" fund) instead of serving to offset midyear budget cuts at state agencies.
Yes []
No []

Summary

The summary of the amendment read as follows:

Proposing an amendment to Section 36(A), Article III of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, so as to increase from three to five percent the amount of State General Fund revenue in the latest completed fiscal year required to be held in the General Reserve Fund and to allow the percentage amount to be subsequently increased or decreased by separate legislative enactment passed by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the senate and a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the House of Representatives; and to amend Section 36(B), Article III of the Constitution of this state, so as to provide that monies from the Capital Reserve Fund first must be used, to the extent necessary, to fully replenish the applicable percentage amount in the General Reserve Fund.[1]

Constitutional changes

South Carolina Capital Reserve Fund Amendment (2010), constitutional changes

The measure amended Article III, Section 36(a) of the South Carolina Constitution.[1]

Support

Supporters

  • The South Carolina Republican Party supported the amendment. [3]

Opposition

There was no known campaign in opposition of the measure.

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of South Carolina ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Post and Courier was in favor of the measure, arguing, "Voters should approve Amendment 3 "to increase from three to five percent in increments of one-half of one percent over four fiscal years the amount of state general fund revenue in the latest completed fiscal year required to be held in the General Reserve Fund."[4]
  • The Spartanburg Herald Journal urged voters to vote 'yes' on the measure, writing in an editorial, "South Carolina lawmakers have never shown fiscal restraint; it must be imposed on them. The enhanced reserves would cushion the blow of mid-year budget cuts if state revenues fall short."[5]

Path to the ballot

Section 1 of Article XVI of the South Carolina Constitution says that a legislatively-referred amendment can go on the ballot if approved by a 2/3rds vote of each house of the South Carolina State Legislature. However, if the state's voters approved the amendment, it must then go back to the legislature for a second affirmative vote.[6]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References