For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
South Carolina Hunting and Fishing Amendment, Amendment 1 (2010)
|South Carolina Constitution|
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • VIII-A • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII|
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of amendment
- 3 Support
- 4 Opposition
- 5 Media endorsements
- 6 Path to the ballot
- 7 Similar measures
- 8 See also
- 9 External links
- 10 Additional reading
- 11 References
- See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Official election results of the measure follow:
|South Carolina Amendment 1 (Hunting and Fishing)|
Official results via the South Carolina State Election Commission
Text of amendment
Official ballot title
The official ballot title that South Carolina voters saw read as follows:
- Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, be amended by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources?
- A ‘Yes' vote will make it a constitutional right for citizens to hunt and fish and will permit the State to legally provide for proper wildlife management and the protection of private property rights.
- Yes 
- No 
The summary of the proposed amendment read:
A joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally purued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources.
- "The traditions of hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife. The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources."
- The Wildlife Federation was a supporter of the measure. According to Cary Chamblee, who spoke on behalf of the organization, "It's important because all of the country, over the past 10-15 years, there have been challenges to hunting and fishing from animal rights groups, mostly, and this is kind of forward thinking...As a state grows and urbanizes, and fewer and fewer people as a percentage are hunting and fishing, we want to retain those rights."
- Bob Scott, chief executive officer of the South Carolina Forestry Association, claimed that state and national groups that opposed hunting could threaten the sport in the future. Scott commented on the groups, "They have very effective leaders, and they're adept at marketing their position perhaps better than some of the hunting and fishing organizations,"
- According to resident Earl Kennamer, the measure was important towards the future of hunting. The measure, according to Kennamer,would ensure that hunting would not be make illegal: "Hunting is part of my life. It’s my touch to nature...I'm worried about having legislation passed by different entities that want to stop hunting. I’m worried they will one day get rid of hunting altogether."
- The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were against the measure. According to organization spokesperson Ryan Huling, “We think there are so many better ways to enjoy nature than killing a piece of it. PETA as an organization exists to remind people that there’s really no difference in abusing cats and dogs to abusing deer and fish. These animals all feel pain in exactly the same way.”
- The Post and Courier was in favor of the measure, arguing, "Ten states have approved a constitutional right to hunt -- the first being Vermont in 1777. South Carolina should join that group with a "Yes" vote on constitutional Amendment 1 on Nov. 2. The amendment also would grant the same protected status to fishing."
- The Spartanburg Herald Journal urged voters to vote 'yes' on the measure, writing in an editorial, "While it is unlikely that state law would be changed to infringe on these rights, it is harder to predict what Congress might do. Having these rights enshrined in the state constitution might enhance the state's ability to fight federal action to restrict hunting and fishing."
Path to the ballot
The measure was first introduced to the South Carolina House of Representatives on February 10, 2009, where it was approved by the chamber with a vote of 106-1. The measure was then sent to the South Carolina State Senate, where the chamber approved the measure, after making amendments. The measure was then approved by the House and sent 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. (If the state's voters approve the amendment, it must then go back to the legislature for a second affirmative vote.)
Similar measures that have been certified for the ballot in other states in 2010 include the following:
- An Arizona ballot question appeared before voters in the November 2, 2010 general election ballot that asked voters whether or not to allow a constitutional protection to the right to hunt in Arizona. The measure was pushed by Representative Jerry Weiers.
- Arkansas had a ballot question presented to voters in the November 2 2010 general election ballot that was proposed to allow residents the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife in the state. The measure was sponsored by Senator Steve Faris.
- Voters in Tennessee decided on November 2, 2010 whether or not to allow for the personal right to hunt and fish within state laws. Additionally, the amendment allowed for hunting and fishing of non-threatened species.
- South Carolina proposed constitutional amendments on the 2010 ballot
- South Carolina Election Voter Information
- State Ethics Commission Ballot Measure Campaign Disclosure Reports
- Understand constitutional ballot questions
- South Carolina Forestry Association, "H.3483 Right To Hunt", April 7, 2009
- South Carolina State Election Commission, "2010 Constitutional Amendment Questions", Retrieved August 31, 2010
- South Carolina General Assembly, "Bill 3483"
- The Augusta Chronicle, "S.C. ballot measure asks about protecting hunting", July 28, 2010
- The Sun News, "Ballot vote targets hunting, fishing", October 10, 2010
- Fox News, "The Right to Hunt", March 19, 2010
- The Post and Courier, "Vote 'Yes' on amendments", October 25, 2010
- Go Upstate.com, "Vote yes to four constitutional ballot questions", October 27, 2010
- South Carolina Legislature, "History of H3483"
State of South Carolina
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Comptroller General | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Education | Director of Insurance | Commissioner of Agriculture | Director of Natural Resources | Director of Labor, Licensing and Regulation | Chairman of Public Service Commission |