South Carolina Rainy Day Fund Amendment, Amendment 3 (2010)
| South Carolina Constitution |
|---|
|
| Preamble |
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • VIII-A • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII |
The South Carolina Rainy Day Fund Amendment, also known as Amendment 3 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in South Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
The measure was proposed to require the state to keep more money in its rainy day fund, due to the economic downturn.[1]
Election results
- See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Official election results of the measure follow:
| Amendment 3 (Rainy Day Fund) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 890,015 | 70.91% | ||
| No | 365,105 | 29.09% | ||
Official results via the South Carolina State Election Commission.
Text of amendment
Ballot title
The ballot title of the measure read as follows:[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?[3]
- Explanation:
- A ‘Yes' vote will increase the amount of money state government must keep in the General Reserve Fund (its "rainy day" fund) from 3% of the previous year's revenue to 5% of the previous year's revenue.
- Yes []
- No []
Constitutional changes
The measure was proposed to amend Article III, Section 36 of the South Carolina Constitution.[3]
Support
Supporters
- The South Carolina Republican Party supported the amendment.[4]
Opposition
There was no known campaign in opposition of the measure.
Media endorsements
Supporters
- 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."[5]
- 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."[6]
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. (If the state's voters approved the amendment, it must then go back to the legislature for a second affirmative vote.)
See also
Articles
Additional reading
- South Carolina proposed constitutional amendments on the 2010 ballot
- Four amendments to appear on November ballot (dead link)
- Understand constitutional ballot questions
Footnotes
- ↑ The Augusta Chronicle, "S.C. ballot measure asks about protecting hunting," July 28, 2010
- ↑ South Carolina State Election Commission, "2010 Constitutional Amendment Questions," accessed August 31, 2010
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 South Carolina State Elections Commission, "2010 Constitutional Amendments"
- ↑ How You Should Vote On The Constitutional Amendments, "South Carolina GOP"
- ↑ The Post and Courier, "Vote 'Yes' on amendments," October 25, 2010
- ↑ Go Upstate.com, "Vote yes to four constitutional ballot questions," October 27, 2010
|
State of South Carolina Columbia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
