Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

South Carolina Constitutional Article Revisions, Amendment 4 (1978)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:38, 14 July 2017 by Maintenance script (contribs) (Replaced /wiki/images/ with https://cdn.ballotpedia.org/images/.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Voting on
Direct Democracy Measures
Direct democracy.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Ballot Law Update
South Carolina Constitution
Flag of South Carolina.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIVIII-AIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVII

The South Carolina Constitutional Article Revisions, Amendment 4 was on the ballot in South Carolina on November 7, 1978, as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was approved. [1]

Election results

South Carolina Amendment 4 (1978)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes262,82261.72%
No163,02438.28%

Election results via: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Shall Section 1, Article XVI of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that for the general election in 1980 and 1982 proposals may be made for the revision of an entire article of the Constitution or the addition of a new article as a single amendment with only one question being required to be voted on and to allow constitutional provisions from other articles to be changed if such provisions relate to the subject matter of the article being revised or proposed, and so as to delete the requirement that a proposed amendment providing for a change in the bonded debt limitation of a county or any of its political subdivisions shall be voted on only by the qualified electors of such county?[1][2]

See also


External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. REFERENDA AND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS [Computer file]. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1995. doi:10.3886/ICPSR00006.v1
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.