Question 1 Defines marriage as one man & one woman (I'll vote yes)
“Must Article XVII of the Constitution of this State be amended by adding Section 15 so as to provide that in this State and its political subdivisions, a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized; that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create, recognize, or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated; that this amendment shall not impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State; and that this amendment shall not prohibit or limit the ability of parties other than the State or its political subdivisions from entering into contracts or other legal instruments?”


Explanation
If the question is approved, marriage between one man and one woman would be the only lawful domestic union in this State. This State and its political subdivisions could not create another type of marriage or domestic union, nor recognize a same sex marriage or domestic union created in another state.
Proposed Explanation
“This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.
However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments.”

Question 2a Allows for the Senate to reorganize before January (I'll vote yes)
“Shall Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that the annual session of the General Assembly shall commence on the second Tuesday in January at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia, but that each body shall be authorized by majority vote to recede for a period of time not to exceed 30 consecutive calendar days at a time, or by two-thirds vote to recede for a time period of more than 30 consecutive calendar days at a time, and to sit in session at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia, and to provide for meetings as each body shall consider appropriate, and to provide for an organizational session for the Senate in those years in which the membership of the Senate is elected and to delete obsolete language relating to earlier sessions of the General Assembly?”
Explanation
If the question is approved, either the State House of Representatives or Senate could recede up to thirty consecutive calendar days upon a majority vote. Either body could recede for more than thirty consecutive calendar days upon a two-thirds majority vote.
Proposed Explanation
“This amendment permits either house by majority vote to recede for not more than thirty days at a time or by a two-thirds vote to recede for more than thirty days at a time, permits each house to meet during the legislative session as it considers appropriate, and permits organizational sessions of the Senate in the years senators are elected after the election before the next regular session the following January. The House is presently permitted to organize this way but the Senate is not.”

Question 2b Allows for one legislative body to meet without the other (I'll vote yes)
“Shall Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended by deleting Section 21 which provides that neither house of the General Assembly shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which it shall be at the time sitting?”
Explanation
If the question is approved, the prohibition against either body of the General Assembly adjourning for more than three days without the consent of the other body would be deleted.
Proposed Explanation
“This amendment deletes a requirement that prohibits either house from adjourning for more than three days without the consent of the other house. This deletion is necessary to permit the meeting and receding provisions outlined in paragraph one.”

Question 3a Expands Retirement System Investments (I'll vote yes)
“Must the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to the equity securities investments allowed for funds of the various state-operated retirement systems be amended so as to delete the restrictions limiting investments in equity securities to those of American-based corporations registered on an American national exchange as provided in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any successor act, or quoted through the National Association of Securities Dealers Automatic Quotations System or similar service?”
Explanation
If the question is approved, state-operated retirement systems would no longer be limited to investing in registered American-based corporations.
Proposed Explanation
“Currently, South Carolina’s Retirement Systems may invest only in publicly traded stocks and stocks of companies located in the United States. This amendment would allow prudent investing in all stocks as a means of seeking higher profits.”

Question 3b Abolishes Investment Panel (I'll vote yes)
“Must the second through the seventh sentences of the fourth paragraph of Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to the establishment and membership of the State Retirement Systems Investment Panel be amended by deleting these sentences thereby abolishing this constitutionally established panel?”
Explanation
If the question is approved, the State Retirement Systems Investment Panel would be abolished.
Proposed Explanation
This amendment would eliminate the Investment Panel, an advisory body, and its accompanying expenses.

Question 4 Assessment Cap (I'll vote yes)
“Must Article III and Article X of the Constitution of this State be amended to authorize the General Assembly to establish the method of valuation for real property based on limits to increases in taxable value, adjusted for improvements and losses, of no more than fifteen percent over a five-year period, unless an assessable transfer of interest occurs; to provide that for purposes of calculating the limit on bonded indebtedness of political subdivisions and school districts, the assessed values of all taxable property within a political subdivision or school district shall not be lower than the assessed values for 2006; and to provide that the General Assembly, by general law and not through local legislation pertaining to a single county or other political subdivision, shall provide for the terms, conditions, and procedures to implement the above provisions?”
Explanation
If the question is approved, growth in the assessed value of real property would be capped at fifteen percent every five years, unless an assessable transfer of interest occurs. Also, for the purposes of calculating the limit on bonded indebtedness of political subdivisions and school districts, the assessed values of all taxable property within a political subdivision or school district would never be lower than the assessed values of tax year 2006.
Proposed Explanation
“This amendment will limit increases in the value of a parcel of real property for purposes of imposing the property tax to no more than fifteen percent every five years after the current value of the property has been adjusted: (1) to reflect improvements made to the parcel; (2) to reflect a decline in the value of the parcel; and (3) to reflect the value of the parcel when ownership of the property changes as the General Assembly by law defines such changes.”

Question 5 Eminent Domain (I'll vote yes)
“Must Section 13, Article I of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, private property shall not be condemned by eminent domain for any purpose or benefit, including, but not limited to, the purpose or benefit of economic development, unless the condemnation is for public use; and to further provide that for the limited purpose of the remedy of blight, the General Assembly may provide by law that private property, if it meets certain conditions, may be condemned by eminent domain without the consent of the owner and put to a public use or private use if just compensation is first made for the property; and must Section 17, Article I of the Constitution of this State be amended to delete undesignated paragraphs that give slum clearance and redevelopment power to municipalities and housing or redevelopment authorities in Sumter and Cherokee Counties; and must the Constitution of this State be amended to delete Section 5, Article XIV, which provides slum clearance and redevelopment power over blighted properties to municipalities and housing or redevelopment authorities in Spartanburg, York, Florence, Greenville, Charleston, Richland, and Laurens Counties?"
Explanation
If the question is approved, private property could only be condemned for public use and could not be condemned for any other purpose, including the purpose of economic development. However, blighted property that constitutes a danger to the safety and health of the community may be condemned.
Proposed Explanation
“This amendment prohibits the State or a local government from condemning, or taking, private property for any purpose except for a public use, and says that economic development in itself is not a public use; allows the General Assembly to pass a law that allows condemnation for a private use only if the property is blighted and is dangerous to the community’s safety and health and if fair compensation is paid; and deletes language about condemnation of blighted areas by some specific local governments.”