A BILL TO ADOPT REVISED CODE VOLUME 9 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS, TO THE EXTENT OF ITS CONTENTS, AS THE ONLY GENERAL PERMANENT STATUTORY LAW OF THE STATE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2025.
Summary
H. 3727 is a code maintenance bill that adopts Revised Code Volume 9 of the South Carolina Code of Laws as the controlling version of the law, to the extent of its contents, as of January 1, 2025. The bill updates Section 2-13-90 to authorize the Code Commissioner to prepare and publish replacement volumes when a supplement becomes too bulky, and it specifies that the revised volume replaces the prior volume as part of the Code of Laws and serves as the state’s only general permanent statutory law for the covered material.
The bill also requires replacement volumes to include annotations for any general permanent statutes that are impliedly repealed, preserving a record of changes when the code is republished. It is a technical codification measure rather than a policy change, and it takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill amends the state’s code-revision statute, Section 2-13-90, to formalize the legal status of a revised code volume and clarify that the replacement volume supersedes the prior version within the South Carolina Code of Laws. Its practical effect is to keep the official code current and organized by allowing the Code Commissioner to substitute updated volumes and maintain annotations for implied repeals. The measure affects the administration of the state code more than substantive rights or duties of private parties.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill as a routine technical update: the House initially passed it 101-0, and the Senate gave it 43-0 on second reading. That pattern indicates little to no opposition to the underlying codification process. However, the later House vote to refuse concurrence in Senate amendments, 0-101, shows disagreement over the amended version rather than over the bill’s core purpose.
Contention
There is no evidence of substantive policy controversy in the bill text or transcripts, and no committee discussion is provided. The only notable contention appears procedural: the House unanimously rejected concurrence in Senate amendments, suggesting the chambers disagreed about changes made in the Senate. Because the bill is a code-volume replacement measure, any dispute likely centered on drafting, codification language, or amendment scope rather than on the legal substance of the code update.