A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 26/UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 76 BRIDGE THAT CROSSES INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 20 IN RICHLAND COUNTY "SOLOMON-GIBBONS MEMORIAL BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE CONTAINING THESE WORDS.
Summary
H4322 is a concurrent resolution requesting that the South Carolina Department of Transportation name a portion of the Interstate 26/U.S. Highway 76 bridge over Interstate 20 in Richland County the "Solomon-Gibbons Memorial Bridge" and place appropriate signs or markers at the site. The resolution also directs that copies be sent to the South Carolina Education Association and SCDOT.
The measure is commemorative rather than regulatory or fiscal. It does not change substantive law, create a new program, or appropriate funds; instead, it asks the state transportation agency to honor Dr. Walker E. Solomon Sr. and Dr. Carlos W. Gibbons for their leadership in education and civil rights, especially their role in merging South Carolina’s black and white teacher organizations during the Civil Rights era.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would prompt SCDOT to install memorial signage and formally recognize the bridge in Richland County with the proposed name. Its legal effect is limited to a request and memorial designation, so it would not alter transportation policy, property rights, or statutory duties beyond the naming action and associated signage.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broadly positive and respectful sentiment. The resolution’s preamble frames the honorees as important civil rights and education leaders, and the language emphasizes pride in their contributions and the historical significance of the teacher-organization merger. No votes, committee debate, or recorded opposition are provided, so there is no evidence of controversy in the available record.
Contention
There is no documented contention in the provided materials. Because the resolution is honorary and noncontroversial on its face, any disagreement would likely be limited to routine questions about memorial naming priorities, location, or signage, but none are reflected in the text, votes, or transcripts supplied here.