A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT A CANDIDATE BE A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS AND A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE IS A CANDIDATE FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS AT THE TIME HE FILES FOR OFFICE; AND BY PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY ADDING SECTION 10 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT ANY CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SECRETARY OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, TREASURER, SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, AND COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE MUST BE A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS NEXT PRECEDING THE DAY OF ELECTION.
H4707 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would tighten candidate residency requirements for the South Carolina General Assembly and certain statewide executive offices. For legislative candidates, it would require a person to be a legal resident of South Carolina for at least 10 years and a legal resident of the district for at least 2 years at the time of filing, with the new rule applying only to candidates who had not been elected to the General Assembly before 2027. It also preserves existing age and elector qualifications and continues to bar individuals convicted of specified election-related offenses or felonies, while creating exceptions for pardoned individuals and for those who file for office 15 years or more after completing their sentence.
If adopted by voters, the bill would amend the South Carolina Constitution by changing eligibility standards in Article III for House and Senate candidates and adding a new Section 10 to Article VI for statewide constitutional officers. It would affect who may appear on the ballot for legislative seats and for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Superintendent of Education, Comptroller General, and Commissioner of Agriculture. Because it is a joint resolution, it does not itself change statutory law; instead, it places the proposed constitutional amendments before the electorate at the next general election for representatives.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal debate excerpts, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive, qualifications-focused approach to candidacy rather than a broad policy change, but the bill history provided does not show whether that approach was supported or opposed in committee or on the floor. The only noted action is a scrivener’s error correction, suggesting the bill was still in the drafting or cleanup stage as of the last update.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s stricter residency thresholds, especially the 10-year statewide residency requirement and the 2-year district residency requirement for legislative candidates. Those provisions could be viewed as limiting ballot access and narrowing the pool of eligible candidates, particularly newcomers, recent movers, or people seeking office after relocating within the state. Another potentially controversial feature is the prospective cutoff tied to 2027 and the exception for candidates previously elected before that date, which creates different rules for incumbents and newer candidates. The felony and election-offense disqualification provisions, along with the pardon and 15-year lookback exceptions, may also draw attention because they balance voter-integrity concerns against rehabilitation and eligibility after criminal convictions.