Lexington County Council member accused of moving out of district dropped from lawsuit
A lawsuit accusing a Lexington County Council member of moving out of her district has been dismissed.
Beth Carrigg was sued by former election opponent Lloyd Higbe after she sold her home in District 7 and purchased another home that was outside the district at the time. Higbe asserted that Carrigg could not serve on county council if she had moved outside of her district.
Judge William Keesley dismissed the lawsuit on Monday, deciding there was no reason to believe Carrigg was now living outside the district, that she had influenced the redrawing of the district, or that the court could take action to address the situation anyway.
Keesley noted Carrigg submitted multiple documents showing a change of address to a townhome she rented within District 7 after selling her home. District 7 covered the St. Andrews/Irmo area between the Saluda River and the Richland County line.
But Lexington County Council has since redrawn its council districts, with District 7 expanding out to the area around the Lake Murray dam and north of Lexington, including the area where Carrigg and her husband purchased a new home last year, which Carrigg said they bought as an investment property.
District 7 was one of the rare Lexington County districts that lost population over the past decade, local figures show, and county planning director Holland Leger submitted an affidavit that council members were not involved in shaping their new districts. The state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office also signed off on the new lines as meeting its redistricting criteria.
“There is no genuine issue of material fact that would permit the court to award the relief the plaintiff seeks, even applying the scintilla of evidence standard,” Keesley writes in his order. “There is nothing in this record by which a factfinder could determine that (Carrigg) has resided or been domiciled outside District Seven during any relevant time.”
Even assuming Carrigg intended to move into the newly purchased home, “There is no prohibition in the law about having an ulterior motive that is accomplished through legal means,” Keesley wrote. “The only remedy of which this court is aware would have to be addressed through the ballot box.”
The judge pointed toward other venues better suited to handle the questions raised in Higbe’s complaint. If the question is whether Carrigg is a legally registered voter in District 7, then by statute that’s a question to be determined by the county’s voter registration and election board. If Higbe accuses Carrigg of unethical behavior, that’s a complaint for the state Ethics Commission, Keesley said.
What’s more, even if the new district was gerrymandered to Carrigg’s benefit, from the court’s point of view, “no cause of action exists for political gerrymandering unless it involves essential constitutional rights, such as federal equal protection rights,” Keesley wrote. “The challenge about gerrymandering made here is political in nature and does not present a justiciable cause of action.”
Reached by The State, Higbe was sanguine about the judge’s decision.
“I’m still concerned that there’s something going on we’re not aware of, but that’s how the ballgame goes,” Higbe said. “If they redistrict and she ends up moving into that house, then my suspicions were true.”
Carrigg said she felt vindicated by the decision, which she said affirms she did nothing wrong.
“I don’t think the courts should be used for political purposes, and that’s what this is about,” she said. “They thought this would politically damage me, and they used up time and resources in the court on something that was frivolous.”
Keesley’s ruling removes Carrigg from the case, but not Lexington County, which the judge notes has not cited a relevant rule or procedure for getting itself removed from the case in its own filing.
.jpg)