SC City-Level Decrim Attempts — Columbia 2015 + Charleston 2019–2020

Last verified: May 2026

The South Carolina Home-Rule Limitation

South Carolina cities operate under a relatively narrow home-rule framework. Article VIII of the SC Constitution grants municipal authority within state-law boundaries; the General Assembly retains broad preemption authority over the criminal law. State-law penalties for marijuana possession are codified at S.C. Code § 44-53-370(d)(4) — a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days and a $100–$200 fine on a first offense. Cities cannot, by ordinance, reduce or alter the criminal classification of conduct that is a state-law offense. The most they can do is direct their own police departments’ charging discretion — and even that authority has been read narrowly by SC appellate courts. See possession penalties page.

Columbia 2015 — The $25 Ticket Ordinance

In 2015, the Columbia City Council passed an ordinance directing the Columbia Police Department, in cases of one ounce or less of marijuana, to issue a $25 ticket rather than arrest the suspect. The ordinance reflected a Democratic-leaning Columbia City Council’s response to mounting public-safety budget pressures, racial-disparity criticism, and reform-coalition advocacy. Columbia is South Carolina’s state capital and home to the University of South Carolina (USC, ~36,000 students); the city electorate is significantly more Democratic than the state as a whole. The 2015 ordinance was hailed by reform advocates as the first concrete decrim mechanism in South Carolina. See Columbia city page.

The 2018 Court of Appeals Invalidation

The 2015 ordinance did not survive judicial scrutiny. In S.C. Public Interest Foundation v. City of Columbia, decided in 2018, the South Carolina Court of Appeals invalidated similar ordinances on conflict-with-state-law grounds. The court held that municipal ordinances directing officers to issue civil tickets in cases that constitute state-law misdemeanors impermissibly conflicted with the General Assembly’s criminal-law preemption. The decision was a structural setback for city-level decrim efforts statewide; it effectively foreclosed the Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville pathways to local civil-citation conversion without state legislative authorization.

The 2018 ruling has been read by the SC Sheriffs’ Association (SCSA) and the Attorney General’s office as resolving the question definitively: simple-possession marijuana cases must be charged under state law, and any municipal substitute is void. The current operational status of the 2015 Columbia ordinance is unclear; reform advocates report that, in practice, CPD enforcement has shifted toward summons-and-release rather than physical arrest for many simple-possession cases, but no formal city ordinance survives. See no statewide decrim page.

Charleston 2019–2020 — Cite-and-Release Exploration

Building on the Columbia experience, in 2019 and 2020 a Charleston City Council member explored a parallel "cite-and-release" ordinance for low-level offenses including marijuana possession. The exploration occurred against the backdrop of national reform momentum and amid increasing visibility of the ACLU of South Carolina’s racial-disparity findings. Charleston Police Department policy under then-Chief Luther Reynolds (CPD chief 2018–2022) maintained traditional enforcement; the city did not enact a formal cite-and-release ordinance.

The ACLU of South Carolina reported in 2022 that CPD continued to make a substantial share of its arrests for low-level offenses including marijuana possession, and that CPD arrested Black residents for marijuana possession at 9.4 times the rate of white residents in the period studied — the highest disparity ratio identified in any SC city or county dataset. See Charleston city page.

Charleston Mayor Cogswell and the Post-2024 Shift

Charleston Mayor William S. Cogswell Jr. (R), a former state representative, took office on January 8, 2024, becoming Charleston’s first Republican mayor since 1877. Cogswell’s administration has not made cannabis policy a city-level priority. The cite-and-release exploration of 2019–2020 has not been revived. CPD policy has continued under post-Reynolds chiefs without formal change to marijuana-possession charging practice. The Charleston peninsula’s Democratic-leaning electorate is reform-oriented; the broader Charleston County electorate is more conservative, and the political space for a Republican-administered city to enact a cite-and-release reform is narrow.

Greenville and the Upstate

The Upstate’s principal cities — Greenville, Spartanburg, Anderson — have not pursued city-level decrim efforts comparable to Columbia’s 2015 ordinance. Greenville Mayor Knox White (R), in office since 1995, has not proposed cannabis-policy changes. The Upstate is more politically conservative than Charleston or Columbia and has the state’s highest concentration of social-conservative legislators. Pickens County and Oconee County recorded among the highest racial-disparity arrest ratios in the ACLU dataset (8.4× and 8.3× respectively). See Upstate cities page.

Solicitor-Level Charging Discretion

Where municipal ordinances cannot reach, circuit-solicitor charging discretion can. South Carolina prosecutors are organized at the circuit solicitor level — a circuit covers one or more counties. Circuit solicitors are elected and have substantial discretion over which charges to pursue, which to plea down, and which to refer to diversion programs. No SC circuit solicitor has announced a categorical non-prosecution policy on simple-possession marijuana cases. However, several have publicly emphasized diversion:

• Charleston County (Ninth Circuit) Solicitor Scarlett Wilson (R) — elected 2006, re-elected 2024. Has reported that "simple possession of marijuana dropped dramatically and is no longer the most frequently occurring charge booked" in her circuit. She has not adopted a declination policy but has emphasized PTI referrals.
• Richland County (Fifth Circuit) Solicitor Byron Gipson (D) — has emphasized diversion and pretrial-intervention referrals for simple-possession cases. Gipson’s posture aligns with reform-coalition expectations for a Democratic-circuit solicitor.

Solicitor-level diversion policy is the principal lever currently available to reform-friendly local actors in the absence of city ordinance authority. See PTI page.

The Practical Effect on Black SC Residents

The combination of a fixed state-law misdemeanor floor, restricted municipal home-rule authority, and uneven solicitor-level diversion policy has produced sustained racial disparity in SC marijuana enforcement. ACLU 2018 county-level data:

• Charleston (CPD city policy): 9.4× Black/white arrest rate ratio.
• Pickens County: 8.4×.
• Oconee County: 8.3×.
• Horry County (Myrtle Beach): 6.8×; high tourist-driven enforcement.
• Lexington County: 5.8×.
• Charleston County countywide: 3.7×.
• Berkeley County and Dorchester County: 3.7× and 3.6×.
• South Carolina statewide: 3.5×.

Per-capita arrest rates show the same pattern: Chester County recorded the highest per-capita marijuana possession arrest rate of any U.S. county in the ACLU 2010–2018 dataset. Newberry, Darlington, Marion, Laurens, Kershaw, and Colleton counties all ranked in the top 20 nationally. See ACLU disparity page.

Path Forward for City-Level Reform

Given the 2018 S.C. Public Interest Foundation v. City of Columbia ruling, SC cities cannot replicate the Atlanta, Savannah, Memphis, or Nashville fine-only ordinance models without state-legislative authorization. The avenues that remain open to city-level reform-friendly actors are:

• Police-department charging policy. Internal CPD or Columbia Police Department policy can prioritize summons-and-release over arrest, deprioritize simple-possession enforcement, and redirect resources to other priorities. This is administrative rather than ordinance-level reform but is within municipal authority.
• Solicitor-level diversion policy. A circuit solicitor can adopt PTI-default treatment for first-offense simple possession.
• City Council resolutions. Non-binding resolutions calling on the General Assembly to enact decrim or medical cannabis are within municipal authority and have been adopted by several SC city councils.
• State-legislative advocacy. Cities (and city associations such as the Municipal Association of South Carolina) can advocate for state-level decrim authorization.