Judgment for petitioner and defendant and intervenors appeal. Mr. H.K. Osborne and Mr. Thomas B. Butler, County Attorneys, for appellant J.F. Brooks, Superintendent of Education for Spartanburg County. Mr. J. Davis Kerr, of Spartanburg, for appellants Ralph C. Powell and E.E. Hawkins, cites: As to appropriation ofschool funds: Sec. 3074, Code 1932; 81 S.C. 419; 62 S.E., 1100; 62 S.C. 337; 40 S.E., 674; Sec. 5426, Code 1932. As to budget: Sec. 5320-J, Code 1932. As to ultravires act: Act No. 872, Acts of 1938; 190 S.C. 11; 1 S.E., 2d 898; 191 S.C. 183; 4 S.E.2d 254; 90 Pa. Super., 184; 140 Ky., 531; 131 S.W. 260; 195 S.C. 199; 11 S.E.2d 137; 196 S.C. 186; 12 S.E.2d 701. Mr. Donald Russell and Mr. Rufus M. Ward, both of Spartanburg, for respondent, cite: As to retaining counsel toprotect school's interests: 190 S.C. 1, 14; 8 S.E.2d 838; 189 S.C. 4, 8; 199 S.E., 866; 123 S.C. 56; 116 S.E., 96; 1932 Code, Secs. 5350, 5401; 84 S.C. 271, 274; 66 S.E., 297. As to order of Circuit Court: 149 S.E., 760; 153 S.C. 106; 181 S.C. 323; 187 S.E., 548; 155 S.E., 830; 158 S.C. 491; 1932 Code, Sec. 3074, Sec. 5312, Sec. 5320-J; 61 S.C. 124; 39 S.E., 366; 10 S.C. 436.

Joseph H. Earle, Jr., and Glen S. Baldwin, of Greenville, for Appellants, cite: As to the Court's below having erred inholding that Section 5 of Act No. 301 of the 1975 Acts andJoint Resolutions of the General Assembly of South Carolina(now codified as Section 23-400.54:1 of the 1962 Code,as amended, and Section 7-13-750 of the 1976 Code, asamended) is constitutional and does not violate Article II,Section 1, and Article II, Section 10, of the South CarolinaConstitution, and Article III, Section 17, of the South CarolinaConstitution: 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254, 255; 78 S.C. 461, 59 S.E. 145; 55 Kan. 1, 39 P. 1045; 29 C.J.S., Elections § 201 (2); 247 S.C. 298, 147 S.E.2d 255; 336 F. Supp. 25; 30 F. Supp. 549; 153 S.C. 217, 150 S.E. 691; 233 S.C. 129, 103 S.E.2d 908; 186 S.C. 34, 195 S.E. 116. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr.,Treva G. Ashworth, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Harold E.Trask, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to theCourt's below having properly held Section 5 of Act No. 301of the 1975 Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assemblyof South Carolina to be constitutional: 29 C.J.S., Elections, Section 2, 201(1); 26 Am. Jur.2d, Elections, Section 234; 78 S.C. 461, 472, 59 S.E. 145; 91 Va. 322, 21 S.E. 483; 29 C.J.S. Elections, Section 201(2); South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, Section 7-13-780; 29 C.J.S., Elections, Section 208; 180 N.C. 169, 104 S.E. 346, 14 A.L.R. 1247; 245 S.C. 180, 139 S.E.2d 771; 77 S.C. 263, 94 S.E.2d 177; 198 S.C. 185, 17 S.E.2d 320; 252 S.C. 64, 165 S.E.2d 355; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, Sect

J. Roy Berry, of Johnston, and W. Ray Berry, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to there not being substantialcompliance with the statutory requirements in theholding of the referendum in regard to the Construction andoperation of a hospital for Edgefield County: 188 S.C. 140, 198 S.E. 604; 216 S.C. 346, 58 S.E.2d 91. Messrs. Charles W. Coleman, Joe F. Anderson and JohnF. Byrd, Jr., all of Edgefield, for Respondent, cite: As torule that every reasonable presumption will be indulged tosustain an election: 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41; 147 S.C. 498, 145 S.E. 412; 166 S.C. 372, 164 S.E. 883; 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254; 201 S.C. 237, 22 S.E.2d 685; 201 S.C. 246, 22 S.E.2d 722; 222 S.C. 426, 73 S.E.2d 446; 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789; 226 S.C. 183, 84 S.E.2d 381. As to substantial compliancewith statutory requirements regulating contents of electionnotice sufficing in the absence of any showing of the probableeffect of error: 102 S.C. 256, 86 S.E. 635; Cheves 205; 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41; 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789; 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254; 192 S.C. 298, 6 S.E.2d 472. March 12, 1970.

Messrs. Fred D. Townsend, Sam R. Watt, and W. BrantleyHarvey, for Petitioner, cite: As to election in instantcase being void because of irregularities: 78 S.C. 461, 59 S.E. 145; 182 S.C. 378, 189 S.E. 361; 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254; 124 Ark. 244, 187 S.W. 461, Ann. Cas. 1918 A; 191 S.C. 13, 10 S.E.2d 160; 84 S.C. 48, 65 S.E. 948; 86 S.C. 451, 68 S.E. 676; 107 S.C. 209, 92 S.E. 479; 117 S.C. 545, 109 S.E. 275; 102 S.C. 256, 86 S.E. 635, Ann. Cas. 1917-E, 469; 86 S.C. 451, 68 S.E. 676; 201 S.C. 246, 22 S.E.2d 722. Messrs. Henry H. Edens, Henry Hammer and JohnGrimball, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to it beingproper that instant action be dismissed because no rule toshow cause was issued: 2 Hill 367; 176 S.C. 512, 180 S.E. 673. As to petitioner being guilty of laches in prosecutionof his claim and his petition should therefore be dismissed: 190 S.C. 112, 2 S.E.2d 381. As to County ExecutiveCommittee properly dismissing appellant's petition: 20 Am.Jur. 1030 et seq., Evidence; 140 U.S. 417, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501; 20 S.C. 279, 20 S.E. 741; 20 Am. Jur. 1031, Evidence, Sec. 1180; 199 S.C. 295, 19 S.E.2d 477; 194 S.C. 469, 10 S.E.2d 3; 130 S.C. 20, 125 S.E. 269; 20 C.J. 180.

Messrs. Donald Russell and R.B. Paslay, for petitioners, cite: As to irregularities vitiating election: 84 S.C. 48; 65 S.E., 498; 107 S.C. 209; 92 S.E., 479; 117 S.C. 545; 209 S.E., 275; 102 S.C. 256; 86 S.E., 635; 1 Bay, 441; 115 S.C. 108; 104 S.E., 337; 174 S.E., 617; 135 S.E., 527; 154 S.C. 116; 151; S.E., 214; 167 S.C. 313; 166 S.E., 338; 97 S.C. 1; 81 S.E., 959. Construction of statutes: 139 S.C. 107; 137 S.E., 211; 129 S.C. 480; 124 S.E., 761; 108 S.C. 301; 96 S.E., 139; 104 S.C. 342; 88 S.E., 894; 32 S.E., 468; 190 S.C. 11; 1 S.C. 2d 898; 141 S.C. 347; 139 S.E., 775; 173 S.C. 149; 175 S.E., 213; 112 S.C. 528; 100 S.E., 355. Messrs. J. Davis Kerr and Osborne, Butler Moore, for respondent, cite; Elections: 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E., 2d 254; 147 S.C. 498; 145 S.E., 412; 166 S.C. 372; 164 S.E., 883; 6 S.E., 2d 276; 146 S.C. 338; 144 S.E., 62. Review of findings of fact by board: 76 S.C. 574; 57 S.E., 536; 24 S.C. 510; 86 S.C. 451; 68 S.E., 676. Fraud: 76 S.C. 574; 57 S.E., 536. July 22, 1940.

This Court and many others long have emphasized the importance of secret ballots. See George, 335 S.C. at 187-190, 516 S.E.2d at 209-210 (listing cases and statutes); Corn v. Blackwell, 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254 (1939) (holding ballot secrecy was violated when numbering system for ballots and voter sign-in lists could be used to identify a particular voter's ballot); State ex rel. Birchmore v. State Bd.of Canvassers, 78 S.C. 461, 468-469, 59 S.E. 145, 147 (1907) (holding ballot secrecy was violated when voters were required to place their ballots in "for" and "against" boxes that plainly revealed their choice). It is undisputed the proper procedure was not followed with regard to the twenty-two challenged ballots.

State ex rel. Edwards v. Abrams, 270 S.C. 87, 92, 240 S.E.2d 643, 645-46 (1978); Peterson v. City of San Diego, 666 P.2d 9752 976 (Cal. 1983); Moon v. Seymour, 186 S.E. at 745; Clark v. Quick, 36 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ill. 1941); Evans v. Reiser, 2 P.2d 615, 625 (Utah 1931), superseded by statute on othergrounds as stated inMosier v. Gilmore, 635 P.2d 55 (Utah 1981); Sims v. Atwell, 556 S.W.2d 929) 933 (Ky.Ct.App. 1977); 26 Am.Jur.2d Elections §§ 299, 328 (1996). This Court has held that secrecy of the ballot was violated when a husband and wife were allowed to enter the voting booth together and discuss their vote, Edwards v. Abrams, 270 S.C. at 91-93, 240 S.E.2d at 645-46; when the numbering system for ballots and voter sign-in lists could be used to identify a particular voter's ballot, Corn v. Blackwell, 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254 (1939); and when voters were required to place their ballots in "for" and "against" boxes that plainly revealed their choice, Birchmore v. State Bd., 78 S.C. at 471-72, 59 S.E. at 148. Although the records in those cases revealed no actual proof of intimidation or fraud, the procedures substantially affected an essential element of the election (secrecy of the ballot), as well as the fundamental integrity of the election.

472, 12 S.E.2d 13; 234 S.C. 205, 107 S.E.2d 315; 107 S.C. 209, 92 S.E. 479. As to Appellate Court having power to reverse the findingof fact by the Circuit Court, in an equity case, where suchfinding is against the preponderance of evidence: 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187; 131 S.C. 101, 126 S.E. 438; 234 S.C. (1), 106 S.E.2d 447; 135 S.C. 365, 133 S.E. 834; Spear's Eq. 1; Rich. Eq. 447; 61 S.C. 512, 39 S.E. 748; 53 S.C. 198, 31 S.E. 222; 17-A Am. Jur. 225. As to invalid votes, cast in an annexation election, beingsubtracted from the votes counted in favor of the prevailingside: 195 S.C. 15, 10 S.E.2d 160. As to Plaintiffshaving no right to amend complaint at variance withthe issues framed by the pleadings and the testimony: 224 S.C. 237, 78 S.E.2d 274; 190 S.C. 336, 2 S.E.2d 825. As to amendment to complaint not being timely: 37 C.J. 1074, Sec. 551b; 183 S.C. 478, 191 S.E. 337; 199 S.C. 85, 18 S.E.2d 611; 34 Am. Jur. 213. As to thegeneral principles of law governing an election contest: 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254. Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd Mann, of Greenville, for Respondents, cite: As to who is a resident entitledto vote in an annexation election: 195 S.C. 472, 12 S.E.2d 13; 195 S.C. 15, 10 S.E.2d 160; 107 S.C. 209, 92 S.E. 479. As to voters who had moved from thearea proposed to be annexed with no intention of returningnot being entitled to vote in the area sought to be annexed: 27 N.D. 357, 146 N.W. 537; 125 Ill. 141, 17 N.E. 232; 129 Iowa 122, 105 N.W. 387. As to when illegalvotes are cast in an election they must be deducted fromthe winning side: 1 Bay 441; 195 S.C. 15, 10 S.E.2d 160. As to the Trial Judge properly allowing plaintiffs toamend their complaint so as to correctly show the resultsof the election as certified to by the Commissioners of Elections: 183 S.C. 478, 191 S.E. 337; 81 S.C. 574, 62 S.E. 113; 199 S.C. 85, 18 S.E.2d 611; 217 S.C. 57, 59 S.E.2d 548; 217 S.C. 112, 60 S.E.2d 57; 207 S.C. 277, 35 S.E.2d 716.

W. Jerry Fedder, Esq., of Seneca, for Appellant, cites: Asto the ballot employed being misleading and thereby deceivingthe voters: 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640; 48 Idaho 517, 283 P. 532; 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470. Messrs. Edward H. Ninestein, of Walhalla, and HugerSinkler, of Charleston, for respondents, cite: As to rule thatevery reasonable presumption will be indulged in to sustainan election: 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789; 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254; 166 S.C. 372, 164 S.E. 883; 164 S.C. 398, 162 S.E. 450; 232 Wis. 59, 286 N.W. 588; 53 Wyo. 223, 80 P.2d 419. As to the ballot employed beingproper, and not misleading: 229 S.C. 471, 93 S.E.2d 640; 215 S.C. 224, 54 S.E.2d 791; 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470. March 23, 1959.

Rainey, Fant, Brawley Horton, and Wyche,Burgess Wyche, and Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, all of Greenville, for Intervening Petitioner-Appellant, cite: As to an election upon a proposal to amendthe Constitution not being allowed to stand if the languageon the ballot is misleading or deceptive: 130 S.C. 434, 126 S.E. 336; 16 C.J.S. 42; (Idaho) 195 P.2d 662; 283 P. 532 (Idaho); 251 S.W.2d 470. Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd Mann, of Green ville and Sinkler, Gibbs Simons, of Charleston, forDefendants-Respondents, cite: As to proposed amendment toConstitution being properly submitted to the voters: 18 Am.Jur. 375, Elections, Sec. 303; 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789; 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254; 166 S.C. 372, 164 S.E. 883; 164 S.C. 398, 162 S.E. 450; 227 U.S. 51, 33 S.Ct. 199; 232 Wis. 59, 286 N.W. 588; 53 Wyo. 223, 80 P.2d 419; 247 Ill. 176, 93 N.E. 97; 167 S.C. 313, 166 S.E. 338; 34 Colo. 393, 83 P. 1066; 145 S.C. 438, 143 S.E. 162; 227 U.S. 51, 33 S.Ct. 199. As to type of building,proposed to be constructed, being properly authorized: 34 Colo. 393, 83 P. 1066, 1071; 7 C.J.S. 1287. Messrs. Rainey Fant, Brawley Horton, and Wyche,Burgess Wyche, and Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, all of Greenville, for Intervening Petitioner-Appellant,in Reply, cite: As to the question, as submittedto the voters, being misleading: 130 S.C. 434, 126 S.E. 336; 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789.