Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateSouth CarolinaIntroduced
S 586: Kershaw County Transportation Committee
Jeffrey Graham
S 586 status: Introduced — Act No. 271 (updated Aug 19, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
55OUT OF 100
Score:55/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Low Impact 20/100
Constitutionality100%
Bipartisan90%
Public opinion50%
Bill summary
AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 172 OF 1995, RELATING TO THE KERSHAW COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SHALL RECEIVE NINETY DOLLARS FOR EACH MEETING AT WHICH HE IS IN ATTENDANCE AND THAT THE CHAIRMAN SHALL RECEIVE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL NOT OCCUR MORE THAN EIGHTEEN TIMES EACH FISCAL YEAR. - RATIFIED TITLE
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
50%
Benefits
- Aligns member compensation with modern cost-of-living adjustments
- Ensures continued participation in county infrastructure governance
- Sets a clear, capped fiscal limit per member per year
Risks
- Increases administrative overhead costs
- Directly reduces available 'C' funds for physical road projects
- Fixed annual meeting caps may not correlate with actual project needs
Society
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Codifies clear payment rates in state law
- Establishes explicit meeting caps to prevent unlimited spending
- Requires formal voucher issuance for financial accountability
Risks
- Internal voucher approval lacks third-party audit requirements
- No explicit requirement for public disclosure of meeting expenses
- Delegation oversight is limited to report-based feedback
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The bill diverts a small portion of 'C' fund revenues from road/infrastructure maintenance to administrative committee compensation.
Analysis scope
Source provided is the legislative text and committee report; no fiscal impact note is included.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.