The House ad-hoc subcommittee on impeachment did what was expected — voted down the resolution for the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford. There was a thought that it would get some Democratic support, or another Republican beside chief sponsor Rep. Greg Delleney, but the vote went 6-1 against. It seems to us that Democrats would like Sanford to kick around in the General Assembly and in next year’s elections, and that the other Republicans weren’t pissed off enough to throw the bastard out.
The panel did add more charges, and accepted stipulations from the Governor’s counsel that basically admitted everything that went down in June. But, perhaps lost in the mix is that all charges offered by the State Ethics Commission are still valid, and can be acted upon, even though the subcommittee gave an unfavorable report on the impeachment resolution.
The last session of the subcommittee went fairly quickly into the declarative speeches. Delleney started off with a little more information, discussing news stories from the summer, and the explanations for how they were voting was led off by Rep. Jim Harrison, who presided as chair. What follows are the relevant excerpts.
Rep. Jim Harrison
One thing is for certain: impeachment is not akin to recall. We cannot impeach for hypocrisy. We can’t impeach for arrogance. We can’t impeach an office holder for his lack of leadership skills. We cannot impeach a public official because the public has lost confidence in his ability to lead. The question for us is simple: has the Governor’s conduct, as we’ve heard, breached the constitutional standard?
Rep. Greg Delleney
There’s virtually no precedent for impeachment of a governor in South Carolina. Because, we do have a unique, one-of-a-kind standard that has never been used. The Governor’s lawyers in their memorandum point out correctly that no South Carolina governor has ever been impeached. They point out that only 16 governors have been impeached since the founding of this nation. But of those 16 governors who were impeached, only eight were removed. But, what they don’t tell us is how many governors, when faced with scandal, have the decency to resign. Like most recently, with Gov. Spitzer in New York. What they don’t tell us is how many governors have been recalled prior to the expiration of their term, like most recently, Gray Davis in California.
[...]
What did he do? in June of ‘09 he came back, he confessed, and he wrote a check. It was an admission to a personal trip at state expense. And [Sanford's attorneys] want to say it was a mere coincidence. That’s insulting to intelligence, just as “hiking on the Appalachian Trail” was insulting intelligence of the people of South Carolina.
That standard of serious crimes, or serious misconduct, of course it is a high standard on purpose. The whole area of serious misconduct is, on its face, a very purposeful ambiguous term. And, I think it’s a term that gives this committee, or certainly gives the General Assembly, the leeway to set whatever that standard may be. To apply that standard on a case-by-case basis.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a grave proceeding in which we are involved. This subcommittee is meeting to consider House bill 4168, introduced by Rep. Delleney, Rep. Mike Pitts, Rep. [Keith] Kelly and Rep. [Gary] Simrill. It reads, “To provide that pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the governor of South Carolina, the Hon. Marshall C. Sanford Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.” The constitutional provision provides the House of Representatives, alone, will have the power of impeachment, of serious crimes, or serious misconduct in office. Officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and other statewide offices as may be designated by law. The first parameter is serious crimes — that is not germane or relevant to the mission of this impeachment panel, because there has been no showing of serious crimes. The issue before us is one of serious misconduct, which is at the heart of the deliberations we are involved in. If serious misconduct is involved, and it rises to the level of impeachment, that is a very, very grave matter. If simple misconduct is involved, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would also like to add, in general, that the process for impeachment proceedings is almost, I should say is, is almost as important as the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. I would like to compliment, and thank, Chairman Harrison for the manner in which he has presided, and the manner in which he has guided the deliberations of this special impeachment committee. In my opinion, you have performed in an outstanding manner, and I for one, on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina, want to thank you for your style and achievements. We also heard earlier about Article IV, Section 11, which more or less says, “The lieutenant should have full authority to act in an emergency, in the case of disability of the governor, and in the event of the temporary absence of the governor from the state.” Now, sometimes we say things, which had a little likeness to a very, very grave situation. And, I’d like to simply say, that our governor is blessed with poor judgment. I regret to inform you of that, but we all know it. So, we consider, what is serious misconduct, what is a simple misconduct. We’ve discussed at length five aircraft trips on the state aircraft, five strictly personal, or strictly political, uses of the state aircraft. There is no doubt about the exercise of poor judgment which was involved in those five flights. I wish he hadn’t done it. I would only say that the guilt associated with them clearly does not rise to an impeachable level, and therefore do not constitute a serious misconduct. I should say those five are not serious misconduct. In the year 2008, we had the use of taxpayers’ funds to pay for airline tickets and accommodations for Gov. Sanford and a Department of Commerce staffer, from Cordoba, Argentina, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Governor conducted a series of official meetings with high-level people — the ambassador, the governor, the mayor of Buenos Aires, and that is also true that he wrote six thank-you notes to cover himself. But, the validity of the trip leaves much to be desired. And, it appears to be a personal agenda, of which were fully covered by appearances and thank-you notes. For the most part, the 2008 trip to Buenos Aires was a ruse for the conduct of personal activities that bore no relation to his official duties as governor. We now come to the issue of the adventure to Argentina in June of 2009. The issue here is there were three days when he was incommunicado. He was not in touch with representatives of the Governor’s Office for three days, namely Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. It’s also true that the Governor contacted his office on Monday, June 22. But, what happened in that weekend? Well, I can tell you. It was a very bland weekend. All eyes in our state, on our governor and where he was. He was kind of like a bride at a wedding. Or a corpse, at a funeral. All eyes on the Governor, and who could tell us where he was? And nobody was talking. He was the center of attention, and once again, I say that poor judgment was exercised in a rank and obvious fashion. So, my conclusion is, that while I am discontent about the conduct and behavior of our governor, in my mind it clearly does not constitute serious misconduct. Therefore, the issues I have discussed do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would share the view of Mr. Weeks, it is a necessity that we keep the bar high for impeaching elected officials in our state because we have a duty to respect the wishes of those persons who are elected by the citizens of our state. I remember Gov. [John] West well, I remember a little bit about the West Committee. But, I would certainly like to thank former Gov. West — at that time, when he was chairman of that committee, he was lieutenant governor — and the members of the West Committee for setting forth a standard for this committee to consider, which would not allow us to conduct ourselves in an inappropriate manner. Because, as I said at the outset, the process for an impeachment proceeding is equally as important the outcome of the impeachment proceeding. When this House resolution, 4168, is ready for a vote, I intend to vote against it.
Basic civics teaches us that our checks-and-balances system hinges upon co-equal branches of government. And, the very process of impeachment that we are about today, is the infringement of the legislative branch sitting in judgment of the executive branch. I think the Founding Fathers also got it right, as well as the West Commission, when they put together a standard that is high for the impeachment of a duly-elected official. That standard being, serious crimes, serious misconduct.
While it could be made fun of, much like the Tebow tears, Horne’s obvious care for the governance of our state should be lauded. Many people, of which we include ourselves, are deeply cynical of politics and government. We give Rep. Horne some well-deserved propers.
I have spent hours reading thousands of pages of documents, listening to the arguments of counsel, reviewing witness affidavits, and analyzing the South Carolina Constitution and the laws of this state. I wanted the other members of this impeachment subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to have been appointed to undertake this historic and monumental task. Considering the impeachment of South Carolina’s 115th governor, Marshall C. Sanford Jr., I take this task very seriously and I have given this situation the utmost thoughtful and prayerful consideration.
[...]
The Governor’s conduct was not that of a true statesman, or even a gentleman for that matter. My job on this committee is not to sit here in moral judgment of the Governor, which rests solely with his Creator. His fall from grace is indeed tragic, and as a wife and a mother, I feel great sympathy for Mrs. Sanford and their four children.
It became abundantly clear during the evidentiary — when we were receiving the information with respect to that [2008 Argentina] trip, that it was nothing but a ruse. It was nothing but a way to use his power with the Office of Governor to get to this area of the country, for a personal purpose. Any effort to engage in efforts on behalf of the state was clearly one to hide that fact. That, in and of itself, is a clear abuse of power.
There you have it. Most members of the committee thought Sanford acted like a college sophomore on Spring Break, but didn’t think it rose to an impeachable standard. Here’s a surprise, Harrison’s prefiled bill to censure Sanford subsequently passed unanimously. Maybe it’s just our cynicism again, but it looks like that old General Assembly shell game was in effect — the decision was made way before the legislators appeared in public. Sanford should get a worse punishment than a disapproving slap with no real repercussions, but that’s where we’re at right now. Hopefully, he’ll just lose his family, be disgraced and never show his head in politics again.
After the vote, there was the postgame commentary.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
First of all, I would like to thank each member of the subcommittee for taking time away from their family and job during this busy holiday season to meet and investigate this matter. With the regular legislative session beginning next month, it is important that we fully investigate and properly address this issue in a timely manner so that we can begin the session working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most.
The subcommittee has held four hearings, reviewed all the information from the State Ethics Commission’s investigative report, taken testimony, made follow-up inquiries and debated the issues. They have conducted a thorough investigation into any possible serious crimes or serious misconduct committed by our state’s highest elected official.
I agree with the majority opinion reached by the subcommittee. The threshold for removal from office is a very high standard, and from the evidence made available to them, it does not appear that the Governor’s actions have met that threshold for removal from office. While his actions were clearly revealed to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the subcommittee found that they did not reach the constitutional definition of serious crimes or serious misconduct necessary to remove the Governor from office.
I also agree with the subcommittee’s decision to favorably pass a censure resolution today. The Governor’s actions brought great shame upon himself, his office, our state government and our citizens. This entire situation – the multiple investigations, court cases and media barrage – could have been easily avoided if the Governor had acted in the best interest of our state and resigned from office, as I and a majority of lawmakers urged him to do months ago. Instead, the Governor insisted on remaining in office despite the embarrassment and distraction he has brought to our state. A legislative decree condemning the Governor’s irresponsible actions is absolutely warranted.
Whether the Governor’s actions require punishment by the State Ethics Commission or criminal prosecution in a court of law is not a determination that can be made by this legislative body. The South Carolina Constitution only gives the Legislature prosecutorial authority over matters related to the removal from office, and that is where the scope of this investigation begins and ends for the House.
The proper procedure needs to be followed for this investigation to be completed and some level of closure brought to this matter. For that to happen, the full Judiciary Committee needs to meet, consider all the facts, debate the issues and rule on the subcommittee’s recommendation. After this process is complete, the General Assembly can turn its full attention to addressing the major issues of the approaching legislative session.
S.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler
Gov. Sanford certainly deserved the stinging rebuke he got from the House subcommittee. But far more important than his trip to Argentina is that neither he nor the Republicans in the House and Senate seem able to do anything to move this state forward. South Carolinians have long since given up on Sanford’s failed governorship; the best we can hope for is that he won’t cause our state any more embarrassment in the remaining months of his term.
Sanford
In light of the ad-hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I’d like to thank the committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.
Two, we agree with the committee’s dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change.
Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to “hang in there,” and “finish strong.” The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I’ve created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it. [ed. note: Because cheating on your wife should mean you deserve sympathy. Asshole.]
It’s my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state — just as we’ve seen with Boeing’s record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I’ll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We’d ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front.
It’s Impeachment Meeting Eve. Fired up and ready to go? They’re getting the logistics nailed down, and it’s looking like it’s going to be a crowded affair. Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing the committee, and will be joined by Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
There’s an expected large media contingent coming, so there will be a specific area for credentialed media, and news photographers will be given general free reign as long as they don’t interrupt the proceedings. However, the only video camera in the room will be from ETV, which is good news, since video cameras and their peripherals tend to take up a lot of room.
If you’re interested, it’ll be at 1 p.m. Tuesday in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. It’s advised to show up early — it’ll probably fill up quickly.
Gov. Mark Sanford’s getting his neck stretched over the tree stump as legislators will be meeting next week in what’s called an ad-hoc committee to consider impeachment. Local Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing it, according to Rep. Alan Clemmons and the Associated Press.
After a couple months of it looking like impeachment momentum had hit a wall, having this committee meet and discuss removing one of the least effective governors of this state seems to point to the gears spinning again toward removing Sanford. According to the AP, “The meeting is to take up the issue at the heart of an impeachment resolution that four Republicans filed this week. It says Sanford left no one in charge of the state, a dereliction of duty, while he ‘directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials’ about where he was. His staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Per Clemmons, the committee includes Harrison, Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
Some days are routine, and some are not. The lower chamber of the S.C. General Assembly lived up to its “Mad House” reputation on Thursday, but the controversial voter ID bill passed on second reading, after about six hours of debate.
“The heart of democracy is the right to vote,” the bill’s chief sponsor, Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, said in a statement. “If we do not protect that voting right from fraud and abuse, we are not protecting the ideals of democracy.”
House Democrats gave the bill a thorough working over, with Reps. Chris Hart, Bakari Sellers, Ken Kennedy, Anton Gunn, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Robert Williams, Harry Ott, Leon Stavrinakis and others either taking the podium, engaging in passionate Q&As, or both.
“It’s basically a poll tax, and takes us back to the 1800s,” Kennedy said. “Two things: it would be dead on arrival in the Senate. … We now have a Democratic president and Congress, who aren’t going to allow voter disenfranchisement in this state, and I just think were whistling ‘Dixie’ and wasting our time when we could be doing something else.”
Rep. James Smith, until recently considered a possible candidate for governor, was also vocal in his opposition to the bill.
“This last election was a real celebration for our country, and for our state. Really, regardless necessarily of the outcome, everybody that I talked to, Republicans and Democrats, felt good about the participation,” Smith said. “It’s hard to look at that celebration in 2008, and see all the stories that were written about, and find anywhere in any of those stories a story about fraud. This celebration, this outpouring turnout, was not real. It was all fraud. There were a bunch of people that conspired together and they lied about it and hid who they were and they didn’t have IDs, so they tricked the system, and it really wasn’t what we read about. It was all a big fraud.
“If that were the case, then we might want to introduce a bill like this. But, that wasn’t the case. It was real. And, the turnout was significant. And, the response by us as leaders of this state should be a response that encourages it. It helps to continue to make the opportunity and the privilege and the right, rather, the right to exercise one’s vote more accessible, not less accessible.”
But, House Republicans stepped up, like Reps. Alan Clemmons and Garry Smith.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the House, what is the purpose of this bill,” Smith asked. “The purpose of this bill is very simple. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the integrity of the voting process. That’s it. Very simple. Very simple. Let me quote to you from the U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Jan. 14, 2009, when they were considering the issue of Georgia’s voter ID ballot. At that time, what they said was that ‘the burden of presenting a government-issued, voter ID, at the polls, is trumped by the need to safeguard the integrity of elections.’
“One of the things that has been said a great deal today is that the purpose of this bill is to suppress voting. Folks, the numbers do not prove that. There is no factual evidence to that regard. And, in fact, the Supreme Court said there was a lack of evidence when they considered Indiana’s case, to show that had happened. But, there is evidence to the opposite.”
Smith went on to cite statistics showing that, in states like Indiana and Georgia where voter ID laws were in effect, voter turnout was high in ’08 and Democrats achieved bigger gains in turnout than Republicans.
Seeing the writing on the wall, but wanting to make a dramatic gesture, members of the Legislative Black Caucus gathered behind Rep. David Weeks during his final turn at the podium, then walked out of the chamber.
The bill mandates that a voter show a valid picture ID when voting, in order to deter the possibility of voter fraud. Passing by a vote of 65-14, the bill moves on to third reading and is expected to continue to the Senate.
Thursday, the House spent roughly six hours debating Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell’s bill on requiring S.C. voters to show a photo ID when they vote. The debate broke down along party lines, as debates tend to do in the post-Clinton/Gingrich era, and this was borne out in the tweets.
dphamilton: SC House now debating Voter ID bill…Democrats opposed to having a photo ID in order to vote.
SCHouseDems: Democrats put up 19 amendments to Voter ID bill, going to be here a while. With no cases of voter fraud, GOP wants to suppress voters in sc.
Snead101: @SCHouseDems If Voter ID doesn’t work, maybe they could resurrect the poll tax
annephutto: Voter ID bill being argued. Bakari arguing fiscal impact to the Repubs
dphamilton: Dems using fiscal argument against voter id…I’m sure its a challenge for them to keep a straight face as they talk.
LachlanMcIntosh: SC GOP: proud to carry on the traditions of the old South, like preventing poor people from voting.
laurinmanning: @PhilBaileySC We’ve gotta stop all that voter fraud! (Nevermind that there’s no evidence of any.) Preemptive lawmaking! Great public policy.
AntonJGunn: Watching Chris Hart lay the wood once again on the WMD Bills. Weapons of Mass Distraction from SC’s jobless rate.
LachlanMcIntosh: SC GOP: Partying like its 1899
PhilBaileySC: Do the SC GOP craft their agendas during games of Dungeons and Dragons? Solving fantasy problems in a fantasy world.
boydbrown: after pushing the agenda they have this week, the GOP needs to suppress as many voters as possible… still not discussing jobs in SC
dphamilton: @boydbrown if ya’ll would quit filibustering we could get to other things. BTW, when was the last time govt created a self-sustaining job?
boydbrown: @dphamilton we’re talking incentives to lure industry to the State, something our neighbors do
dphamilton: SC House Dems love to talk about us wasting time on the House floor yet they are the ones monopolizing the House floor all day.
boydbrown: @dphamilton we have to speak up against this junk, or else y’all will continue to set our state back to 1890 standards
Snead101: @dphamilton You’d prefer elected officials simply lay down whenever they disagree with legislation?
mattheusmei: Clemmons is a whiner
AntonJGunn: I am so glad the Justice Department strike down this embarrassing bill we are debating.
dphamilton: @Snead101 no, but don’t claim that argument if you are the group purposefully using the time to filibuster
AntonJGunn: Since SC hasn’t played fair in its elections since 1964 the Justice Dept has to babysit our election laws. This VoterID bill won’t pass pre-
mattheusmei: Thanks @AntonJGunn for just proving that the folks on the other side of the aisle are out of touch with their constituents though not Rush.
boydbrown: making sure all the GOP members show us their ID before they vote on this bill
annephutto: won’t the Voter ID bill just waste state resources when the Justice Department steps in?
annephutto: the voters of James Island and Folly Beach know that voter fraud is not a problem in this state
boydbrown: Ken Kennedy: “We’re going to look at Missouri’s voter ID bill. Home of John Ashcroft… What a guy… What a guy… What a statesman.”
dphamilton: @boydbrown that’s the quote of the day so far.
Snead101: ! Rep. Kennedy tells us how he really feels #sctweets
JoeyMillwood: Now Dems are speaking against their own amendments to keep us here.
Snead101: Rep. Hart may be confusing some GOPhers. I can hear @Joeymillwood now “Hey, this guy gets it!” #sctweets
mattheusmei: Go Rutherford Go, Dems leave the Chamber balk! BALK BALK BALK
EBedingfield: This is now getting stupid. Rep. Todd Rutherford is not doing himself justice with this point!
mattheusmei: The Minority should abandon the Chamber, this is sad and a legislative farce.
mattheusmei: @Ebedingfield he’s making a valid point though, the point of debate is to make points and arguments to change minds not to speak to a wall.
Snead101: Rep Weeks doesn’t get it – South Carolina doesnt care how other states do it, we just want it dumb #sctweets
mattheusmei: @Snead101 which is why the minority party as a show of defiance should abandon the chamber. Collectively walk out as a sign of disdain.
Snead101: @mattheusmei would require that thing commonly referred to as “leadership”
mattheusmei: @Snead101 Rep. Kennedy or Rutherford should lead the charge out of the chamber, or better yet – Cobb-Hunter.
Snead101: Common Sense Amendment to Voter ID Bill – Chance for Success? Slim to none #sctweets
mattheusmei: a decent amendment to an otherwise wretched piece of legislation, and once again folks of white privelege vote it down. #sctweets
Snead101: Rep. Kennedy is stealing my idea, re: Poll Tax #sctweets
mattheusmei: Tod Rutherford speaks Truth to Power and it falls on deaf ears in SC – go figure. #sctweets
SCHouseDems: Is this 2009 or 1959? Voter suppression is not what the people of SC expect from their lawmakers. We should encourage voting, not deter.
AntonJGunn: I dare anyone to show me any proof of voter fraud that warrants this legislation.
notverybright: Sometimes, like today, I emerge from my self-imposed exile from SC politics and am reminded why I abandoned the good fight. Ugh. #sctweets
dphamilton: @twitterdoug really? you don’t think its a problem anyone could take a registration card w/ no picture on it and use it?
Snead101: Strong words by Rep. Williams, OIF veteran, falls on deaf ears in SC House
EBedingfield: We are a long way down the road on Voter ID requirements. Let’s get to the Stop sign.
Snead101: @EBedingfield I agree and look forward to you voting to stop this attempt to suppress votes
annephutto: I like this next amendment — why should it be okay to mislead people about the time and place of the election? Go Bakari, go!
EBedingfield: @Snead101 I would not dare suppress a voter. However, I would ask people to be truthful and open in identifing themselves.
Snead101: @EBedingfield Fair and noble, but that can be accomplished without adding an extra burden on voters
notverybright: @EBedingfield The SC Repub. playbook is so tired: Pretend to be about some other thing because real motivation would make decent people gag.
JoeyMillwood: @tedpitts speaking on Voter ID bill on House floor.
Snead101: Rep. Neal: “South Carolina’s leadership has not changed.” A “problem state for voting rights.” #sctweets
StewartMoore: black caucus is walking out soon.
ShannonErickson: Voter ID bill close to final vote.Debate all over the map. Bill calls for SC ID & protects voter identity- SC to provide ID free of charge.
annephutto: Voting rights are a serioius issue for all of us. Really, people need to stop snickering.
SCHouseDems: House democrats walk out on voter id bill in protest. Press conference in lobby.
Snead101: In short, we should be working to make it EASIER to vote, not HARDER #sctweets
mattheusmei: I think the Minority is going to abandon the Chamber. Good for them.
mattheusmei: GO DEMS GO!!! GOOD JOB!!! ABANDON THIS FARCE OF A LEGISLATURE!
mattheusmei: YAY FOR THE BLACK CAUCUS, STANDING UP FOR SOUTH CAROLINA’S CITIZENS!
dphamilton: apparently the Black Caucus staged a walkout on Voter ID bill…unfortunately choosing to play politics instead of making policy.
Snead101: @dphamilton After being shut out of the process, what choice was left?
mattheusmei: @dphamilton it’s the only thing they could do, you guys weren’t open to a real debate, you were going to have your way or no way.
dphamilton: @Snead101 Shut out? Shut out? Are you kidding me? We heard nothing but their arguments for 5 hours today & 3 hours in committe.
Snead101: @dphamilton “heard” Didn’t give it any consideration, just “heard” Turning a deaf ear doesn’t help create policy
dphamilton: @twitterdoug zero, my point exactly…its currently impossible to prove voter fraud.
dphamilton: @mattheusmei nah, they can state their point like they have for 5 hours today & vote. That is representative democracy.
dphamilton: @Snead101 kinda like whats going on in the US House right now?
mattheusmei: @dphamilton, but you didn’t debate, you let them speak while not listening, and then you just said “No” you didn’t explain yoruself.
dphamilton: @mattheusmei I made my points in committee…don’t want to drag this out any more, I’m not going to change any votes so I used my vote.
Snead101: @dphamilton touché – But the difference is in this case the minority is RIGHT ;)
ShannonErickson: Opponents say disabled & elderly won’t have ID, but the folks I know already have them b/c medical treatment & pharmacies require it.
mattheusmei: @dphamilton. yes you have your vote. but in this instance you are wrong.
dphamilton: @twitterdoug please don’t speak for me, it is not…take a look at Georgia & Indiana who have similar laws. GA Dem vote went up 6.7%
Snead101: I really don’t see the connection between cashing a check, picking up an Rx and exercising the fundamental practice of our Republic #sct …
ShannonErickson: My mom-Jane Smith-nursing home resident- had wallet (voter card) stolen/misplaced first week there. I wonder if it was used to vote?
douglasford: House votes 65 – 14 in favor of giving 2nd reading on Voter ID.
Snead101: South Carolina House approves 2nd Reading of Voter ID Requirement #sctweets
laurinmanning: @Ragley Thanks to GOP leadership for taking us back to poll tax days. Wasn’t a single reported instance of voter fraud in SC in ‘08!
mattheusmei: the inscription above SCHouse Chamber should read: Abandon hope all ye who enter, save the white Republican majority
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Introduction of bills
- H. 3540, by Rep. Garry Smith, the “South Carolina Truth in Spending Act,” mandating that each agency, department and institution of state government, and each local government entity must maintain a transaction register and post it online.
- H. 3541, by Rep. David Hiott, regulating bear hunting.
- H. 3543, by Rep. Joan Brady, requiring the state Department of Education develop a dating violence policy, providing for reporting and publication requirements.
- H. 3554, by Rep. Harold Mitchell, to provide that the General Assembly accepts the stimulus funds from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
SENATE
Introduction of bills
- S. 428, by Sen. Larry Martin, memorializing Congress to make permanent the E-Verify program.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Introduction of bills
- H. 3556, by Rep. Dwight Loftis, to rename the Western Carolina Sewer Authority to Renewable Water Resources.
- H. 3572, by Rep. David Umphlett, repealing shark catch limits.
Reported favorably out of committee
- H. 3305, by Rep. Eric Bedingfield, to ensure representation in union elections is done by secret ballot.
- H. 3042, by Rep. Jimmy Merrill, legalizing mixed martial arts combat.
Interrupted debate
- H. 3067, by Rep. Alan Clemmons. Rep. Bakari Sellers moved to adjourn debate until Feb. 24, which failed 24-47. Rep. David Weeks moved to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee, which failed 36-69. Debate was interrupted by the House recurring to the morning hour.
Quotes
During debate on the school district spending flexibility bill.
House Reading Clerk Bubba Cromer: Amendment No. 9 was passed over, which brings us to Amendment No. 10, Ott and Crawford.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell: OK, we’re on Amendment No. 10, offered by Mr. Ott and Mr. Crawford? [laughter from the chamber] Somebody better read this one. Mr. Ott is recognized.
Rep. Harry Ott: Mr. Speaker, don’t let this tarnish what little reputation I have left in this body. But, you know, you have to pick your friends carefully, and I want to thank Dr. Crawford for agreeing to work with me on this particular amendment.
===
Harrell: Mr. Ott is recognized for his second 10 minutes. Mr. Rice is recognized for a question.
Rep. Rex Rice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know Mr. Cato over here says he feels your pain, he’d be glad to take the chair.
Harrell: I’m probably going to bring him up here in a minute. [laughter from the chamber]
===
Debate on H. 3418
Harrell: …Mr. King objects to the bill. Mr. Rutherford?
Rep. Todd Rutherford: Wants to kill it! [laughter from the chamber]
Harrell: Mr. Rutherford wants to kill it. I assume you object to the bill.
SENATE
Introduction of bills
- S. 436, by Sen. Lee Bright, for police to seize real and personal property related to prostitution.
- S. 437, by Sen. Shane Massey, the Senate version of the House’s 24-hour waiting period for an abortion.
- S. 445, by Sen. Ray Cleary, establishing a flounder population study program and other regulations pertaining to flounder fishing in Murrell’s Inlet, Pawley’s Island and Litchfield.
- S. 450, by Sen. Bright, a bill which says life begins at conception and said zygote is covered by the rights of due process and equal protection.
- S. 305, by Sen. Ronnie Cromer, requiring that President Barack Obama rescind his order to close the detention camp at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After extensive debate, the bill was sent back to general committee.
Quotes
On the State Ports Authority bill.
Sen. Glenn McConnell: I hope he would embrace what this bill is about. It’s about moving our state forward. He still has the power of appointment. He still has the power to remove. … I would submit to you, I would hope he would not stand over on the side of the road of progress. But instead, join us out there, and help us move this port forward, and don’t stop and wring your hands and say, “Well, I didn’t get my way and I didn’t get more power, so change isn’t coming.” Change is coming. I would hope he would be a part of that exciting change, that he would be a part of the discussions of are there different models that we need to look at, and not look at the old political battles of yesteryear, and say that somehow he’s been cut off from change. His opportunity is there with the rest of us, with the House of Representatives, together to try to take this economic engine and move it forward. And, that is where I see, senator from Berkeley, you have given us a great opportunity, a new beginning, a new start, as we take these tremendous assets. I’ll take any questions.
Sen. Hugh Leatherman: Senator yield for a question?
McConnell: Yes, sir.
Leatherman: Thank you, Senator. Senator, all the meetings we had with the railroad people, the Maersk people, did we one time see the Governor in any of those meetings?
McConnell: Not a one.
Leatherman: You would think he would be out front trying to convince Maersk to stay there, just like you and Sen. Grooms and others did. But, I didn’t see anything, I didn’t hear a word out of the Governor’s Office….
McConnell: Maybe he was out of state.
Leatherman: He’s been out of state a lot, I think, recently.
…
McConnell: I didn’t want this left, I didn’t want to say this, but he put it in the Charleston paper. Said we had cut off his opportunity. We’ve created a great opportunity, if he decides to take it.
…
Sen. Brad Hutto, on the Guantanamo Bay resolution: Let me tell you something about South Carolina. We don’t back down from responsibility. When our country calls, we’ve been there. And, if you don’t think that we’ve been fighting terrorism from the beginning, you need only look back to the fact we hung pirates, the first terrorists, in White Point Gardens. South Carolina doesn’t back down from terrorists. If they need to come to South Carolina, if I’ve got to load up a truck full of my buddies with shotguns from Orangeburg to guard ‘em, we will be there.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Reported favorably out of committee
- H. 3121, by Rep. James Smith, to make it unlawful in South Carolina to remove more than 10 turtles of a certain named species.
