A bill to give South Carolinians the chance to vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban card check cleared its last hurdle on Wednesday, as the House and Senate both approved H. 3305 with more than a two-thirds majority. Card check is a process that allows easier organizing by unions, and is a departure from the norm of a secret ballot. The amendment is meant to head off the Employee Free Choice Act, a union-backed bill making its way through Congress. Still, if a majority of agreed, under the EFCA a secret ballot vote was still A-OK.
“I don’t necessarily take any pride in the fact that we let Boeing in because we trampled on the rights of workers to organize,” said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter in the Free Times. “I’m glad Boeing is here, but I quite frankly would like South Carolina workers to have the opportunity to negotiate contracts that will pay them a livable wage and with health benefits similar to what the Boeing workers [in Washington] got.”
Republican leadership in the General Assembly dispute such allegations, saying that making sure card check doesn’t make it to the Palmetto State protects our state’s workers. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler said, “Boeing’s decision to expand its facility near Charleston serves as a reminder why we must protect our tough right-to-work laws. We are sending a strong message to the world: We want your business, and we’re committed to getting it.” Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell added, “I don’t know of anything more basic to the essence of our nation than the right to a secret ballot election.”
The bill was one of the priorities of conservatives in the General Assembly this year, after it was put on the on-deck circle in the first half of the 2009-2010 session. Following the vote, Sen. Larry Martin took to the Internet to explain what went down.
Good news, everyone. A bill generated by House Republicans to generate jobs and turn around the moribund economy in South Carolina was introduced Thursday. The best news is that it has thorough backing from the leadership, which means that the odds are fairly good that it can get through the chamber and make it to the Senate. Even better news is that a stunning number of Democrats have signed on, including House Minority Leader Harry Ott and Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, which signals more green lights for passage.
“South Carolina’s economy is the biggest issue facing our state for the next two decades,” Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell said in a statement. “Lowering unemployment and increasing per capita income are issues that directly affect the lives of South Carolina families. This legislative session will focus intensely on our state’s economic priorities. The Economic Development Competitiveness Act lays out steps we need to take to make our state more competitive in today’s global economy.”
A group created to make recommendations from the perspective of the private sector was used to figure out what should be done, and its recommendations were worked into the bill. It’s good to know that after the House GOP got out in front, leaders of both parties are behind this legislation that could make some serious differences to ameliorate the economic issues afflicting our state.
As House Assistant Majority Leader Bruce Bannister said, “These are private sector solutions, not government solutions. The Caucus has always worked hard to improve the business climate in South Carolina, and this is another step in a long line of job creation legislation from the Caucus. I look forward to taking quick action on this bill.”
Here we give you the best of the rest, the bills that were noteworthy, but didn’t have other bills that were interesting enough to pair up with. There’s a little bit of everything in here.
Including snakes. And alligators. And God-knows-what-all that Rep. Herb Kirsh is introducing a bill regarding. It’s pretty much developing a full realm of regulation involving reptiles that’ll kill you as soon as hiss, growl, rattle, or just sneak up and bite your ass off.
H. 4218: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 17 TO TITLE 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF VENOMOUS REPTILES, CONSTRICTING SNAKES, AND CROCODILIANS, INCLUDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION ENCLOSURES, WRITTEN BITE, SAFETY, AND ESCAPE PROTOCOLS; LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; REQUIREMENTS TO DETERMINE IF A REPTILE IS REGULATED UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND FOR MAKING FINAL DISPOSITIONS OF THESE REPTILES; ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER; CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN CONDUCT CONSTITUTES RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND SUBJECTS VIOLATORS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS.
It always seemed as though the lieutenant governor’s office didn’t need term limits. Anyone who stays in that office past two terms either has a screw loose, or must be taking some sweet kick-back deals. That’s not stopping Rep. Tim Scott, though, who wants to limit the occupant to two consecutive terms.
H. 4182: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE PERSON ELECTED LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2014, NO PERSON MAY BE ELECTED LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FOR MORE THAN TWO SUCCESSIVE TERMS.
And, we’re back again at common-law marriage. Why we’re still having to deal with this in the 21st century doesn’t seem to make sense, but Rep. Grady Brown is ready to go.
H. 4201: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-1-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COMMON LAW MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE MAY NOT BE RECOGNIZED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2010, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE EXISTING AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 20-1-360 RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE.
Remember the reforms passed by the General Assembly during the extended session regarding the Employment Security Commission? Ah, well, it still needs enabling legislation. Its chief sponsor is House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, accompanied by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and Reps. Harry Cato, Dan Cooper, Jeff Duncan, Jim Harrison, Leon Howard, Phil Owens, Brian White, Annette Young, Harry Ott and Gilda Cobb-Hunter.
H. 4203: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE “EMPLOYMENT SECURITY FUNDING AND REFORM ACT”.
Rounding it out is Rep. Bakari Sellers, who put in legislation that does a bit of restructuring in how the state administers education. Let’s see — it starts out by requiring that the high school graduation rate be tallied by race or ethnicity, and released by September of each year, then to eliminate the Education Oversight Committee, by taking out the EOC and moving its responsibilities into the state Department of Education. Anybody that loves strike-throughs will be exited by the text of this bill.
H. 4197: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-1-505 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO RELEASE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE DATA BASED ON RACE OR ETHNICITY BY SEPTEMBER FIRST OF EACH YEAR; TO AMEND SECTIONS 59-1-450, 59-1-452, AS AMENDED, 59-1-453, 59-6-10, 59-16-70, 59-18-120, AS AMENDED, 59-18-310, AS AMENDED, 59-18-320, AS AMENDED, 59-18-350, AS AMENDED, 59-18-900, AS AMENDED, 50-18-920, AS AMENDED, 59-18-950, 59-18-1500, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1510, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1530, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1540, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1570, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1590, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1700, AS AMENDED, 59-18-1930, AS AMENDED, 59-21-440, 59-21-600, 59-21-1210, 59-24-65, 59-26-20, AS AMENDED, 59-28-150, 59-28-190, 59-28-200, AS AMENDED, 59-28-210, 59-29-170, 59-29-220, 59-40-70, AS AMENDED, 59-40-230, 59-50-20, AS AMENDED, 59-59-170, 59-63-65, 59-139-10, 59-139-40, 59-139-60, AND 59-150-325, ALL RELATING TO THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, TO CHANGE CERTAIN REFERENCES FROM THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, AND TO DELETE CERTAIN REFERENCES TO THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 59-6-15, 59-6-16, 59-6-17, 59-6-20, 59-6-30, 59-6-100, AND 59-6-110 ALL RELATING TO THE BUSINESS EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MONITORING; TO REPEAL SECTION 59-21-1220 RELATING TO THE CAMPUS INCENTIVE PROGRAM; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 59-24-100 AND 59-24-110 BOTH RELATING TO THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM; TO REPEAL SECTION 59-28-220 RELATING TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT INCENTIVES; TO REPEAL SECTION 59-139-50 RELATING TO A PLAN FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 59-141-10 RELATING TO NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS.
Oh, boy. If you didn’t think the back-and-forth in Washington of this exchange: “You think you know better than everyone! Keep your big government hands out of health care,” versus, “Oh, you mean, ‘Keep your socialist hands off my Medicare,’” was not coming to our state government, you picked wrong. Rep. Tim Scott, who is in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor, is certainly going to be grabbing himself some headlines come January.
Scott sponsored the following bills:
H. 4171: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW MANDATE THAT ALL CITIZENS WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS PURCHASE OR SECURE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH A RANGE OF OPTIONS ONE OF WHICH IS TO PURCHASE OR SECURE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH A PUBLIC PLAN UNDERWRITTEN IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE PUBLIC PLAN PERMITS STATES TO “OPT OUT” OF THIS PUBLIC OPTION, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HERBY “OPTS OUT” AND DECLINES TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC PLAN OPTION APPLY TO OR BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE.
Yes, that’s exactly what it looks like — it makes sure that the Palmetto State opts out of a health care bill that has yet to pass the U.S. Senate. We just love preemption in this state, from seceding under the thought President Abraham Lincoln would have eliminated slavery (which is doubtful, in retrospect), all the way to the last session when Rep. Eric Bedingfield went both barrels with a bill and a constitutional amendment to prevent South Carolina from being involved in a federal card-check law. Come to think of it, this bill has a constitutional amendment filed with it, too.
H. 4181: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SO AS TO ADD A NEW SECTION PRESERVING THE FREEDOM OF SOUTH CAROLINIANS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVIDING OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, BY PROHIBITING ANY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE TO COMPEL AN INDIVIDUAL, EMPLOYER, OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, BY ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITHOUT PENALTIES OR FINES FOR THESE DIRECT PAYMENTS, BY PROVIDING THAT THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS MUST NOT BE PROHIBITED BY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE, BY PROVIDING THOSE INCENTIVES IN WHICH THE RIGHTS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY, AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS.
The bill probably has a better chance of passing than the constitutional amendment, but whether either make it to the Governor’s desk, eh, no guarantee on that one. There will be more than significant support among Republican members, but we suspect there will be intense Democratic opposition. Of course, a win for the Dems will probably add to up a delaying action just to make sure there are no final votes or conference committees or the like.
Speaking of Democrats, Rep. Boyd Brown has a bill in the hopper, to incentivise doctors to take their practice to rural areas.
H. 4195: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 111, TITLE 59 TO ENACT THE “SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM” SO AS TO CREATE A LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR LICENSED PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS WHO PRACTICE IN RURAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATE, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD, TO PROVIDE CRITERIA BY WHICH PHYSICIANS MAY BE SELECTED, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAM, AND TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS.
As well, a number of legislators came to fashion a bipartisan bill to address a recent controversy coming out of Congressional votes on amendments to health care legislation.
H. 4198: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-57-115 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION FOR AN INSURER TO DENY, REFUSE TO ISSUE OR RENEW, CANCEL, RESTRICT OR EXCLUDE COVERAGE, DENY A CLAIM OR LIMIT PAYMENTS, OR ADD A PREMIUM DIFFERENTIAL TO A POLICY OR CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE ON THE BASIS THAT AN APPLICANT OR INSURED HAS BEEN OR IS PERCEIVED TO HAVE BEEN ABUSED OR MAY BE A SUBJECT OF ABUSE AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, INCLUDING FINES UP TO TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
This bill’s primary sponsor is Rep. Shannon Erickson, and she’s joined by Reps. Joan Brady, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Jenny Horne, Rita Allison, Anne Peterson Hutto, Bill Herbkersman and Murrell Smith. As of right now, it’s completely legal for an insurance company to deny you coverage because of previous or current domestic violence. There’s no national law governing this, because, as has been blatantly obvious for some time, insurance regulations are largely left up to the states. So, in case a bill such language in it doesn’t pass in Congress, this legislation is to make sure it happens here.
As the days wind toward the opening of the session, there will likely be more heath care related bills coming down the pike.
As expected, when the House reconvened in its extended session on Tuesday, Rep. Greg Delleney submitted his resolution to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford.
A HOUSE RESOLUTION
TO PROVIDE THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XV, SECTION 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE HONORABLE MARSHALL C. SANFORD, JR., IS IMPEACHED FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.
Whereas, Governor Mark Sanford was absent from the State of South Carolina and from the United States from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until Wednesday, June 24, 2009, while in or in route to and from Argentina for reasons unrelated to his gubernatorial responsibilities; and
Whereas, from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until at least on or about Monday, June 22, 2009, Governor Sanford was not in official communication with any person in the chain of command within the Office of Governor of the State of South Carolina; and
Whereas, the Lieutenant Governor was not aware of the Governor’s absence from the State and there was no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the State; and
Whereas, the Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety in order to effect his absence from the State; and
Whereas, the Governor directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials of the State of South Carolina as well as the public of the State of South Carolina as to the Governor’s whereabouts; and
Whereas, the purpose of the Governor’s absence from the State of South Carolina served no furtherance of his duties as Governor; and
Whereas, the Governor’s conduct in being absent brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina, and furthermore, has caused the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and the State of South Carolina to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace; and
Whereas, the Governor’s conduct and actions under these circumstances constitute serious misconduct in office pursuant to and for the purposes of Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of this State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the Governor of South Carolina, the Honorable Marshall C. Sanford, Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.
That brought a point-of-order objection by Rep. Walt McLeod, who said that the resolution, at this time, was not allowable per the modified sine die rule. Delleney responded that the state constitution trumped the rule, and that the modified rule came from the Senate, and for sine die to be applicable, the House would have to seek the Senate’s consent, which wouldn’t make sense considering that impeachment is the sole purview of the House.
To which McLeod responded, “Mr. Delleney has some serious points, but that may be premature, or even immature.” Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter also rose to speak against bringing the resolution at that time.
Ultimately, Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell ruled that the resolution was indeed out-of-order, but that Delleney could put it on the desk to be prefiled in November for when the House returns for the 2010 session.
Really, nobody thought there was a realistic chance of the House taking up impeachment during this period. It took Harrell and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell to call back the General Assembly, and McConnell publicly stated that he would not do it for impeachment. These coming days are totally concerned with fixing issues with the Employment Security Commission and economic development.
Thursday, the TRAC bill passed on second reading in the House, 67-30. But, it was not before an extensive push from Democrats to assure the minority party a place on the commission.
A number of prominent Dems stepped to the podium to complain about a lack of representation, and the perceived strongarm tactics of the majority. There was also the fact that Act 388 was not addressed.
“You know what I find interesting, Mr. Smith? We spent all that time yesterday and we passed that amendment that said the study committee will study the FairTax, and bring information about the FairTax, as a part of its report,” Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter said. “Well, you know, I’m not a big high-priced lawyer or big-time business person, but I have spent time trying to figure out how it makes sense to study the FairTax, which we do not have in this state, but it doesn’t make sense to study Act 388, which is wreaking havoc across this state, to all of the public schools we have.”
She continued, “But, we can’t study Act 388. Perhaps because nobody wanting to study Act 388 is running for Congress. But, we do have people who are running for Congress who want to study the FairTax. And, maybe it’s just a coincidence that the whole notion of the FairTax is this No. 1 thing Club for Growth has, so maybe there’s a connection. I don’t know, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, one wonders, Mr. Smith, if perhaps there is a connection between that and campaign contributions.”
Rep. Rex Rice, who is running to fill U.S. Rep Gresham Barrett’s seat, introduced and got passed an amendment on the FairTax on Wednesday.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell has said that he will put a Democrat on the commission, even if there is not an assurance of that in the law. Rep. Jeff Duncan took exception with the line of attack that Democrats were using in the debate, as a result of that and regular debate over minority party representation in the House.
“We’ve heard a lot of conversations today about minority representation. In fact, this year we have heard a lot about minority party representation,” Duncan said. “And, I was listening to Mr. Hart…about James Madison and majority rule and tyrannical governments. What I would like to say is that, I want to juxtapose what is going on in Washington, D.C. right now, with what we have here. Because in Washington, D.C., we have the exact opposite. We have one party in control, the majority party. You know how many minority party members have subcommittee chairmanships? Or committee chairmanships, or have the opportunity for a bill to go on third reading with unanimous consent in Washington? Zero. Zero. We talk about bipartisanship, but the party that’s in control in South Carolina, and I would be willing to bet the party that is not in control in Washington, D.C. right now, if you look at the record, the bipartisanship has been stronger from the Republican Party than what we’ve been seeing with the party in control.”
Duncan continued, “So, when I look at this quote that talks about majority rule, I think about that, but I want to juxtapose it with what we have here. We’re talking about South Carolina, Mr. Hart. We’re talking about what is going on in the General Assembly. And, I want y’all to think about something, for a minute, when you’re talking about minority representation. How many subcommittee chairmanships do we have that are held by Democrats in this body? How many subcommittee chairmanships do we have? We actually have six standing committees in this body, and one of those is held by a minority party person. One. It’s better than zero, Mr. Govan, that we’ve got in Washington. We’ve got one here. We’re talking about representation. We’ve got that. Let’s talk about positions on Rules. Let’s talk about positions on Ethics. Let’s talk about positions on other committees. Let’s talk about this speaker, who lets a minority party person to be represented on every conference committee that I’ve seen in seven years.”
The House is on furlough next week and will return on May 12.
National Democrats are channeling Shakespeare, saying, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of Obama.” Dems hold the U.S. House, U.S. Senate and the presidency for the first time in fifteen years. A time of strength, right?
Not in South Carolina. The Democratic Party here has been hamstrung by bad leadership, and right now, it is not any better. Carol Fowler will be chairman for another term, dooming the party to other electoral defeats by not stocking the cabinet with good candidates.
Here is a task: pick five possible Republican candidates for governor that have a punching chance. Now, pick five Democrats. Cannot find five Dems? Point proven.
Along comes the latest shot in the dark from the S.C. Progressive Network. Being an unapologetic flaming liberal in one of the most conservative states in the union in one thing. Hey, have at it. Believing that your brand of politics will win statewide is another. And then there is this:
It’s been seven long years since a movement to draft Gilda Cobb-Hunter to run for governor ran into ran into a roadblock: the prospective candidate herself. “South Carolina isn’t ready for a black woman to be governor,” the representative from Orangeburg said. She declined to enter the race against Jim Hodges, and Mark Sanford was elected governor.
The buzz among friends who know her best is that she is open to reconsidering a run for governor or, perhaps, taking on Sen. Jim DeMint for his US Senate seat.
A lot has changed in seven years, not the least of which is that we have a black man in the White House. While white men — from president, to governor to the legislature — have proven their inability to meaningfully address the problems facing our state and nation, it may well be time for Gilda to reconsider her earlier hesitancy.
The Democratic Party is fielding some nice guys to contend for its nomination for governor. Sen. Vince Sheheen of Camden, Rep. Harry Ott of Calhoun County, and Mullins McLeod of Charleston are names being mentioned. But they don’t resonate with the demand for substantive change that could inspire new South Carolina voters. We can’t expect their candidacies to be far removed from the traditional Democratic strategy of playing to the right of center to pick off a couple of percentage points from the Republican vote. This is the “Republican Lite” strategy that has failed for the past 30 years.
But what if a bold candidate spoke to the 43 percent of South Carolinians who did not vote in the last election?
To put it in perspective, McCain got 1,034,896 votes in South Carolina’s last general election; Obama got 862,449. That adds up to 1,897,345 South Carolinians who voted. Sitting it out were 1,472,048 of the voting-age population (24 percent of them registered voters) who didn’t vote. That’s an untapped market of 43 percent of folks in this state who could vote but chose not to.
We only need to mobilize 12 percent of the people who don’t vote to turn the state blue. Of all the Democratic candidates mentioned, Gilda has the magic to make this happen. She is the one person in the legislature that who be counted on to vote in the interest of working people, minorities and the disenfranchised. Her candidacy for governor or US Senate would inject a level of enthusiasm into the race — helping all Democratic candidates — that nobody else could provide.
You could get 10 experts on Southern politics in a room, and nine of those, at least, would agree that a black Democrat cannot get elected statewide in South Carolina. Just ask Steve Benjamin how well his 2002 election night went.
Some people may not like that assessment, but that does not mean it is not true. Rep. Cobb-Hunter is better off working hard in the House, rather being a sacrificial lamb for a party that would not be able to get one of the Duke boys elected in 2010.
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, the House moved forward with further restrictions on a woman’s access to an abortion, approving H. 3245 on the second reading, a bill chief sponsored by Rep. Greg Delleney.
“The law has not been disturbed with this bill, except it extends the 24-hour waiting period, and a woman is told what the gestational age of her child is, as verified by the abortion,” Delleney said. “That is the only thing this bill does. It’s about informed consent.”
The bill mandates that after a woman views an ultrasound and is given the gestational age of the fetus, she has a 24-hour waiting period before she can go through with the abortion. Opponents to the bill say it puts an undue burden on the woman, who would have to go twice to one of three clinics in South Carolina that perform abortions.
“There is no other state, if we adopt this amendment, that will be following this particular procedure,” Rep. James Smith said. “Let me say that again: No other state in the nation has this bill as their law. This bill is not a 24-hour bill, this bill is a two-visit bill.”
Ultimately, the bill prevailed 83-28.
Notable Quotes
Rep. James Smith
Members of the House, this is…some things I want to be very, very clear about this debate. You’ve received some information that says this will make us like 26 other states. That is patently false. It’s not true. There is no other state, if we adopt this amendment, that will be following this particular procedure. Let me say that again: No other state in the nation has this bill as their law. This bill is not a 24-hour bill, this bill is a two-visit bill. It’s not a 24-hour bill, it’s a two-visit bill. Meaning, if you are living in Allendale, or if you are a woman living in Allendale, working for a living, there are three facilities in this state that will perform these procedures. One of them is not in Allendale, I will tell you. So, you will have to leave your home, miss work, go to one of these facilities, have a photograph ultrasound taken, go home to where you live, and come back the next day. This presumes that we think that lady in Allendale never thought about the consequences of her own decision before she shows up on the doorstep for the ultrasound. It’s like she never even began to think, “Should I or should I not take this step?” She never prayed about it before, that we are going to mandate that you are going to have to take two trips, because we don’t think that you’ve thought well enough about it on your own.
…
We’ve been talking about this issue, probably entirely too much, before we came back, a group of us were talking, cause you know what? We ought to be asking the proponents of this bill: How many jobs are going to be created with this bill? So, what’s this bill going to do with our budget shortfall? How many teachers are we going to be able to hire to teach our children, once we pass this bill? How are we going to improve the opportunities for home ownership in South Carolina when we pass this bill? Is this really the paramount concern of this Republican majority? Is this what you guys are all about? Is this the primary, the No. 1 issue we need to address in the first few weeks of the General Assembly? We need to make sure we have a two-visit bill in South Carolina, so that lady in Allendale has to leave her work twice to go to someplace in Charleston or Columbia because you don’t think she’s thought about it enough. Right? That’s the No. 1 concern of the Republican majority in this chamber. I mean, it boggles the mind. It really does. Cause my constituents are concerned about their jobs, they’re concerned about their families, they’re concerned about the education of their children. They want to see us working on their economic futures and making this state a better and brighter place to raise their children. …
Rep. Leon Howard
Here, today, I’m appalled that we’re spending our time, our energy and taxpayer resources on such a wedge issue. This state is about to crumble.
The funny part about it, it’s dead on arrival in the Senate. I can assure you that. We’re spending time on something that’s not going anywhere.
Rep. Bill Wylie
I said, I’m glad that you are here to represent the women’s rights, but I’m wondering if we don’t have a right to represent the unborn babies that I’m representing here, or babies that have been aborted that will never be here.
Rep. Steve Parker
In my limited capacity, as a former teacher, as a husband, as a father, as a grandfather with a daughter that’s going to have another child in seven months, I will be perfectly clear, that I think my ultimate goal, as I serve the people of the State of South Carolina, is to protect the unborn, who are so helpless and vulnerable, to a doctor that goes in and performs an abortion, and I won’t even go into the details.
Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter
Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with one point that was made from this podium. There’s really nothing funny about this, regardless of which side of the issue you’re on. I think it’s important for us to look at this issue and to try to put whatever personal beliefs we might have aside. I’ve always shared with folk and I want to say to Mr. Delleney, who is a very well-respected, very thoughtful, and very caring person, that one thing I know about Greg Delleney is that this is something that is personal to him and he believes in very strongly.
…
I know how exciting it must be for some of you who are here for the first time. But, let me suggest to you, in your zeal to make your point heard, as the Speaker has admonished us, that we not get personal about things.
…
Let me share with those of you who may think I’m just a loudmouth opinionated woman who get up here from time to time. And, there’s my dear friend Mr. Merrill. As Mr. Merrill accused me of last week in the Ways and Means Committee, “clubbing people like baby seals, and then wanting to be nice about it.” I reminded Mr. Merrill after the meeting that I’m a social worker who deals with issues of violence within families, and he has promised me that the next time he wants to make an analogy about me and my performance, he will seek his very best to try not to find a violent analogy to use, or a violent metaphor. But, my point is this: last year, or two years ago, when this issue was discussed, there was an effort to exclude women who are victims of rape or incest. That attempt, unfortunately, didn’t pass. This year, same effort, same energy, to include women, girls, who are victims of rape or incest. No such luck this year, either. So, as one who has worked with victims of violence for about 30 years now, I would be hard-pressed to show you a rape victim who was pregnant as a result of that rape, and who had decided not to have that fetus come to life. I would be hard-pressed to show you somebody who wanted it, and didn’t want to take care of it. But, that is neither here nor there. What I am suggesting to you is that I have always, always, always, and something tells me that over the next two years, as I look around this chamber, I’m going to have many opportunities to witness the hypocrisy between what you say and what you do.
…
We are at a point where we continue, in South Carolina, to do things that make us the center of attention, not necessarily in a positive way, for the rest of the country.
Rep. Greg Delleney
Even in the case of rape, I don’t know what is going on the other side of the curtain. It’s all a part of the potter’s wheel. I can’t tell you why people conceive, in cases of rape about seven percent, but what I can tell you, that once there’s been a conception, there is a unique human being begun, with 46 chromosomes, 23 from the father, 23 from the mother, and from 18 to 19 days, they have a heartbeat. I can tell you that.
