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.
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Adopted
- H. 4358, by Rep. Bill Herbkersman, to memorialize Congress for fair treatment of U.S. Navy Seals.
Debate adjourned
- S. 424, by Sen. Lee Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments.
SENATE
Amended, passed on second reading
- S. 1034, by Sen. Hugh Leatherman, to extend until Nov. 15, 2010 the deadline by which the Taxation Realignment Commission should submit its report and recommendations.
Third reading
- S. 517, by Sen. Tom Davis, to prevent any part of state government from administratively raising a fee or penalty without said increase first being approved by the General Assembly. The provision would expire on Jan. 15, 2011.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Introductions
- S. 517, by Davis, to prevent any part of state government from administratively raising a fee or penalty without said increase first being approved by the General Assembly. The provision would expire on Jan. 15, 2011.
Debate adjourned
- H. 3279, by Rep. Tom Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the secretary of state from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. The bill was amended before debate adjourned.
Rejected
- H. 3279, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the secretary of state from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot. The bill failed by one vote.
SENATE
Reported out of committee favorably
- S. 590, by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, regarding petition candidates.
- S. 900 and S. 901, by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, to provide permanent security for the governor and lieutenant governor, and provide a specific rule for the chain of command.
- S. 1085, by Leatherman, to increase from three to five percent the amount of revenue deposited into the General Reserve Fund.
- H. 3231, by Rep. Ted Pitts, to have the governor and lieutenant governor elected on the same ticket.
Third reading
- S. 1034, by Leatherman, to extend until Nov. 15, 2010 the deadline by which the Taxation Realignment Commission should submit its report and recommendations.
Debate interrupted
- H. 3418, by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, on voter ID.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Introductions
- H. 4451, by Rep. Dennis Moss, to ban liquor sales statewide not just to include Election Day and Sundays, but Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
- H. 4457, by Rep. Bill Bowers, to prevent private emails of public officials from being subjected to FOIA requests.
- H. 4468, by Rep. Michael Thompson, six words: South Carolina Study Committee Study Committee.
- S. 1034, by Leatherman, to extend until Nov. 15, 2010 the deadline by which the Taxation Realignment Commission should submit its report and recommendations.
- H. 4455, by Rep. Mike Pitts, (OK, we have to print this in its entirety) A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES FROM THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA AND ANY OTHER ACTIVITY THAT SEEKS TO CREATE A NORTH AMERICAN UNION, AND REQUESTING THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF EACH STATE INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA TO WORK TO WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES FROM THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA AND ANY OTHER ACTIVITY THAT SEEKS TO CREATE A NORTH AMERICAN UNION. (Lordy, can you believe these people? In what weird freako world does the U.S., Canada and Mexico form one government except in scifi books and the fringe of the fringe of American politics?)
- H. 4475, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the secretary of state from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
- H. 4478, by Harrell, the, for all intents and purposes, House jobs bill.
Debate adjourned
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. Democrats went to town proposing amendments to the bill, which ran on for some time.
SENATE
Amended, passed on second reading
- S. 590, by Peeler, regarding petition candidates.
- H. 3418, by Harrell, on voter ID.
Second reading
- S. 1, by McConnell, a constitutional amendment generally imposing spending caps and the like.
Third reading
- S. 766, by Sen. Thomas Alexander, banning novelty lighters.
Carried over, as amended
- S. 1085, by Leatherman, to increase from three to five percent the amount of revenue deposited into the General Reserve Fund.
- H. 3396, by Harrell, to increase from three to five percent the amount of revenue deposited into the General Reserve Fund.
QUOTES
Harrell: Ms. Funderburk is recognized for a…oh, I’m sorry. Are you up? Ms. Funderburk is recognized. Are you joining her, Mr. Gunn?
Rep. Anton Gunn: I am.
Harrell: With her wingman, Mr. Gunn.
===
On the resolution suggesting protection of U.S. Navy Seals.
Harrell: Mr. Kennedy, for what purpose do you rise?
You would like to ask me a question?
Rep. Ken Kennedy: Who is introducing the resolution?
Harrell: Mr. Herbkersman introduced it. There’s no one at the podium who wishes to take a question right now.
Kennedy: Are they being abused or something? Why are we introducing it?
Harrell: Mr. Kennedy, you have to…you can adjourn debate….
Kennedy: I adjourn debate until he can tell me why we are introducing it.
The motion was withdrawn.
===
During debate on the state sovereignty bill.
Harrell: Mr. Kennedy, it’s a concurrent resolution. You don’t request debate on it.
Kennedy: Well, how can we…? Let’s stop it.
Harrell: Mr. Kennedy says, “Let’s stop it.” I’m not sure of that motion, Mr. Kennedy.
===
Rep. Walt McLeod: The concept of an armed South Carolina militia is a concept already contained in the Constitution. This amendment – Mr. Bedingfield and I are good friends; sometimes we have a difference of opinion. The amendment speaks about armed South Carolinians. It says absolutely nothing about the militia. We need to be careful about having “armed South Carolinians.”
===
Rep. Bakari Sellers: My question to you is, when will the Republican Party get serious about anything other than themselves?
McLeod: I don’t think I want to answer that one, but I compliment you for trying.
===
Kennedy: Are you aware that what they are trying to do is arm every South Carolinian? Get every South Carolinian with a gun, so that when a job does come open, they can battle over it. Do you see that coming?
McLeod: I know I have a shotgun, which I use for hunting purposes. I’m really not interested in being denominated as an “armed South Carolinian.”
===
Kennedy: Wouldn’t you think the people who are watching this over television out there, in South Carolina, watching this debate, wouldn’t you think that they think we are nuts up here?
McLeod: I would think it would create an unfavorable impression.
Kennedy: Nuts.
McLeod: I don’t think I would agree with that word, but perhaps close to it.
Kennedy: Why won’t you use the word, “nuts?” It’s in the dictionary. Nuts. Wouldn’t you think that we are nuts up here?
===
Sen. Phil Leventis: Here we are, in a budget crisis, and we cannot get accounting out of the Department of Corrections, and the Governor is the only one who can take action to change this, and the Governor is quiet. This governor can’t be about accountability, he can’t be about transparency, because he is protecting his agency heads – this one in particular at the Department of Corrections – from any accounting or transparency with this legislature.
===
Thompson: Did you know that sometimes, I feel like putting a sign outside the House chamber that says, “Go sell crazy elsewhere – we’re all full.”
===
Sellers: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we make Devan Downey the governor of South Carolina.
Harrell: Mr. Sellers asks unanimous consent that we make Devan Downey the next Republican governor from South Carolina.
Mr. Sellers objects.
For the second consecutive day, action in the Senate ground to a halt while Democrats filibustered an amendment to S. 424, the 10th Amendment bill. The resolution was to originally constructed to express the General Assembly’s discontent with general actions taken by Congress as of late. The amendment would strike and replace language to show the General Assembly’s rejection of the Democratic health care bill, however it makes it out of the negotiations between Congressional Democrats. It also discusses bailouts and the like.
Whereas, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights established a federal government limited in scope and guarantee of personal liberty so that our citizens will be free to pursue their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as recognized in the Declaration of Independence; and
Whereas, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
Whereas, pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, the people are guaranteed the right to privacy as a basic human right; and
Whereas, the delivery, administration and receipt of medical care affects personal privacy and involves the most intimate and personal of choices; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the limited scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, by limiting the scope of federal power to only those specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution, the states retain plenary power to govern; and
Whereas, despite the clear limitations placed upon it by the United States Constitution, the federal government has steadily expanded its reach into the lives of our citizens and, in so doing, violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has said that states have great latitude in regulating medical care and standards, which have historically and constitutionally been primary state responsibilities and affect areas of core state responsibility, yet Congress and the President are reaching agreement over legislation that will result in the federal government absorbing the regulation of medical care, stripping the states of most responsibility, and taking away the free choice of the citizens of the states; and
Whereas, the federal government has spent trillions of dollars of borrowed money to run deficits, to bail out financial institutions, to prop-up auto makers, and to keep afloat other private enterprises that were mismanaged, took unnecessary risks, or were unresponsive to market demands, thus amassing a debt that will loom over and burden our country for generations to come; and
Whereas, the federal government habitually responds to its annual budget shortfalls by burdening the states with unfunded mandates, shifting costs for programs to the states, limiting state flexibility, and interfering with state revenue systems, undermining the constitutionally created balance between federal and state government; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states, and that states may provide their citizens with protections that exceed the protections by the federal government; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Constitution allows states to grant rights to their citizens in their state constitutions, beyond rights granted in the federal Constitution; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that federal law restricting certain rights may be ineffective in denying those rights protected in state Constitutions; and
Whereas, the federal government is considering legislation that may, among other things, obligate residents in South Carolina and other states to purchase health insurance; and
Whereas, the federal government is considering legislation that may, among other things, mandate that this State and other states increase its spending for Medicaid; and
Whereas, it is vitally important for the future of our nation that the states stand against the relentless expansion of the federal government and restore the proper balance to our federal system. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.
Be it further resolved that it is the policy of the State of South Carolina that:
No law shall interfere with the right of a person to be treated by or receive services from a health care provider of that person’s choice;
No law shall restrict a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private health care plans of any type;
No law shall interfere with a person’s or an entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services; and
No law shall impose a tax, penalty, or fine, of any type, for choosing a health care provider, to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.
Be it further resolved that it is the policy of the State of South Carolina that the Attorney General will challenge the constitutionality of any provision enacted by the United States Congress that would violate any of the policies established by this resolution and join with other states that are like-minded to make such a challenge.
Be it further resolved that no state agency, agent, department, instrumentality, or subdivision shall cooperate or participate in any way with any mandate passed by Congress upon notification by the Attorney General that the mandate has been successfully challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction, and further provided that there is not an order to the contrary by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and each member of South Carolina’s Congressional Delegation, all at Washington, D.C., and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the legislatures of the other forty-nine states.
The talking, it went on for a long time.
For a while, it appeared that Sen. Mick Mulvaney, a cosponsor of the legislation, was filibustering his own bill by going on at length to convince his fellow legislators to pass it. Following an impromptu Senate Republican Caucus meeting, there was a bit of theater as Sens. Mulvaney, Glenn McConnell and John Courson discussed Barry Goldwater. Then, the inevitable — the talking started from the Democratic side.
Sen. Phil Leventis ceded to Sen. Brad Hutto, who stepped to the podium and didn’t stop, getting into an entertaining “flim-flam” call-and-response, saying that the bill as would be amended would have no power and if it did have power, would be a disaster to the state in the event of the state losing Federal health care funding. Sen. Robert Ford suggested a strike-and-replace amendment with the Ordinance of Secession. Sen. Dick Elliott asked about getting cots so that the senators could make it through the night.
However, it didn’t go all night, though the Wednesday session went a lot longer than it would have otherwise. Several senators, appearing to have had enough of the affair, asked for a leave of absence and took off. One thing is for certain, though — hackles are raised among the faithful. As good a Democrats v. Republicans fight is rare in South Carolina, when it happens, it’s solid.
Republicans, in general, are fed up. In a statement released about the debate, Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler said:
Like our founding fathers, we too will stand strong against an overreaching government because we do have a choice and with this resolution, we ask the Attorney General of South Carolina to fight any attempt to force a socialized health care plan on our state and its taxpayers. We will stand today, not just against the Democrats, but against a government that intrudes on our rights and our freedoms. We demand action today because by remaining silent, we signal our surrender.
The Democrats say our resolution is pointless. They say it has no effect of law. We don’t need a new law to stand up for our rights and to send a signal to Washington that we will not, under any circumstances, accept a takeover of our nation’s health care system. And we will take all legal actions necessary to ensure that our rights are protected.
S.C. Republican Party chairwoman Karen Floyd also voiced opposition to what Senate Democrats have been up to.
Rather than acting to protect South Carolina patients and taxpayers, state Democrats are already up to their old obstructionist tricks, and trying their best to import the Washington liberals’ fiscal irresponsibility here to our state. We’re proud of our Republican Senators who are standing strong in this fight to protect our rights to set policies and choose our own healthcare. The Democrats need to end their filibuster and act in the best interest of South Carolinians.
Democrats fired back, saying:
It’s ridiculous that our state’s Republican leaders are wasting time and money with this kind of grandstanding so early in the new legislative session. South Carolina citizens are counting on our leaders to pass legislation that will give their families access to quality, affordable healthcare, not strip them of their rights to Medicare and other services. Senators have a moral obligation not to waste time and taxpayer money on bills like this.
Something’s going to have to give in this tug-of-war. A cloture motion failed by two votes Wednesday, so the Senate will be taking up the measure again on Thursday. It stands to reason that Republicans are going to find those two votes and shut down the filibuster pretty soon.
The debate started back up again just before the holiday with Rep. Harold Mitchell proposing that a House panel would screen potential new magistrates in the same way other judges and certain other officials are considered. The panels recommend candidates (as in, this person is qualified, this person is not), and there’s a transcript of the meeting available online. There is also a chance for public comment. As it stands now, the senator or senators for a certain county do the hiring and firing.
The issue in Spartanburg was an oft-talked about part of Sen. Lee Bright’s campaign. You don’t usually see groups of people getting together for something like magistrate appointment. We wondered what the real motivation was, and having citizen panels (?) review candidates and the governor appoint everybody doesn’t seem like much of an improvement.
There are people in the county who are not exactly pleased with how things have been going down in the past few months, and the grumblings are getting louder.
Naturally, it raised some eyebrows in the Upstate when Bright, with Sen. Glenn Reese, brought in campaign supporter Rob Chumley to fill Brian Taylor’s seat. Here’s a twist: remember how Bright and a number of other candidates in ‘08 were a part of a structured grouping of candidates, consultants and third-party groups? Bright’s primary opponent, then-Rep. Scott Talley, was targeted. Rep. Keith Kelly, who won his primary, was targeted, as well. Guess who is running against Kelly for the GOP nomination next year? Chumley’s father, Bill. And Bill Chumley is paying Bright’s consultant, Chris Sullivan. Nothing weird there, right?
Then there was the strange case of David Snow, who became a victim of this patronage experiment. As this fall’s special extended session was wrapping up, at the end of the day, Snow was relieved of his duties as he was closing up his office. From what we’ve been told, that effectively severely limited Snow’s ability to do anything relating to access to the office. Enter James West, who gave a grand to the Bright campaign last year, as well as the Reese effort. West, to the best of our knowledge, has no legal experience.
Then there’s the last one, with John Rollins being forced out in favor of Tina McMillan, wife of Jim McMillan, who is running against Rep. Rita Allison in the District 36 primary. Amid reports that Allison is being targeted by the same groups who were afoot last year, there’s this interesting fact: Sullivan is running Jim McMillan’s campaign, as well. Mind you, the couple gave $1,000 each to the Bright campaign (Tina personally, Jim through his company).
These are not simple coincidences. And officials closest to the situation aren’t buying what Bright’s been selling.
“That’s a concern, especially when [Bright] ran against cronyism,” Mitchell said. “He said he wanted to make sure this kind of thing didn’t happen.”
Bright said he couldn’t put together a screening committee unless the other senators agreed. But Sens. Harvey Peeler and Shane Martin said Bright has never approached them about the idea.
“I’ve talked to him numerous times about how we appoint magistrates, and he hasn’t said anything to me about it,” said Peeler, R-Gaffney. “He’d better be careful what he asks for or he just might get it. I think that’s the posture he’s in right now.”
For all the bluff and bluster bullshit about “good ol’ boys” during the 2008 cycle, is anyone surprised by this? It’s incredible that enough voters swallowed the line that got a few legislators like Bright in power. And the whole machinery is gearing up for another run.
It seems that the tipping point in the restructuring of the S.C. state government has happened, and with a vengeance. If a number of these bills pass and go into law, the way South Carolina does business from here on out will change dramatically. Hopefully, it will be for the better. A goodly amount of the legislation comes with Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell as the chief sponsor, which means they will blow through committee and likely sail through the Senate, at the very least.
Taking control of fixing the the complicated mess of state administration appears to be McConnell’s main concern in 2010.
S. 897: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON STREAMLINING GOVERNMENT AND REDUCTION OF WASTE AND PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP, POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE SUBMISSION, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR STAFF SUPPORT AND FINANCES FOR THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR COOPERATION WITH AND SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS TERMINATION.
This bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Hugh Leatherman and Harvey Peeler, which means it’s basically signed, sealed and ready to go already. As we’ve seen with the city government in Columbia, lack of oversight and proper addressing of waste will screw everyone over. If state government can be slimmed down, service duplication eliminated and outdated programs eliminated, we may well be on the way to sessions where worrying over million-dollar revenue shortfalls won’t cause major issues.
S. 898: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A ZERO BASE BUDGET PROCESS BEGINNING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011.
This bill is also co-sponsored by Peeler, which means it’s also good to go at least as far as the Senate is concerned. As well, it well-compliments the previous measure. Now, all state agencies won’t be up for zero-based budgeting at the same time (there are four groups that will rotate — like the BCS!), but it’s a start. Our parents have worked in state agencies, so we’ve seen foolish decisions made with the best of intentions. For instance, agencies spending bank at the end of the fiscal year to justify at the very least the same funding as the previous year. That’s a horrible way to run a government, and zero-based budgeting seeks to end such things.
S. 899: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, BY ADDING SECTION 37, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SENATE MUST ELECT FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERS A PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE TO PRESIDE OVER THE SENATE AND TO PERFORM OTHER DUTIES AS PROVIDED BY LAW; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE ELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS, AND TERM OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT ELECTION OF THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE, SO AS TO DELETE SECTION 9, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SENATE MUST CHOOSE A PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE AND WHICH ALSO PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER OF THE SENATE ACTING AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR VACATES HIS SEAT AND ANOTHER PERSON IS ELECTED IN HIS STEAD; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AS PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, BY DELETING SECTION 10, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE DISABILITY OF THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE STATE TREASURER TRANSMIT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A WRITTEN DECLARATION THAT THE GOVERNOR IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MUST ASSUME THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE AS ACTING GOVERNOR.
Oh, Gov. Mark Sanford. What hell you hath wrought. This is the beginning of the bills dealing with the Sanford fallout, and is also chief-sponsored by McConnell. It’s as close as an omnibus rewriting of the lieutenant governor’s duties as we’ve ever seen. It never made much sense for the lieutenant governor to preside over the S.C. Senate, as it doesn’t for the vice president to have the same duties in the U.S. Senate. Having a senator actually be president of the Senate only makes sense. It’s amazing that this hasn’t been fixed years ago.
S. 900: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-3-16, SO AS TO MANDATE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION PROVIDE SECURITY AND PROTECTION FOR THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, WHICH MUST NOT BE DECLINED.
More Sanford fallout. Of course, the Lothario-in-Chief has always wanted to shirk his SLED protection, and definitely did so when he want on his Argentinean rendezvous. Sen. Jake Knotts signed on as a co-sponsor.
S. 901: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-3-630, SO AS TO DEFINE “EMERGENCY,” “FULL AUTHORITY,” AND “TEMPORARY ABSENCE” IN ORDER TO CLARIFY WHEN A LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HAS THE FULL AUTHORITY TO ACT IN AN EMERGENCY IN THE EVENT OF THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE.
SANFORD! It’s fairly obvious at this point that McConnell got fed up with the mess the state government is in, and is working to make sure we never get back here.
S. 907: A BILL TO REPEAL ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 61, TITLE 44 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
This bill is a Peeler effort, to address the mess with the EMS. Efforts to keep people’s medical records private went too far, and has led to issues with proper emergency medical service. The bill is written to fix that.
S. 947: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THIS STATE, BY ADDING SECTION 4 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICES OF THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; AND PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVII, BY ADDING SECTION 15 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIED PROCEDURE FOR THE ENACTMENT OR REPEAL OF LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
Yet more Sanford-inspired legislation. This comes from Sens. Larry Grooms and Kevin Bryant. While former The State editorial page editor Brad Warthen may despise progressive election reforms, we like the Western idea: give the electorate the option for recall and initiatives. If you don’t trust the voters to do that, you might as well not trust them to vote in elections, either. Southern states (and Northern ones, for that matter), have been way too late to the party on these ideas.
And, this is the only time we’re going to say this, but you legislators need to get together and talk this shit out. There are a number of different proposals that had the same legislation introduced. It’s not unusual to have basically the same bill go into the House and the Senate, but to have the same proposal put in a number of times into the same chamber is silly. Sen. Mike Rose, you’re next up on the recall boat.
S. 995: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THIS STATE, BY ADDING SECTION 4 TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICES OF THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
And, look, Rose is for introducing the chance for initiatives, too.
S. 1002: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, BY ADDING SECTION 15, TO PERMIT THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE PETITION.
Don’t totally knock him, though, because Rose does have an idea that wasn’t previously filed. He’s filed a bill that will set South Carolina on a biennial budget and a biennial session, like Virginia. Maybe he doesn’t know, but when the legislature is in session in the Old Dominion, it’s fucking in session. Legislators have no lives for a number of weeks. Neither do the civil servants that do their grunt work. It’s a bastard. And, Columbia doesn’t have the badass bars and diners that make Richmond an OK place to stay up for three months straight every two years.
S. 1003: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9, ARTICLE III OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE BIENNIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR A SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT DATE, TO PROVIDE THE MEANS AND THE LIMIT TO WHICH THE SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT DATE MAY BE EXTENDED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVENING OF THE FIRST BIENNIAL SESSION.
Few events have caused more celebration in the Palmetto State recently than the announcement today that South Carolina took part of Boeing’s operation from Washington. Between labor strife with the International Association of Machinists and a solid proposal from S.C. lawmakers, the multinational company decided to put its manufacturing facility for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston.
There will be an initial 3,800 jobs, but with suppliers and other tertiary business, around 12,000 jobs are expected.
“Establishing a second 787 assembly line in Charleston will expand our production capability to meet the market demand for the airplane,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said in a statement. “This decision allows us to continue building on the synergies we have established in South Carolina with Boeing Charleston and Global Aeronautica.”
He added, “The 787 will provide airlines with unprecedented operating economics and efficiencies. It also will take passengers where they want to go, when they want to go, and do it more comfortably and affordably than ever before. This airplane will allow us to continue to set the standard for commercial aviation in the second century of flight.”
When the announcement was made in the Senate on Wednesday, several minutes after 5 p.m., there was a standing ovation and in both chambers, lapel pins of a palmetto tree with wings were handed out.
“This is a real achievement for all South Carolina. All of us, senators, under the leadership of Speaker [Bobby] Harrell and Sen. [Glenn] McConnell, worked together to make it happen in record time,” Sen. Hugh Leatherman said. “Legislators from every part of the state, Democrat and Republican, pulled together for the good of the people of this state. … I want to tell you one other thing. Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor – Joe, you did an outstanding job. You put your heart and soul into this. Without you and your staff…we wouldn’t be where we are and I will tell you how much we appreciate what you did.”
McConnell, who echoed Leatherman’s sentiments that it was a transformational day for the state, said the effort to land Boeing started months ago.
“I want you to know, this thing started way back in the summer,” he said. “A call from the chairman, a call from a mutual friend of ours, and we got Sen. [Larry] Grooms, Sen. [Paul] Campbell, to meet and see what we could do. And, it started out with a great meeting where we just talked around the table, ‘Is there the possibility?’ And we all decided to go to work. Commerce was out there helping in any way they could.”
There was also recognition of Leatherman’s leadership on the project.
“It’s taken a lot of just hard work. Many phone calls,” McConnell said. “But for the chairman, I have to tell you, the chairman is one of the most energetic people I have ever met. Out in Japan, he was off on a trade mission — the Chicago airport — calls from the chairman. It would be like 1:30 in the morning, in Japan, calls from the chairman. ‘Have you heard this?’ ‘What is this?’ ‘We have an email on this.’ Sen. Leatherman, I cannot thank you enough. Your grasp of financial figures is unparalleled.”
Shortly after the announcement, a number of prominent people released statements regarding their feelings on the deal.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
Today’s announcement declares to the global business community that South Carolina is back in the game and open for business. We want you to come to our state.
This is a great day for South Carolina and make no doubt, marks the biggest economic development announcement our state has seen in at least a decade. I would like to thank Boeing and its board members for putting their trust and their investment in our state.
Boeing’s decision to make this considerable investment in our state couldn’t have come at a more crucial time for South Carolina. This major job creating move is exactly what our economy needs as we begin to recover from this recession. Substantially expanding their operations in South Carolina will prove to be a prosperous move, both for Boeing and for our state’s workers.
Boeing will find a welcome home here in the Palmetto State. Our state has much to offer companies looking to do business within our boarders and has made South Carolina a major player in many leading industries.
I especially want to commend Secretary Joe Taylor and his team at the Department of Commerce for the major role they played in making this announcement possible. By promoting South Carolina’s aviation technology resources, displaying our highly skilled and eager workforce and highlighting our state’s pro-business climate, the Department of Commerce proved to Boeing that South Carolina is an excellent investment.
This is precisely the type of proactive economic development strategy we need to make South Carolina more competitive in today’s global economy and it is a strategy that will help put South Carolinians back to work.
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler
Today’s announcement marks an historical occasion for the State of South Carolina and it proves what can happen when strong leaders push conservative reforms. The nation’s hardest working taxpayers, tough ‘right to work’ laws, efficient government, low taxes, and a high quality of life have given us a sturdy advantage in our goal to rebuild South Carolina’s economy and create new jobs for our working families.
Conservative ideas alone don’t create jobs. They must be pushed by strong leaders working together behind a common goal. Today’s announcement is a testament to the bipartisan leadership of Senators Glenn McConnell and Hugh Leatherman, Speaker Bobby Harrell, leadership in both the House and the Senate, and Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor.
Today South Carolina sent a strong message to the world -– we want your business and we’re committed to getting it.
And, a couple Democratic candidates for governor released quick statements, as well.
I am so excited about welcoming Boeing’s new project to South Carolina, and I am proud to have cast a vote in favor of incentives needed to make this project a reality. Landing a project like this in South Carolina shows our tremendous potential for job creation, a potential that has gone unrealized in this state for far, far too long. I believe this announcement is just a precursor of what we can achieve with a vision and hard work.
Today is a great day for South Carolina, but more importantly, for the many South Carolinians who will get new jobs from this announcement. I am proud to have played a leadership role earlier this year in assembling a bipartisan coalition in the legislature to pass legislation opening the door for Boeing’s expansion.
This development is a bright spot in what has been a disastrous eight years for South Carolina’s economy, and I would congratulate those who helped make this happen in spite of Mark Sanford’s failed leadership. With more than 250,000 South Carolinians out of work, it is a shame that announcements like this one have been so few and far between.
As South Carolina’s next Governor, I will build on the experience that I have had in helping foster business successes like this one, and I will commit myself every day to making them the rule again in our state, and not just the rare exception. I recently announced my comprehensive jobs plan for South Carolina, and I look forward to talking about my ideas and vision for improving the economy.
A security protocol became assured of when Gov. Mark Sanford, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano agreed to Project Seahawk, a plan to protect ports like S.C.’s State Ports Authority. The headquarters for the project is at the old Charleston Navy Base. The plan was developed after 9/11 to adequately coordinate federal, state and local government entities.
Graham said the Port of Charleston is, “one of the most strategic locations in the United States in the war on terror.” Part of the project is a large number of cameras, which cover local highways, the Arthur Ravenel Bridge and numerous marshlands in the area of the port.
Because of Sanford’s issues with his six-day disappearance and his affair with an Argentine businesswoman, he did not not allow himself to be available to questions from the press. The same day, Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler gave his consent to appointing Sen. Tom Davis, Sanford’s former chief of staff, to the State Ports Authority’s board.
“Tom Davis’ knowledge, experience, and commitment to running an efficient port operation made him the obvious choice,” he said. “Senator Davis will take a conservative approach to the oversight committee that ensures accountability and a focus on economic development. His extensive background and knowledge of port issues is exactly what we need on this committee.”
Davis, who had opposed the SPA restructuring bill, committed himself to doing the best job he can.
“I am pleased that Senator Peeler recommended me to Senator McConnell to serve on the committee and accept that appointment,” Davis said. “I sincerely appreciate the faith that Senator Peeler has shown in me. It is no secret that I opposed the port-restructuring bill, but now that it has become law it is time to move on and do the best we can for South Carolina ports. And in that regard, I think I am well suited and qualified to oversee the operations of the South Carolina State Ports Authority and to screen the qualifications of new members to the ports authority board to ensure that the its objectives are met.”
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler and Senate Republican Sens. Hugh Leatherman, Thomas Alexander, Paul Campbell, Jake Knotts, Larry Martin and Billy O’Dell issued a statement late Tuesday night asking for Gov. Mark Sanford to resign in the wake of his rapidly expanding sex scandal.
Crisis requires people in leadership positions to act decisively, with as much dispassionate wisdom and judgment as possible.Governor Sanford has imposed a crisis upon our state. As members of the Senate, we have a duty to the people of South Carolina to do what is in their best interests.
We therefore have concluded that Governor Mark Sanford must resign his office. He has lost the trust of the people and the legislature to lead our state through historically difficult times.
South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Tens of thousands of South Carolinians cannot find jobs.
Necessary budget cuts have weakened public education and other vital services.
We must have strong leadership from a Governor who is focused and trusted.
Governor Sanford is neither.
We did not reach this conclusion in haste and we did not base it on his personal failings, but events since his news conference have forced us to act.
The recent revelation that he used taxpayer money to visit Argentina demonstrates that our state crisis will not recede while he is in office.
His own Commerce Department acknowledges the Governor requested additional economic development meetings in Argentina while on a legitimate trade mission to South America.
The Governor, through his spokesmen, deceived the media and public about where he was and what he was doing for several days.
He abandoned his office and the people who elected him with a premeditated cover-up, launching a constitutional crisis that was dangerous and reckless.
These disclosures indicate a pattern of abuse of office. Most disturbing is our belief that the Governor only admitted to these transgressions after he was caught.
The Governor’s family crisis is private and tragic. But the crisis the Governor imposed by his abuse of office is the people’s business and must come to an end.
We can only put this crisis behind us if he does the honorable thing and resign immediately.
The bottom line is that the Governor’s private matters should remain private, but his deception and negligence make it impossible for us to trust him, and for him to govern in the future.
Not only does this statement have the backing of the GOP leader (who pulls double duty as Medical Affairs Committee chairman), but four other committee chairmen (Leatherman – Finance, Alexander – General, Knotts – Invitation, Martin – Rules). Earlier in the day, fellow GOP Sens. Larry Grooms and Kevin Bryant also said Sanford should resign.
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler joined the group of Republican senators on Tuesday requesting that Gov. Mark Sanford remove himself from office, with the latest self-immolation the Governor has committed in the press.
According to a story hitting the wire just after 9 p.m., “South Carolina’s Senate Republican Party leader is calling on Gov. Mark Sanford to resign. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler of Gaffney said Tuesday’s revelations from the governor about his own affair raise doubts about Sanford’s ability to lead the state.”
Shortly after Peeler’s statement went out, Sen. Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, also said the Governor should pack it up and go home to Sullivan’s Island (or wherever home is these days). According to a tweet from Senate Republican Caucus director Wesley Donehue, Sens. Paul Campbell, Billy O’Dell and Thomas Alexander are joining the chorus for Sanford to step down, as well.
Earlier in the day, Sanford allies Sens. Larry Grooms, Kevin Bryant and Larry Martin each said the Governor should resign in order for the state to move forward and not have the Governor’s mistakes in his personal life cause more of a problem for the people’s business.
Rep. Eric Bedingfield, another legislator close to Sanford, tweeted Tuesday night that he will officially call for the Governor to resign on Wednesday.
Action hasn’t been static on the other side of the aisle, either. Joining his Democratic colleague in the Senate, Sen. Vince Sheheen, Rep. Anton Gunn said on Facebook, “Mark Sanford clearly is not rational anymore. Time for him to go. This is a repetitive pattern of behavior from many of our statewide leaders.”
About an hour and a half after Gov. Mark Sanford’s announcement that his extended, incommunicado absence from South Carolina concerned an affair with an Argentinean woman, the leadership in the General Assembly have come in with their takes on, so far, the biggest news story in the state this year.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell said that the news was “disturbing and shocking” and that there was “no excuse” for Sanford’s actions. He said he hopes for the best for the Governor and his family, before recognizing that the events of the past few days need to be addressed.
“The governor’s absence has brought to light some issues regarding the chain of command in the absence of the chief executive,” Harrell said. “It is imperative that the General Assembly deal with this during the next session. More importantly, we must focus on our state’s economy and improving education. With our unemployment rate as the third worst in the country, our time has to be devoted to getting unemployed South Carolinians back to work, improving education and growing our state’s economy.”
House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham was all about compassion, saying, “Ultimately, this is a sad day for the Sanford family and all of South Carolina. I am disappointed in the poor personal choices our governor has made. The Republican Party is about personal responsibility. I commend the governor in the complete honesty and candor he showed today. It is truly unusual in politics to see someone who takes responsibility and offers an honest apology. Now is the time to pray for the Sanford family. We join with the governor in calling on the media to give the governor what he requested, some personal privacy for his family so they can begin the healing process.”
Of course, not everyone is dipping into the well of sympathy for the philandering chief executive. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler voiced the feelings of many South Carolinians when he chastised Sanford for letting his personal life interfere with his gubernatorial duties.
“I’m deeply disturbed that NO ONE knew where Governor Sanford was over the last five days,” Peeler said. “He left the country and deliberately made himself unavailable without delegating power to the Lt. Governor. In the process he mislead his staff who unknowingly mislead the public. These actions could have had drastic consequences in the case of an emergency. We cannot let the Governor’s personal life overshadow his public responsibility, or in this case, his negligence of gubernatorial authority.”
