The House ad-hoc subcommittee on impeachment did what was expected — voted down the resolution for the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford. There was a thought that it would get some Democratic support, or another Republican beside chief sponsor Rep. Greg Delleney, but the vote went 6-1 against. It seems to us that Democrats would like Sanford to kick around in the General Assembly and in next year’s elections, and that the other Republicans weren’t pissed off enough to throw the bastard out.
The panel did add more charges, and accepted stipulations from the Governor’s counsel that basically admitted everything that went down in June. But, perhaps lost in the mix is that all charges offered by the State Ethics Commission are still valid, and can be acted upon, even though the subcommittee gave an unfavorable report on the impeachment resolution.
The last session of the subcommittee went fairly quickly into the declarative speeches. Delleney started off with a little more information, discussing news stories from the summer, and the explanations for how they were voting was led off by Rep. Jim Harrison, who presided as chair. What follows are the relevant excerpts.
Rep. Jim Harrison
One thing is for certain: impeachment is not akin to recall. We cannot impeach for hypocrisy. We can’t impeach for arrogance. We can’t impeach an office holder for his lack of leadership skills. We cannot impeach a public official because the public has lost confidence in his ability to lead. The question for us is simple: has the Governor’s conduct, as we’ve heard, breached the constitutional standard?
Rep. Greg Delleney
There’s virtually no precedent for impeachment of a governor in South Carolina. Because, we do have a unique, one-of-a-kind standard that has never been used. The Governor’s lawyers in their memorandum point out correctly that no South Carolina governor has ever been impeached. They point out that only 16 governors have been impeached since the founding of this nation. But of those 16 governors who were impeached, only eight were removed. But, what they don’t tell us is how many governors, when faced with scandal, have the decency to resign. Like most recently, with Gov. Spitzer in New York. What they don’t tell us is how many governors have been recalled prior to the expiration of their term, like most recently, Gray Davis in California.
[...]
What did he do? in June of ‘09 he came back, he confessed, and he wrote a check. It was an admission to a personal trip at state expense. And [Sanford's attorneys] want to say it was a mere coincidence. That’s insulting to intelligence, just as “hiking on the Appalachian Trail” was insulting intelligence of the people of South Carolina.
That standard of serious crimes, or serious misconduct, of course it is a high standard on purpose. The whole area of serious misconduct is, on its face, a very purposeful ambiguous term. And, I think it’s a term that gives this committee, or certainly gives the General Assembly, the leeway to set whatever that standard may be. To apply that standard on a case-by-case basis.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a grave proceeding in which we are involved. This subcommittee is meeting to consider House bill 4168, introduced by Rep. Delleney, Rep. Mike Pitts, Rep. [Keith] Kelly and Rep. [Gary] Simrill. It reads, “To provide that pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the governor of South Carolina, the Hon. Marshall C. Sanford Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.” The constitutional provision provides the House of Representatives, alone, will have the power of impeachment, of serious crimes, or serious misconduct in office. Officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and other statewide offices as may be designated by law. The first parameter is serious crimes — that is not germane or relevant to the mission of this impeachment panel, because there has been no showing of serious crimes. The issue before us is one of serious misconduct, which is at the heart of the deliberations we are involved in. If serious misconduct is involved, and it rises to the level of impeachment, that is a very, very grave matter. If simple misconduct is involved, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would also like to add, in general, that the process for impeachment proceedings is almost, I should say is, is almost as important as the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. I would like to compliment, and thank, Chairman Harrison for the manner in which he has presided, and the manner in which he has guided the deliberations of this special impeachment committee. In my opinion, you have performed in an outstanding manner, and I for one, on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina, want to thank you for your style and achievements. We also heard earlier about Article IV, Section 11, which more or less says, “The lieutenant should have full authority to act in an emergency, in the case of disability of the governor, and in the event of the temporary absence of the governor from the state.” Now, sometimes we say things, which had a little likeness to a very, very grave situation. And, I’d like to simply say, that our governor is blessed with poor judgment. I regret to inform you of that, but we all know it. So, we consider, what is serious misconduct, what is a simple misconduct. We’ve discussed at length five aircraft trips on the state aircraft, five strictly personal, or strictly political, uses of the state aircraft. There is no doubt about the exercise of poor judgment which was involved in those five flights. I wish he hadn’t done it. I would only say that the guilt associated with them clearly does not rise to an impeachable level, and therefore do not constitute a serious misconduct. I should say those five are not serious misconduct. In the year 2008, we had the use of taxpayers’ funds to pay for airline tickets and accommodations for Gov. Sanford and a Department of Commerce staffer, from Cordoba, Argentina, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Governor conducted a series of official meetings with high-level people — the ambassador, the governor, the mayor of Buenos Aires, and that is also true that he wrote six thank-you notes to cover himself. But, the validity of the trip leaves much to be desired. And, it appears to be a personal agenda, of which were fully covered by appearances and thank-you notes. For the most part, the 2008 trip to Buenos Aires was a ruse for the conduct of personal activities that bore no relation to his official duties as governor. We now come to the issue of the adventure to Argentina in June of 2009. The issue here is there were three days when he was incommunicado. He was not in touch with representatives of the Governor’s Office for three days, namely Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. It’s also true that the Governor contacted his office on Monday, June 22. But, what happened in that weekend? Well, I can tell you. It was a very bland weekend. All eyes in our state, on our governor and where he was. He was kind of like a bride at a wedding. Or a corpse, at a funeral. All eyes on the Governor, and who could tell us where he was? And nobody was talking. He was the center of attention, and once again, I say that poor judgment was exercised in a rank and obvious fashion. So, my conclusion is, that while I am discontent about the conduct and behavior of our governor, in my mind it clearly does not constitute serious misconduct. Therefore, the issues I have discussed do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would share the view of Mr. Weeks, it is a necessity that we keep the bar high for impeaching elected officials in our state because we have a duty to respect the wishes of those persons who are elected by the citizens of our state. I remember Gov. [John] West well, I remember a little bit about the West Committee. But, I would certainly like to thank former Gov. West — at that time, when he was chairman of that committee, he was lieutenant governor — and the members of the West Committee for setting forth a standard for this committee to consider, which would not allow us to conduct ourselves in an inappropriate manner. Because, as I said at the outset, the process for an impeachment proceeding is equally as important the outcome of the impeachment proceeding. When this House resolution, 4168, is ready for a vote, I intend to vote against it.
Basic civics teaches us that our checks-and-balances system hinges upon co-equal branches of government. And, the very process of impeachment that we are about today, is the infringement of the legislative branch sitting in judgment of the executive branch. I think the Founding Fathers also got it right, as well as the West Commission, when they put together a standard that is high for the impeachment of a duly-elected official. That standard being, serious crimes, serious misconduct.
While it could be made fun of, much like the Tebow tears, Horne’s obvious care for the governance of our state should be lauded. Many people, of which we include ourselves, are deeply cynical of politics and government. We give Rep. Horne some well-deserved propers.
I have spent hours reading thousands of pages of documents, listening to the arguments of counsel, reviewing witness affidavits, and analyzing the South Carolina Constitution and the laws of this state. I wanted the other members of this impeachment subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to have been appointed to undertake this historic and monumental task. Considering the impeachment of South Carolina’s 115th governor, Marshall C. Sanford Jr., I take this task very seriously and I have given this situation the utmost thoughtful and prayerful consideration.
[...]
The Governor’s conduct was not that of a true statesman, or even a gentleman for that matter. My job on this committee is not to sit here in moral judgment of the Governor, which rests solely with his Creator. His fall from grace is indeed tragic, and as a wife and a mother, I feel great sympathy for Mrs. Sanford and their four children.
It became abundantly clear during the evidentiary — when we were receiving the information with respect to that [2008 Argentina] trip, that it was nothing but a ruse. It was nothing but a way to use his power with the Office of Governor to get to this area of the country, for a personal purpose. Any effort to engage in efforts on behalf of the state was clearly one to hide that fact. That, in and of itself, is a clear abuse of power.
There you have it. Most members of the committee thought Sanford acted like a college sophomore on Spring Break, but didn’t think it rose to an impeachable standard. Here’s a surprise, Harrison’s prefiled bill to censure Sanford subsequently passed unanimously. Maybe it’s just our cynicism again, but it looks like that old General Assembly shell game was in effect — the decision was made way before the legislators appeared in public. Sanford should get a worse punishment than a disapproving slap with no real repercussions, but that’s where we’re at right now. Hopefully, he’ll just lose his family, be disgraced and never show his head in politics again.
After the vote, there was the postgame commentary.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
First of all, I would like to thank each member of the subcommittee for taking time away from their family and job during this busy holiday season to meet and investigate this matter. With the regular legislative session beginning next month, it is important that we fully investigate and properly address this issue in a timely manner so that we can begin the session working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most.
The subcommittee has held four hearings, reviewed all the information from the State Ethics Commission’s investigative report, taken testimony, made follow-up inquiries and debated the issues. They have conducted a thorough investigation into any possible serious crimes or serious misconduct committed by our state’s highest elected official.
I agree with the majority opinion reached by the subcommittee. The threshold for removal from office is a very high standard, and from the evidence made available to them, it does not appear that the Governor’s actions have met that threshold for removal from office. While his actions were clearly revealed to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the subcommittee found that they did not reach the constitutional definition of serious crimes or serious misconduct necessary to remove the Governor from office.
I also agree with the subcommittee’s decision to favorably pass a censure resolution today. The Governor’s actions brought great shame upon himself, his office, our state government and our citizens. This entire situation – the multiple investigations, court cases and media barrage – could have been easily avoided if the Governor had acted in the best interest of our state and resigned from office, as I and a majority of lawmakers urged him to do months ago. Instead, the Governor insisted on remaining in office despite the embarrassment and distraction he has brought to our state. A legislative decree condemning the Governor’s irresponsible actions is absolutely warranted.
Whether the Governor’s actions require punishment by the State Ethics Commission or criminal prosecution in a court of law is not a determination that can be made by this legislative body. The South Carolina Constitution only gives the Legislature prosecutorial authority over matters related to the removal from office, and that is where the scope of this investigation begins and ends for the House.
The proper procedure needs to be followed for this investigation to be completed and some level of closure brought to this matter. For that to happen, the full Judiciary Committee needs to meet, consider all the facts, debate the issues and rule on the subcommittee’s recommendation. After this process is complete, the General Assembly can turn its full attention to addressing the major issues of the approaching legislative session.
S.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler
Gov. Sanford certainly deserved the stinging rebuke he got from the House subcommittee. But far more important than his trip to Argentina is that neither he nor the Republicans in the House and Senate seem able to do anything to move this state forward. South Carolinians have long since given up on Sanford’s failed governorship; the best we can hope for is that he won’t cause our state any more embarrassment in the remaining months of his term.
Sanford
In light of the ad-hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I’d like to thank the committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.
Two, we agree with the committee’s dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change.
Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to “hang in there,” and “finish strong.” The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I’ve created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it. [ed. note: Because cheating on your wife should mean you deserve sympathy. Asshole.]
It’s my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state — just as we’ve seen with Boeing’s record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I’ll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We’d ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front.
It’s Impeachment Meeting Eve. Fired up and ready to go? They’re getting the logistics nailed down, and it’s looking like it’s going to be a crowded affair. Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing the committee, and will be joined by Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
There’s an expected large media contingent coming, so there will be a specific area for credentialed media, and news photographers will be given general free reign as long as they don’t interrupt the proceedings. However, the only video camera in the room will be from ETV, which is good news, since video cameras and their peripherals tend to take up a lot of room.
If you’re interested, it’ll be at 1 p.m. Tuesday in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. It’s advised to show up early — it’ll probably fill up quickly.
Gov. Mark Sanford’s getting his neck stretched over the tree stump as legislators will be meeting next week in what’s called an ad-hoc committee to consider impeachment. Local Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing it, according to Rep. Alan Clemmons and the Associated Press.
After a couple months of it looking like impeachment momentum had hit a wall, having this committee meet and discuss removing one of the least effective governors of this state seems to point to the gears spinning again toward removing Sanford. According to the AP, “The meeting is to take up the issue at the heart of an impeachment resolution that four Republicans filed this week. It says Sanford left no one in charge of the state, a dereliction of duty, while he ‘directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials’ about where he was. His staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Per Clemmons, the committee includes Harrison, Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
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.
