Wednesday, the House Judiciary Constitutional Laws subcommittee unanimously passed H. 3489, a bill sponsored by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and 45 co-sponsors. Reps. Greg Delleney, Jim Harrison, Walt McLeod and Garry Smith voted for the measure, with Rep. James Smith away on other business. The bill now goes to the full Judiciary Committee. Right now, it looks like it’s ready to go all the way.
One of the most significant changes to the law would be a limit on punitive damages — the larger amount of $350,000 or three times the compensatory damages award. Another is allowing into evidence if someone in an accident did not use a seat belt.
While we’re fairly certain the bill will make it out of committee, action when it comes up for second reading could be pretty interesting. From what we’ve been seeing, the S.C. Association for Justice is getting aggressive in its courting of legislators who may be on the fence or nominally for tort reform (mostly Republicans) to come over to its way of thinking, joining a sizable number of number of Democrats.
All signs point to this heating up behind the scenes, which can only mean that it’ll be hot when it hits the floor.
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.
This is why this feature needs to be done after each day the General Assembly is in session. Like a college football team playing its first game of the year, we were a little rusty out of the gate — and absent-mindedly short of AAA batteries for the voice recorder. Regardless, a lot happened in the first week of this year’s session, and here’s a few of the highlights.
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Statement from Rep. Ted Pitts
- Today, on the first day of the 2010 legislative year, it disappoints me that I cannot be there at the opening of what will be my last year as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. If plans do not change, the next time I step on the floor of the House, it will be as a former member. Serving the County and State I love so much in the S.C. House has been one of the greatest honors of my life and the memories and friendships will be cherished. The House truly is a great institution, bigger than any one person and an embodiment of what our Founding Fathers intended, with South Carolinians deciding collectively through a representative democracy, what is best for South Carolina. During 2010, I have been called to serve our State and Country in a different place and on a different front. Like many after the attacks of 9/11, I found myself wanting to do my part to protect and defend the greatness of this Country. It is now my turn to go do my part in the ‘War on Terror’ as a Captain in the South Carolina National Guard, like Luke 12:48 says “To those much is given, much is expected.”
Special presentation
- Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and the Charleston delegation presented former Rep. Wallace Scarborough with a showing of their thanks for his service in the General Assembly.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 4219, sponsored by Rep. Jim Harrison, a censure resolution of Gov. Mark Sanford. It was ordered to be taken up on Wednesday.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1040, by Sen. Mike Rose, to allow games of Texas hold ‘em, or any other poker game, to be played at Federal military installations in the state, as permitted by the base commander.
Received from the House
- H. 4022, by Ted Pitts, to provide that firearms, ammunition and accessories manufactured and kept in South Carolina are exempt from Federal firearms laws.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Sen. Lee Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. The action surprised Democrats, who began a filibuster.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Motion
- Rep. Tom Young requested that the House adjourn in memory of former state Treasurer Grady Patterson.
Introduced
- H. 4298, by Rep. Joan Brady, related to reform of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
- H. 4299, by Rep. Dan Cooper, to allow spending flexibility among public schools in a number of areas.
- H. 4303, by Rep. Kenny Bingham, immediate reforms to the Employment Security Commission, including parameters for disqualifying some applicants and upgrading technology.
- H. 4327, By Rep. Mike Sottile, to provide an exception to Sunday beer and wines laws, so as to allow an establishment already allowed to sell beer and wine to purchase a permit that would allow them to sell on Sunday.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 4253, sponsored by Rep. Tim Scott, a concurrent resolution to urge the Department of Commerce to start a business recruitment initiative that emphasized South Carolina’s right-to-work status.
Ordered to third reading
- 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. It passed, 77-41.
Passed
- H. 4219, by Harrison, to censure the Governor. The concurrent resolution passed with a margin of 102-11. Most no votes were by Democrats who wanted to see a sterner resolution.
Debate adjourned
- Debate was adjourned for two bills relating to the budget until Feb. 2. One was the actual budget bill (H. 3561), and the other was a bill to amend the tax code (H. 3854, by Cooper).
- H. 3543, by Brady, implementing a dating violence policy to help local school districts to develop their own policies and to create reporting requirements. Rep. Walt McLeod wanted to see how much such a measure would cost, and requested the bill be taken back up on Jan. 20.
- H. 3280, 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 superintendent of education from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
- H. 3608, by Rep. David Mack, to establish early voting centers, a way for a voter to register and vote early, and other matters related to the issue.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1042, by Sen. Jake Knotts, to allow teachers to administer corporal punishment on school grounds without being subject to civil or criminal penalties, and extending that protection to administrators and the district.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 3488, by Rep. James Smith, to develop a committee to address veterans’ issues.
Recalled, sent to committee
- H. 4219, by Harrison, to censure the Governor. Knotts suggested that the bill should go through the normal committee process, and the resolution was sent to the Judiciary Committee.
Passed on second reading
- S. 1027, by Sen. Yancey McGill, to prohibit hunters from using dogs on private property without permission.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. Democrats continued their filibuster.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Special presentation
- Harrell and the Charleston delegation presented Mack with his Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Picture Award for “going above and beyond” his service to the community.
Introduced
- H. 4336, by Cooper, to extend the deadline for a report and recommendations from the Taxation Realignment Commission from March 15 to Nov. 15.
- H. 4348, by Rep. Anton Gunn, to require minutes of full committees and subcommittees of the House be recorded by voice recorder, archived, available online and to require that votes on all actions be taken by roll call vote.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 4299, by Cooper, to allow spending flexibility among public schools in a number of areas.
Ordered to third reading, as amended
- H. 4303, by Bingham, immediate reforms to the Employment Security Commission, including parameters for disqualifying some applicants and upgrading technology. It passed, 112-1.
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. It failed by lacking a two-thirds majority, 72-38.
Adopted and sent to Senate
- H. 4253, sponsored by Scott, a concurrent resolution to urge the Department of Commerce to start a business recruitment initiative that emphasized South Carolina’s right-to-work status.
Debate adjourned
- H. 3280, 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 superintendent of education from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1053, by Sen. Glenn McConnell, to mandate that no fee, penalty or tax can be raised in the general appropriations bill, and only by separate legislation, and to provide exemptions.
Passed on second reading as amended
- 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 at the end of the session.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 3488, by J.E. Smith, to develop a committee to address veterans’ issues.
Passed on third reading, sent to House
- S. 1027, by McGill, to prohibit hunters from using dogs on private property without permission, as amended by committee.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. Democrats continued their filibuster.
QUOTES
Statement by Sens. McConnell, Billy O’Dell, Larry Martin, Thomas Alexander, and Hugh Leatherman in regard to the vote to adjourn on Thursday.
Today, the opponents of the Sovereignty Resolution, S. 424, who had been engaging in extended debate to block passage offered to conclude the debate on Tuesday if the Senate would adjourn. Those of us who wanted to pass the Resolution did not have the cloture votes to conclude the debate today and vote up or down. Therefore, the offer by the opponents was reasonable and made good common sense. There was no need to sit here today in a filibuster and then be back in a filibuster on Tuesday when we could conclude the matter on Tuesday. To vote against adjournment meant no deal and no end to the debate. A vote by supporters of the Resolution with the opponents today to adjourn assures an end to the filibuster.
This was explained to the other supporters of the Resolution who chose instead to oppose adjournment. That vote, in our opinion, was supposed to apparently make them appear more determined than some of us to pass the Resolution; but, in actuality, their votes, if they prevailed, would have left the Resolution to die in extended debate.
= = =
On H. 4219, the resolution to censure
Harrison: Ladies and gentlemen, we have lived this nightmare for the past seven months.
= = =
As Harrell and the Charleston delegation stood at the podium on Thursday
Rep. Harry Cato: Mr. Speaker, if I knew how to turn you on, I would.
Laughter
Cato: Mr. Speaker, if I knew how to turn your microphone on, I would.
= = =
While speaking in opposition to the superintendent of education constitutional amendment.
McLeod: The Speaker wants to adjourn debate, and whatever the Speaker wants, I want.
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.
Maybe it’s the mind’s inevitable draw to the salacious, from the sybarites to the Ned Flanders clones. But the ad-hoc House impeachment panel is going down Lovers’ Lane. It threw out 28 charges suggested by the State Ethics Commission, but on Monday began nailing additional charges to what will be considered for impeachment. And it goes back to that illicit nookie in Buenos Aires.
State Rep. Greg Delleney this morning said Gov. Mark Sanford arranged a 2008 economic development trip to Argentina so Sanford could meet with his mistress.
“It’s obvious that this was a personal trip and state business was just thrown in as a cover,” said Delleney, R-Chester, a member of the House subcommittee considering an impeachment resolution against Sanford.
Well, obviously. But, making that one flight — and frankly, unprovable allegations that Sanford took the trip just to get laid by a woman not his wife — is probably going to kill the impeachment effort. Committee chairman Jim Harrison and Rep. Walt McLeod tended to agree with Delleney, but our political bookie still says the odds are that neither men will vote to recommend impeachment to the full House Judiciary Committee.
But, sex will dominate the headlines and the thinking. Screwing around on your wife doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even if the guy is seen as even more of a creep. A few grand on the state dime, which was refunded? The charges look worse, but this looks essentially like the impeachment process against former President Bill Clinton.
House Republicans had been pissed off for years because they kept getting owned by Clinton (after he passed the learning curve in ’93-’94). Faced with the fact that he lied about getting a hummer and diddling an intern with a cigar, he was suddenly up for trial on “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was a revenge play, pure and simple. Plus, it gave U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham the stage to become a national political figure.
And what happened was a total political fuck-up on the part of the House GOP. It got truly absurd when the House went through two Speakers in a week because Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned because, horror of horrors, they cheated on their wives. The end? The impeachment battle was good for Clinton, good for Democrats in general but horrible for former Vice President Al Gore. The only people who got taken to task were congressional Republicans and Gore.
This is a big deal, as far as political intelligence. People have a low tolerance for constitution-based revenge when there are so many other pressing concerns. If the House panel does recommend impeaching Sanford, the chamber better move damn fast, or there will be fallout. The longer it seems like it, Sanford just looks like a very bad governor. Unfortunately, that’s not impeachable, either.
Today, the ad-hoc House committee on the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford had its first meeting to discuss the resolution put forward by Rep. Greg Delleney and set the plan for which the committee will discuss the issue and formulate a report.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell led off the proceedings by saying, “Removal from office is a very serious issue, and it is something that neither the Judiciary Committee nor the House takes lightly. The Committee members will give full consideration to all the facts in this case and will make an informed recommendation that reflects our state’s Constitution.
The amount of information we have to consider in this case is massive. I’m pleased and encouraged by the members’ willingness to conduct their work deliberatively so that we can properly address this issue and move our state forward. When we start the new Legislative session in January, we need to be fully prepared to begin working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most. Putting our citizens back to work needs to be our primary focus.”
From there, the talk was limited to the impeachment resolution, as the members had only just received the 1,000-plus word full report from the State Ethics Commission regarding misuse of state aircraft, improper seating upgrades on commercial aircraft and misuse of campaign funds. Rep. James Smith, in this light, made a motion, which was passed, to open up the SEC allegations to the investigative purview of the committee.
Beyond that, the main bone of contention was the position of Sanford as the commander-in-chief of, according to the S.C. Constitution, the military forces of the state. Delleney’s statement kicked things off, using military-style language.
“The Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety, in order to affect his absence from the state,” he said. “And, that conduct alone constitutes a dereliction of duty. He left his post, he left his state, he left his country without notifying anyone in authority. He was, in effect, AWOL.”
Rep. Walt McLeod, who looks to be against the resolution, said, “It’s a little shrill for a civilian to hear the comments made. As far as I know, I, at this time, nor the Governor, are members of a military organization. And, to speak about dereliction of duty, absent without leave, abandoning one’s post, are terms that are ordinarily reserved for those who are in uniform, and who are not civilian citizens of our state and nation.”
However, Smith, well-known for his service in Afghanistan, backed up the language, remarking that the words used were analogous to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“The commander-in-chief, I believe, should not be judged at a lesser standard than the soldiers and the airmen with whom he commands,” he said. “And, I think the analogy that was provided by Rep. Delleney is an appropriate one. We’re not trying him according to the UCMJ, this is not a trial. This is an impeachment process pursuant to the Constitution and the standard that we set is going to be an important one.”
Ultimately, nothing was settled on that matter, as of yet. It’s more expected that the committee won’t make a decision on what to do on any number of matters until the end of its meetings. Chairman Jim Harrison laid out a general idea of what is up ahead.
“It is my hope that we can complete our work, for the full Judiciary Committee to take up our report prior to Christmas,” he said. “This would enable full House debate on the issue, if it rises to that level, as soon in the legislative session as possible.”
There are three more meetings in the offing, set for the first week of December, each at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. They’re slotted for Dec. 1, Dec. 3 and Dec. 7. At the Dec. 3 meeting, the members will consider Sanford’s alleged violations of ethics law as it pertains to his air travel.
Image courtesy of the House Republican Caucus.
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.
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.
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 3509, by Rep. Mike Pitts, to affirm the rights of all states, including South Carolina, under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Sent back to the Senate
- S. 428, by Sen. Larry Martin, memorializing Congress to make permanent the E-Verify program.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 3342, by Rep. Greg Delleney, the born alive bill.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 460, by Sen. Gerald Malloy, a resolution congratulating Jordan Lyles of Hartsville on being selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft by the Houston Astros.
- S. 470, by Sen. Ronnie Cromer, to specify fees for recreational saltwater fishing licenses.
- H. 3352, by Rep. Dan Cooper, the school district spending flexibility bill.
Quotes
Unidentified legislator: (whispering) Going to Mardi Gras?
===
Debate on H. 3187
Minority Leader Harry Ott: Mr. Bales, now you telling me that if I go and cut somebody’s grass, and that person wants to sell his property, I can take out a mechanic’s lien on a hundred-acre farm just because I haven’t paid to get my lawn cut?
Rep. Jimmy Bales: It’s for contractual landscaping…
Ott: It’s for what?
Bales: Contractual landscaping services over $15,000. I don’t think you’d get that much to mow the yard. (laughter from the chamber)
Ott: I probably wouldn’t qualify for $15,000 to cut the grass. Thank you, Mr. Bales.
===
Rep. Grady Brown: I’ve been doing this every Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, but we remind you we’re still trying to promote beach music on Tuesday nights at Rust in the Vista. If you have time, if you want to hear some good music, drop by. Right behind the Motor Supply restaurant. Thank you.
Unidentified legislator: I don’t think so.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Introduction
- H. 3614, by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, to restructure state government by removing the adjutant general, commissioner of agriculture, secretary of state and superintendent of education from the constitutionally-mandated list of elected officials and that those offices should be appointed by the governor with the advise and consent of the General Assembly.
- H. 3613, by Rep. Bruce Bannister, a concurrent resolution urging the promotion of curling as the official winter Olympic sport of South Carolina, and to appoint a representative of the state to investigate the designation of curing as the official winter Olympic sport of South Carolina. Adopted and sent to the Senate.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Introduction
- H. 3629, by Rep. David Umphlett, legalizing raffles run by charitable organizations.
Second reading
- H. 3067, by Rep. Alan Clemmons, eliminating fusion voting. Amended and ordered to third reading.
- H. 3042, by Rep. Jimmy Merrill, legalizing mixed martial arts combat. Ordered to third reading.
Third reading
- H. 3245, by Rep. Delleney, mandating a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion. Sent to the Senate
- H. 3342, by Rep. Delleney, the born alive bill. Sent to the Senate.
SENATE
Reported out of committee favorably
- S. 110, by Sen. Malloy, allowing the sale of lottery tickets on primary and general election days.
Third reading
- S. 12, by Sen. Hugh Leatherman, the Tax Realignment Commission bill. Sent to the House.
Quotes
Harrell: While I have got your attention for just a moment, the Minority Leader and the Majority Leader have agreed to order pizzas, so there will be pizza in the back in the back for lunch, so we won’t be breaking for lunch. When it gets here in an hour or so, go enjoy or order something else.
===
Rep. Ken Kennedy: Do you think that the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States frightened these people to death in South Carolina?
Rep. Bakari Sellers: Well, I don’t know, but I did hear Thad Viers is going to try to sponsor a bill to secede from the Union.
Kennedy: Oh my God!
===
Ott: Mr. Smith, does this apply to bridges that are currently under construction, and have already been chosen for a name, kind of like the Bob Harrell Bridge in Charleston? Last I checked, he wasn’t dead yet.
Rep. James Smith: It’s all about, if the bridge is not done, and not grandfathered in…
(Talking over each other)
Smith: I wonder if Rep. Nanney took that out…
Ott: I don’t know if she got preclearance on that or not.
Smith: That’s a good question, though. If this bill becomes law before that is built, I’d say our good friend, and colleague and Speaker’s dad would be out of a bridge, at least for some time.
===
Ott: Mixed martial arts — is that what we’ve been going through the past eight hours?
Rep. Bill Sandifer: I think you’re right.
===
Merrill: Mr. Sandifer, did you realize that everybody was kung-fu fighting?
Sandifer: I think that’s what Mr. Ott was referring to a moment ago.
Merrill: And, did you realize those cats were fast as lightning?
Sandifer: Now, I doubt Mr. Ott is.
Merrill: And sir, you probably didn’t know, it was a little bit frightening.
===
Rep. Walt McLeod: Good evening ladies, I regret to inform you that I am very tired of my own voice.
…
If anybody goes up I-26 at exit 85, just tip your hat — that’s where I live. If you ever have a flat tire along there, call me and we’ll come rescue you. We might even bring the fire truck.
…
So, I want you to drive carefully going home tonight. Be advised, don’t have a drink of beer, wine or booze on the way. Because, the South Carolina Highway Patrol has got (unintelligible). Whenever a legislator takes a drink of booze on a Thursday, it activates itself, and if you (unintelligible) before you do!
Harrell: Mr. McLeod, you must keep your remarks pertinent to the bill, please. (laughter from the chamber)
McLeod: Thank you very much. This bill, about which we speak…I’ve forgotten! (laughter from the chamber)
Harrell: Mr. Ott, for what purpose do you rise? Mr. McLeod, Mr. Ott would like to help you with a question, probably phrased something like, “Did you know this bill was bill number such and such.” Mr. Ott is recognized for a question.
Ott: Mr. McLeod, do you know what mixed martial arts is? Do you know what it does?
McLeod: I’ve been studying that for some time, and I don’t have any conclusions as of yet.
Ott: Well, Mr. McLeod, do you know what boxing is?
McLeod: I was a professional boxer in my earlier life.
Ott: My goodness, I didn’t know. What was your record?
McLeod: You want to fight?
Ott: No sir! (extended laughter from the chamber)
