How they voted on Andre’s driver


How would you vote, if it were up to you, on whether taxpayers should supply a driver/security guy for Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

If almost anyone else — Nick Theodore, Bob Peeler, whoever — were the current Gov Lite, I would say "no way." Probably half the people I know need security more than the lieutenant governor of South Carolina. And I don’t know anyone outside the Oval Office who needs the army of armed guards Nick took with him to the 1988 Democratic Convention.

But Andre Bauer? One doesn’t have to be facetious to say that it might be in the public interest to keep him from behind the wheel. Our roads are deadly enough as it is.

In the end, I would probably have voted to sustain the governor’s veto, though, in the name of erring on the side of thrift.

Here’s how legislators who had the power to decide this actually did vote. As you know, they overrode the governor, so let’s just hope he gets a good, safe driver:

First the vote in the House, followed by the vote in the Senate.

A "yes" vote is to fund the driver. The amount is more than $90,000 because the driver was included on the same line in the budget with another item, so the governor had to veto both or neither:


Part IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I. Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.

Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 92; Nays 16

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                 Ballentine
Bannister              Barfield             Battle
Bingham               Bowen               Bowers
Brady                    Branham            Breeland
G. Brown              R. Brown             Chalk
Chellis                  Clemmons           Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter         Coleman              Cooper
Cotty                    Davenport            Delleney
Edge                     Frye                   Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Hamilton
Hardwick              Harrell                Harrison
Hart                     Harvin                Haskins
Hayes                   Herbkersman      Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                 Howard
Huggins                Jefferson            Jennings
Kelly                     Kennedy              Knight
Leach                   Loftis                  Lowe
Lucas                   Mahaffey             Merrill
Miller                   Mitchell                Moss
J. H. Neal            J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                   Perry                    Pinson
M. A. Pitts           Rice                     Rutherford
Sandifer              Scarborough          Scott
Sellers                 Simrill                  Skelton
F. N. Smith          G. M. Smith         G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          Spires                  Stavrinakis
Talley                  Taylor                  Toole
Umphlett              Vick                    Weeks
Whipper               White                 Williams
Witherspoon          Young


Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield            Crawford               Duncan
Funderburk            Hagood                 Haley
Kirsh                     McLeod                 Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts             Shoopman             D. C. Smith
Stewart                 Thompso               Viers


So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.



Veto 39   –   Part IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I; Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

Alexander                 Anderson              Ceips
Cleary                      Drummond            Elliott
Fair                         Ford                     Gregory
Hawkins                   Hayes                   Hutto
Jackson                    Knotts                  Land
Leatherman              Leventis               Lourie
Malloy                      Martin                  Matthews
McGill                      Moore                   O’Dell
Patterson                 Peeler                   Pinckney
Rankin                     Reese                   Ritchie
Ryberg                     Scott                    Setzler
Sheheen                   Short                   Thomas
Vaughn                     Verdin                  Williams



Bryant                    Campsen                Courson
Cromer                   Grooms                 McConnell


10 thoughts on “How they voted on Andre’s driver

  1. Weldon VII

    Thanks for the info. It’s good to know just which members of our legislature have gelatin for brains.

  2. Doug Ross

    Any problem with spending $250K on a security detail for the Hunley? A yes vote on that one was probably related to a prior or future “quid pro quo” arrangement with a certain legislator. I know.. I know.. I’m just a crazy Libertarian who thinks spending other people’s money on a hunk of junk is ridiculous. It’s not like taxpayers have anything else to spend it on. Take it all!

  3. Wally Altman

    This one is fun to talk about, but it’s not cut-and-dried by any means. I think I would have voted for the driver in the interests of public safety, but there’s a good case for both sides.

  4. Brad Warthen

    Oh, there’s no way I’d spend a dime on the Hunley. I think they ought to put the thing back where they found it — especially if they had any reverence for the crew that they made such a fuss over. And a quarter mil to protect it? That one’s such a no-brainer (to everyone but our Legislature) that the vote breakdown didn’t intrigue me the way this one did.
    But I’ll go look that one up if you’d like.

  5. terri

    Ok…all the serious things that went on over the last two days…and this is the veto you highlight.
    7.4 billion dollar budget…hundreds of vetos…and this is it?
    What happened to a serious 4th estate?

  6. Doug Ross

    >> .hundreds of vetos..
    The hundreds of vetos amounted to about 2% of the total budget. We waste more than that on pig festivals.

  7. Body Guard

    Why does he need a Body Guard? He already has a police radio and a gun. Now a body guard? He acts like a gangsta!

  8. Ready to Hurl

    From a coldly political POV it would seem to be in the Dems’ interest to sustain the veto.
    Andre would keep getting into trouble with his irresponsible behavior. Could be political hay to be made.
    You’d just have to keep your fingers crossed that no one else got seriously injured in the next incident.

Comments are closed.