Category Archives: Legislature

SooeeeEEE!

Hey, did you wonder what legislators did this year about their farcically named pork machine, the "Competitive Grants Program?"

Well, I doubt that you’ll be shocked to learn that they left town with it still intact — DESPITE it being revealed this year for a sham, and DESPITE the governor’s vetoes of the program. The Legislature made quick work of overriding THOSE vetoes — even though the program had been initially broken up into eight separate pieces (three pots of money, and five provisos), probably so it would attract less attention when it was first passed last year. (That worked — at least until the checks started rolling out). … In a minute, I’ll give you the governor’s explanation for why he vetoed the program, followed by all eight roll-call votes in the House and in the Senate.

But first, you’ll be interested to know that on the very day the Senate was overriding those vetoes, the Legislature’s hand-pick grants committee was approving even more expenditures. You can find them at this address.

You can also check out an article in today’s Post and Courier about those latest grants.

If they won’t reform DOT, what WILL they reform?

8 Replies

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
ABANDON hope, all ye who seek common-sense reform from the S.C. General Assembly.
You think maybe they’d raise the state’s cigarette tax, the lowest in the nation at 7 cents a pack, especially considering that more than 70 percent of poll respondents say do it?
You’re not from around here, are you?
So how about this ridiculous business of the voters having to elect all these functionaries whom most of them couldn’t name if their lives depended on it? The indictments (and in one case, guilty plea) of two of these poorly vetted politicos over the last couple of years should make changing this situation a no-brainer, right? Or how about putting some of these agencies run by virtually autonomous boards under someone who is elected?
Dream on, Pollyanna.
I’ll confess that I dared to dream thus, just a few short months ago. It looked like this was the year for reforming at least one chunk of our fragmented, unaccountable state government.
For 15 years, this editorial board had been saying we should follow the advice of every commission, study or casual observation of our system by anyone who was not vested in the status quo: Put the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch, and have the Legislature tend to legislating.
But not since the partial restructuring of 1993 that was pushed by a very determined governor dealing with a scandal-weakened Legislature had the idea made headway against the host of insiders who make it their business to resist change.
Then at the end of 2006, we were faced with something that was not a civics-textbook abstraction: A critical mass of voters understood that the state Department of Transportation was a mess, and that the way things were, no one could hold it accountable for its sins.
The director answered to the Transportation Commission, and the commissioners did not clearly answer to anyone. They were elected by lawmakers, which is bad enough — when you owe your job to 170 people, who’s accountable? No one. The flow chart was further sliced, diced and scrambled by having each commissioner elected by a different subset of lawmakers — those who represented a particular congressional district (and we all know how crazily those are gerrymandered).
But couldn’t a conscientious director with a clear vision for setting and sticking to rational statewide road-building priorities rise above all the horse-trading parochialism inherent in such a system? Theoretically?
Sure. But in the real world, a legislative audit of just a third of the agency’s spending found tens of millions of dollars wasted on questionable contracts. It found high-level nepotism and cronyism. It found that the agency had manipulated the books in order to deceive the Legislature.
Some lawmakers had tried to stick up for the agency’s director, but that was an untenable position. She resigned. Some lawmakers then said: Behold! The problem is solved! She’s gone!
But that didn’t work, either. So there was much rumbling about bringing this maverick agency into line for once.
Even better, a governor who had first been elected on a government-restructuring platform had just been re-elected promising that this time (unlike the first four years), he was actually going to get the job done.
For the first time in years, there was reason to hope that most autonomous, least accountable of agencies would be turned over to the governor, one person whom all the state’s voters could hold responsible for its performance. Lawmakers were in no position to defend the status quo this time, not if the governor really pushed them on it. For once, he had the leverage.
But he didn’t push them on it. The man who was legendary in his first term for ticking off legislators with his capricious ideological rigidity decided that in this situation — with all the political and moral force clearly on his side for once — he would meet lawmakers halfway before the dickering even started.
And halfway, with a Legislature that collectively didn’t really want to change anything, is a long way to go — especially when the lawmakers are constantly backing away from you.
He said, just give me a director I can hire and fire, and you can keep your governing commission. Just please have the commissioners elected by the whole Legislature, so that there’s a chance that they’ll consider broader priorities.
The short explanation of what happened over the next six months was that lawmakers nodded and backed away, nodded and backed away, until we ended up with this: The governor will be able to hire and fire a director, and can even call that individual a secretary, just like in a sure-enough Cabinet.
But the governing board will still be picked by lawmakers broken up into congressional districts, keeping the agency firmly grounded in down-home back-scratching.
Speaking of the commissioners, what were they doing during all this backing and shuffling? Lying low? No way; not these boys. They were electing one of their former brethren to replace the “disgraced” director who had left with a sweet severance package, and openly lobbying lawmakers not to change the setup.
The Legislature doesn’t come back for six months. That’s plenty of time for us starry-eyed types who want to see our beloved South Carolina get its act together to get over our disappointments and start hoping for positive change again. But today, with the next chance for action so far off and fiasco so recent, I thank you for indulging me in this sad consideration of the way things actually are around here.

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

33 Replies

Received this e-mail from one of the folks working against the tide to raise the cigarette tax:

Dear Brad,
      This Sunday, July 1 marks the 30th anniversary since South Carolina’s last cigarette tax increase. (July 1, 1977)
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is very appreciative of the editorial support that The State has lent to this issue for many years, and particularly this year. I know that John O’Connor is already working on a story about the cigarette tax to run this Sunday, and I’d like to ask you to consider writing an editorial to accompany that article and to highlight this unfortunate anniversary. Obviously, we had hoped that we could get this legislation passed before the July 1 date, but we are certainly thankful to be closer to an increase than we have been in 30 years.
      As you know, the SC Tobacco Collaborative and our member organizations (American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, South Carolina Cancer Alliance, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, etc) strongly support an increase that would bring our state’s cigarette tax to the national average. When we started this legislative session, the national average had just reached $1.02. While our legislature was in session, four other states passed cigarette tax increases, meaning that the national average has climbed to $1.06. We’re not just falling further behind each year that we fail to pass this tax — we are literally falling further behind each month that we fail to pass this tax. Most notably, Tennessee passed a 42-cent tax increase, which will bring their cigarette tax to 62 cents per pack, and increase the southeastern average.
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative will continue to build our grassroots support over the next six months. We are greatly optimistic that the Senate will pass this tax very early next session and will do everything we can to keep this issue in front of legislators and the citizens who vote for them.

Don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions!

Thanks,
Kelly

Kelly Davis
Cigarette Tax Campaign Coordinator
SC Tobacco Collaborative

This message was sent on Thursday, but I’m just reading it at a little before 9 p.m. Friday. Sunday’s page is gone, and I can tell you it contains no editorial on this subject (although I do make a passing reference to it in my Sunday column). I haven’t the slightest idea whether the newsroom will have a story on this or not Sunday. One can only guess about such things. In fact, such outside sources are more likely to know what the newsroom’s doing than I am (by design), but they can’t possibly know for sure.

But I do know this — as the memo says, no action can be taken for another six months. Time enough to write about it between now and then.

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

5 Replies

UPDATE on Gov Lite Driver: The House by a smaller margin overrode the veto of the PROVISO for the chauffeur. The possible logic: The money line included other stuff; as long as the PROVISO was removed, there would be no security detail (Just an extra $90,000 in the lt gov’s office with no particular use, and possibly unavailable to be spent, although I’m not sure) … So here’s THe vote to override the PROVISO:

VETO 95– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 72.110, General Provision, page 502; Lt. Governor Security Detail.

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 77; Nays 21

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

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine          Bedingfield          Crawford
Duncan                Funderburk          Hagood
Haley                Hamilton             Huggins
Kirsh                Loftis                Lowe
Lucas                McLeod                Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts          Shoopman             D. C. Smith
Stewart             Thompson             Viers

Total–21

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

How they voted on Andre’s driver

10 Replies

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:

House
VETO 39– OVERRIDDEN

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

Total–92

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
Whitmire

Total–16

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

————————————————————–

Senate
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

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

AYES
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

Total–39

NAYS
Bryant                   Campsen             Courson
Cromer                Grooms                McConnell

Total–6

A working class hero is something to be

7 Replies

Check out this excerpt from the Associated Press about our governor’s signing of the Workers’ Compensation bill for which the business community has been clamoring for years:

"This bill really is about the working man," Sanford said as he signed the bill at a gated housing development in this city off Interstate 385 near Greenville. "If you look at the numbers, about 25 percent of that house right there that the working man will one day buy, goes into costs associated with an out-of-control workers’ comp system. And that is a real tax on working people across South Carolina that will be dealt with in this bill."

If you didn’t get it the first time, read it again.

It’s "about the working man." So of course, Mr. Common Touch signed it in a gated community. But that’s where all the working men will live in the future, you see.

That leaves me wondering: If that’s true, then who will live outside?

Who are those ‘House leaders?’

Anderson celebrates what little there is to celebrate

13 Replies

A colleague points out the editorial in which the Anderson paper over the weekend celebrated the demise of efforts to slip the whole taxpayers-subsidize-private-schools thing into the open enrollment bill. An excerpt;

An attempt to further frustrate improvements in public schools in South Carolina was defeated in the Senate last week. The addition of private school vouchers to a bill allowing open enrollment within the public school system was dismissed nearly two-to-one, according to published reports. Debate continues on the original proposal, despite this latest pass at – and latest failure of – supporting private education with public money.

That’s good. But isn’t it a shame how, in South Carolina, we almost never get to celebrate any really good, bold, positive measures passing our Legislature — such as real DOT reform, or a comprehensive tax revamp, or addressing the profound problems in the Corridor of Shame, or setting local governments free to govern locally, or anything really helpful.

No, the best we get to do is celebrate when something really, really awful fails to pass.

Sad.

Message, votes on ATV bill

2 Replies

Here are details on the sustained ATV bill veto, starting with the governor’s message:

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR
State of South Carolina
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 11369
Columbia, SC 29211
May 15, 2007

The Honorable Andre Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, 1st Floor East Wing
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

(R41, S348 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=348&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/348.doc> version))) — Senators Hutto and Land: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT, SO AS TO ENACT "CHANDLER’S LAW" BY ADDING CHAPTER 26 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE OPERATION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON FIFTEEN YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER WHO OPERATES AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE MUST POSSESS A SAFETY CERTIFICATE INDICATING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE SAFETY COURSE, AND MUST WEAR A SAFETY HELMET AND EYE PROTECTION WHEN OPERATING AN ATV, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS CHILD OR WARD UNDER AGE SIX TO OPERATE AN ATV, AND PROVIDING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WHEN OPERATING AN ATV ON LANDS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT ALLOW OPERATION OF AN ATV, TO PROVIDE THAT ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ARE EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREM TAXES BEGINNING WITH CALENDAR YEAR 2007, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10A SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE TITLING OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 348, R-41.

I have met and spoken with Chandler’s parents several times over the last two years regarding the background of this legislation and their position on the bill, and I am genuinely sorry for the profound loss they have experienced.

In the course of these discussions, I have come to admire Steve and Pamela Saylor for honoring Chandler by setting up a scholarship fund and working on this legislation. However, as commendable as their work is, I find myself in the same position on this bill that I took last year. I am still concerned that this legislation will bring about the unintended consequences of growing government, impinging on private property rights, and diminishing parental responsibility.

The legislation hinges on the notion that all children between the ages of 6-15 must complete and receive certification for completing a safety course before operating an ATV. The course is a four-hour class, typically taught in a single afternoon. While the course is useful and I would encourage riders to take it, we should not use the law to make parents think that their children will somehow know how to operate their ATV’s safely.

Furthermore, this mandate would impose a hidden tax on families, the consequences of which would be deeply felt. Some supporters of this legislation claim that the safety courses are free of charge. This is true for the purchase of most new ATVs, but not on ATVs already owned or purchased used. Thus, for families across South Carolina who already own an ATV, this legislation would require them to pay for the course before some members of the family could use the ATV they already own. According to the ATV Safety Institute, there is a $75 per child charge for the course and $125 per adult. So, under this legislation, a family of four that already owns an ATV would be required to spend $150 for a safety course and up to $400 if the parents wanted to take the course with them. Simply put, we don’t believe the government should be allowed to exercise this kind of power over citizens’ use of their own property on their own land.

I am also concerned about the practical issue of enforcement. The bill requires certification, along with wearing a helmet and goggles in operation of an ATV. While the thinking behind this part of the legislation may be sound, there will likely never be enough will or manpower to put agents in every corner of the state to enforce it. In fact, the probable cause portion of this bill may make it difficult to enforce in a variety of cases.

Proponents of this bill argue that setting these common sense standards for ATV use is similar to the boater safety laws that were passed in 1999. Those laws applied to activity on public waters, not private property. Moreover, the state mandates motorcycle helmets for riders under the age of 21-again as part of the public, not private, roadways. On the other hand, neither moped riders n or bicyclists are mandated to wear helmets by state law. The difference between bicycling accidents and ATV accidents is telling: in the case of bicycling, an injury or death occurs every 16.8 minutes versus roughly every 12.5 hours for an ATV. According to estimates, 90 percent of all injuries sustained by children on ATVs happen because they are riding an ATV designed for an adult-a consideration this legislation would do little to address.

Finally, there should be a practical application of the law when it comes to experience. When South Carolina enacted a mandate for hunters’ safety, current youth hunters were "grandfathered," a provision implicitly acknowledging that experience was more valuable than a training course. The present legislation ignores the fact, for example, that a 14-year-old who has been riding an ATV since age 8 has far mo re experience than any one-day safety course could provide.

Today, law enforcement officers can cite an individual, regardless of age, for operating a motorized vehicle in a reckless or negligent manner in state parks, forests, or wildlife areas. However, even in the best of circumstances, tragic accidents occur.

At the same time, I believe there should be a balance between using our law enforcement powers to increase safety against the private property rights and parental responsibility. While Chandler’s story is a tragic one, I respectfully and regretfully believe that the benefit to the public falls short of the threshold that warrants an erosion of these core values.

For these reasons, I am vetoing S. 348, R-41, and returning it without my approval.

Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Sanford

VETO SUSTAINED

(R41, S348 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=348&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/348.doc> version))) — Senators Hutto and Land: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT, SO AS TO ENACT "CHANDLER’S LAW" BY ADDING CHAPTER 26 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE OPERATION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON FIFTEEN YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER WHO OPERATES AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE MUST POSSESS A SAFETY CERTIFICATE INDICATING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE SAFETY COURSE, AND MUST WEAR A SAFETY HELMET AND EYE PROTECTION WHEN OPERATING AN ATV, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS CHILD OR WARD UNDER AGE SIX TO OPERATE AN ATV, AND PROVIDING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WHEN OPERATING AN ATV ON LANDS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT ALLOW OPERATION OF AN ATV, TO PROVIDE THAT ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ARE EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREM TAXES BEGINNING WITH CALENDAR YEAR 2007, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10A SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE TITLING OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

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

Senator HUTTO argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator CAMPSEN argued in favor of the Governor’s veto.

Senator GROOMS argued in favor of the Governor’s veto

Senator LEVENTIS argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator KNOTTS argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator HUTTO 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 25; Nays 17

AYES

Anderson                Drummond             Ford
Gregory                Hayes                   Hutto
Jackson                Knotts                   Land
Leatherman          Leventis                Lourie
Malloy                   Matthews                McGill
Moore                   Patterson                Peeler
Rankin                   Reese                   Setzler
Sheheen                Short                      Thomas
Williams

Total–25

NAYS

Alexander                Bryant                   Campsen
Cleary                   Courson                Cromer
Fair                   Grooms                   Hawkins
Martin                   McConnell                O’Dell
Ritchie                Ryberg                   Scott
Vaughn                   Verdin

Total–17

The Senate Journal from earlier this year shows there were NO ATTEMPTS in the Senate to "correct" all those horrible flaws in the bill that Sens. Campsen, Grooms and others complained about yesterday. And as you know, any of the 15 who voted to sustain the governor’s veto (which was no surprise, since he vetoed the bill last year) could have prevented passage by merely objecting to the bill. No one did so. In fact, it sailed through the Senate in less than two weeks.

Upholding a stupid veto

15 Replies

Here we go again. For this Legislature, overriding this governor’s vetoes is like breathing — if they stopped doing it, you’d need to check their pulses. That’s the case with anything he tries to do in terms of upholding the constitution (his vetoes of "local legislation"), or defending Home Rule or trying to assert a sensible spending practice.

But let him do something stupid, based in his hyperlibertarian ideology, and all of a sudden they’re on his side.

I just heard that the Senate has sustained his veto of the ATV-safety bill — which really wouldn’t have done all that much, but might have saved the life of a child here and there.

I’m sure many of their constituents are relieved. Cause you know, Bubba does love runnin’ around on that thing…

Our fan, Alex Sanders, on BIPEC vs. judicial elections in the OLD days

How was your Confederate Memorial Day?

92 Replies

S.C. political culture
keeps flag up,
DOT unreformed

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
RECENTLY, I said state lawmakers refuse to find the time to deal with the Confederate flag’s implications for our state.
I was wrong. They’ve saved so much time by not reforming the Department of Transportation this session that they managed to take off a whole day Thursday to honor the flag and all that it stands for. They also paid state employees several million dollars to do the same.
They know just what they’re doing. They don’t declare state holidays for every failed insurrection that comes along. There’s no Stono Rebellion Day, for instance. That was when some black South Carolina slaves rose up violently to assert their right to live as they chose, and lots of people died horribly, and the rebels suffered much and gained nothing. Whereas the War Between the States was when a bunch of white South Carolina slave owners rose up violently to… OK, well, the rest of it’s just the same.
But you see, we have a Confederate Memorial Day holiday because the General Assembly had to do something for white people after it gave black folks Martin Luther King Day.
It was a tradeoff. Our leaders think in those terms. Something for you people in exchange for something for us people. The idea that Martin Luther King might be worth a nod from all of us just didn’t wash.
The Legislature’s refusal to reform the Department of Transportation is actually related. That agency is governed according to the principle of something for you people in exchange for something for us people, leaving out the needs of the state as a whole.
The power lies in the Transportation Commission. The governor appoints the chairman; the other members are chosen by legislators. Not by the Legislature as a whole: Each member represents a congressional district, and only the legislators who live in that district have a say in choosing that commissioner. Therefore the people in a position to set priorities on road-building have parochial notions of what roads need to be built — all except the chairman, who can’t vote unless there’s a tie.
So how are priorities set? Something for you people in exchange for something for us people — the balancing of narrow interests, rather than a statewide strategy.
Lawmakers as a whole aren’t even seriously considering giving up that commission. Even the idea of giving greater power over the commission to the governor — who in almost any other state would be running that executive agency outright — is utterly shocking to some of the most powerful legislative leaders.
“This Senate would rue the day that you turn that billion-dollar agency over to one person,” said Sen. John Land, who represents a rural district.
The scandal at the Transportation Department didn’t arise from former Director Elizabeth Mabry being a bad administrator. She was a bad administrator, but she was part of a system. A job for your relative, commissioner, in return for indulging the way I run my fiefdom ….
Something for you in exchange for something for me. It didn’t even have to be stated.
When I say the “Legislature” is like this, it doesn’t apply to all lawmakers — just to the decisions they make collectively.
There are some who want to fix the agency, and others who want to take down the Confederate flag. But the status quo runs right over them without breaking stride.
Sen. John Courson proposed to do away with the commission and put the governor in charge. He got support, but not enough; the idea was dropped.
After I wrote about “the Legislature” not wanting to talk about the flag recently, Rep. Chris Hart called to say he wants to talk about it, and that he and Reps. Todd Rutherford, Bakari Sellers and Terry Alexander have a bill that would take the flag down — H.3588. But it’s sat in committee since Feb. 27.
My grand unifying theory is not a simple matter of good guys and bad guys. Sen. Glenn McConnell is a champion of the monument for you, flag for me system. But he’s pushing the plan to give the governor more say over the Transportation Department.
What matters is how it comes out, after everybody votes. This legislative session will end soon. Significant reform of the Transportation Department is looking doubtful, while action on the flag is politically impossible.
Rep. Rutherford has some hope for next year on the flag, especially after recent comments from football coach Steve Spurrier, and the protest by United Methodist clergy. If that blossoms into a movement of the breadth of the one that moved the flag in 2000, H.3588 could have a chance.
But he warns that if it does start to gain support, a moribund proposal to declare a Confederate Heritage Month will likely be revived. Something for you people, something for us people.
The Transportation Department won’t be reformed until the culture changes, until the notion that there is such a thing as statewide priorities replaces the traditional balancing of the interests of narrow constituencies.
The flag won’t come down unconditionally until the notion sinks in that it’s not about whether your ancestors were slaves, or slaveholders, or neither. This is the 21st century, and the Confederacy hasn’t existed since 1865. “I’m not trying to disrespect anybody’s heritage,” Rep. Rutherford said on Confederate Memorial Day. “It just shouldn’t be there.”
That’s true no matter who your kinfolk were, and no matter what day it is in the year 2007.

Don’t think unkindly of our lawmakers

17 Replies

You may have gotten the unflattering impression that our state lawmakers refuse to find the time to deal with the Confederate flag and its implications for our state.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hereby apologize for having created such a scurrilous illusion.

I had intended to go over and check out the activities at the Statehouse this morning, and didn’t get away before midday. At about that time a colleague returned from that august edifice, and I asked her what was going on this afternoon, thinking I might still go.

"They’re going home," she said, looking at me rather blankly.

But this is Wednesday, I protested. They don’t go home until tomorrow.

"Tomorrow is Confederate Memorial Day," she reminded me.

Our lawmakers aren’t too busy for the flag at all, you see. They’ve been so efficient in addressing all of our state’s legitimate needs that they could take off the whole day in order to honor the flag and all that it stands for. And, oh yes, pay all those thousands of state employees not to work tomorrow, either.

So don’t think they don’t have their priorities straight or anything.

Poor Betty

10 Replies

One of the great benefits of reading this blog is that you sometimes get little glimpses into really choice stuff coming up on the editorial page, such as this letter on tomorrow’s page, which I hereby quote in its entirety:

Get off Elizabeth Mabry’s back! She deserves a retirement party as much as anyone. The money collected is for the cost of the party. I had one when I retired, and a fee was charged.
What’s the big deal?

Anybody want to tell this gentleman what the big deal is?

What gentleman, you ask? Well, for that, you’ll have to read the paper. One thing I won’t use this blog for is to hold people up to ridicule for writing letters to the editor. At least, not personal, specific, individual ridicule.

Although that one really is a corker.

Let’s see — she took full advantage of the unaccountable commission system to run her own little queendom over at what we euphemistically call the "state" Department of Transportation, and resigned last year in disgrace over such trifles as having deceived the Legislature to the tune of millions of dollars.

Then the Budget and Control Board "spent $40,074.57 to buy the remaining service time Mabry needed to be eligible for full retirement benefits," which I think means that we taxpayers spent over 40 grand for the privilege of pretending that she’s worked more time than she has, so that we might have the further privilege of sending her pension checks for the rest of her life. I’m not smart about money matters, but I think that’s right.

Then lawmakers who had defended her strenuously and said any reports of less-than-admirable conduct at DOT was purely a matter of that scoundrel the governor trumping up nonsense changed their tune to: She’s gone now, so that solves the problem, we don’t have to reform the agency.

Then … oh, I don’t even want to go again into all the machinations that have occurred in the House and Senate to try to protect the status quo, except to point out this quote from Sen. John Land in today’s paper:

"This Senate would rue the day that you turn that billion-dollar agency
over to one person, and that’s what this bill does. It would be
terrible for South Carolina."

Mind you, he was reacting to a lame compromise that would keep the commission — which, with its multiple members provides multiples of multiple ways for powerful people to reach in and influence the agency’s running without leaving fingerprints — but give the governor the ability to get rid of members who really get out of hand a way that it can’t be missed. It most assuredly does not do what any sane state would do, which is put the elected chief executive in charge of this huge, expensive executive agency, so that voters can hold somebody responsible to some extent.

We wouldn’t want to put anybody in charge, oh no. Things are much better without that — better for Sen. Land and his peers, that is.

That’s all I can stand on this subject for today. By the way, here’s a copy of the invitation to Ms. Mabry’s party, in case you didn’t get one. I didn’t get one either. I guess that‘ll teach me to stay off that poor woman’s back. (And remember, folks, that RSVP address is celebratemabry@gmail.com.)

Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care about that. Throw her a party. Build her a palace, as long as you do it with your own money. May she live 1,000 years of pure ecstasy, day after day, while the rest of us and our descendants work for our livings.

What I care about is that we fix the problem with the way we run this agency — and plenty of other state agencies, this is just the mess we’re focused on at the moment. And that — fixing it — continues to seem highly unlikely.

Methodist ministers

30 Replies

We were way busy last week and I failed to comment on this, but it’s never too late on a 45-year issue.

I was pleased to hear from Methodist preacher friend that he and some fellow clergy were going to pray at the Confederate flagpole, with the object of their prayers being much the same as mine:

By RODDIE A. BURRIS
rburris@thestate.com
A group of 30 to 40 people prayed
and held Communion Tuesday on the State House
grounds in protest of the
Confederate flag flying there.
The group, led by ministers from area United Methodist churches, had Communion at the State House’s African-American monument.
Afterward,
they turned and marched 150 yards to the Confederate Soldier’s
Monument. There, the group prayed, asking that the flag be removed from
State House grounds…
“We hope that now people will start
bringing their churches down here and having service,” said the Rev.
John Wesley Culp, pastor of Virginia Wingard Memorial United Methodist
Church, on Broad River Road.

Randy and I need to bring this idea up to our pastor. Whaddaya think, Randy? With a Legislature like ours ("The protest drew little attention inside the State House as legislators
began their six-week countdown to the end of the 2007 session"), I think it would be wise for people of good will to appeal to the Higher Power.

In any case, this development was encouraging, because it was the first step beyond Coach Spurrier’s comments, in terms of assembling a coalition of mainstream forces to press our lawmakers to do the right thing — however reluctant they are even to speak of it.

Lawmakers stub out smoke-free workplace movement

18 Replies

As communities across South Carolina have rushed to protect workers and patrons in restaurants and bars — in response to public demand, and a recent Surgeon General’s report — they have faced one major barrier: The Legislature doesn’t want them to do it, and passed a law several years back forbidding them to do so.

If the General Assembly as a body were not actively hostile to public health, all it would have to do to foster a new dawn is get out of the way — repeal its pre-emption of local governments.

Instead, in actions that might baffle Machiavelli, it has taken idealistic legislation that would place a statewide ban on smoking in such public accommodations, watered it down to meaninglessness, and included even more emphatic language making sure that local governments can’t go beyond the meager changes in this bill.

In the attached video, you can hear some women who have been working hard to get this far on a workplace smoking ban, only to find it blow up in their faces — in multiple ways.

For instance, the legislation now:

Bans smoking in restaurants, but not bars.
Allows bars to pretty much define themselves AS bars, rather than setting rations of food-to-alcohol or some such.
Allows such establishments to buy their way out of the ban with a one-time fee. All they have to do is call themselves a bar, and ban kids for part of the day — letting the kids breathe the poisons from the upholstery during the hours that the joint goes BACK to being a "restaurant."
Put enforcement of the provisions, such as they are, under the Department of Revenue — there is, after all, that fee to collect — rather than the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Leaves those workers at places that decide to call themselves "bars" completely unprotected from this workplace hazard.
Most of all, makes sure local standards can’t be any better than the state’s.

That last part is what has public health advocates ready to kill the bill altogether — which has some of our relatively-benign-but-less-thoughtful lawmakers (and that’s a large subset of the General Assembly) — dismissing them as soreheads not willing to take "half a loaf." But it isn’t half a loaf; it’s a serious setback.

The whole country is fed up with being forced to breathe the toxins put out by an obnoxious minority in public places, and finally laws across the nation are starting to reflect that. The movement has been strong in South Carolina as well, with 11 bills moving through the Legislature that among other things raise the cigarette tax (a lamentably pitiful amount), and ban smoking on school property, in cars that have kids as passengers, and in the aforementioned public accommodations.

There were originally something like 19 bills, which testifies to the fact that this was a movement welling up from the people of South Carolina through their representatives, not a focused campaign by any interest group. "It’s not health Nazis dictating policy," said Lisa Turner of the American Heart Association.

That actually presents a tactical liability to those working in our behalf and against the skillful, deep-pockets, recently-reinforced tobacco lobby. They know that if they kill the bar-restaurant bill, the bad stuff will just be tacked onto one of the other bills they are counting on passing.

All the momentum out here in the real world is on the side of those of us who want to breathe clean air. But the local lobbyists for tobacco companies, who tend to be some of Columbia’s best — from Dwight Drake to Tony Denny — have been making highly effective use of their close relationships with key decision-makers in the State House.

They are like highly skillful generals on the losing side of a conventional war — giving ground in ways that make their opponents pay the maximum for every inch, while all the time looking for the main chance that will suddenly tip the balance back in their favor, despite all the odds.

To see how this works in microcosm, check the video, in which a lobbyist for the American Lung Association describes her shock at first, seeing House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison attend a subcommittee meeting on the restaurant bill, then seeing the members chat back-and-forth with the tobacco lobbyists across the room whenever they had a question, ignoring the experts from the state health department that were sitting there.

The women in the video went on and on about how their phones have been lighting up with folks from their national organizations wanting to know, what in the world is happening there? Georgia, after all, not only bans smoking in any place that EVER serves kids — which pretty much covers all restaurants — and has 27 local ordinances that go farther than that. All of this, remember, is in response to the public demand — to which local governments tend to be more sensitive than state lawmakers.

Since these health advocate met with the editorial board, North Carolina has voted NOT to ban smoking. So at least South Carolina isn’t totally alone in its backwardness.

Minimizing the impact

20 Replies

Judging by the lack of comments, I’m guessing not many of you read this item. I urge you to do so now.

And then, read this:

Bloggers kicked out of a blogging event. Ironic…don’t you think?

Published May 3rd, 2007 in Uncategorized.

Yesterday we received a copy of a press release inviting the press to attend ETV’s weekly show with Senator Glenn McConnell.

The press release stated:

This week’s SCETV Senate teleconference hosted by
President Pro Tem McConnell on Thursday, May 3rd, at 9:30 a.m., will
host Senator Jake Knotts, R – Lexington and Senator Kevin Bryant,
R-Anderson as they discuss how blogs impact the legislative process.

We encourage you to personally attend this live program in the
President Pro Tem’s Office on the 2nd Floor of the State House off the
main lobby near the front door.

We go to a lot of press conferences and other press events and we
are usually treated very well by those holding the event and members of
the press. But today was different.

We decided to attend this event because it was about the impact of
blogs on the legislative process and well…we are a blog. Even more
important, we are a blog that covers politics and we very frequently
discuss the impact of new media on politics. If anyone should be at
this event IT’S US.

But when we got there, we were kicked out because we are not
“credentialed press.” That’s right. They kicked the bloggers out of
an event about bloggers. Ironic? Stupid? We think so. To say we are
insulted would be a HUGE understatement.

Pretty wild, huh? There’s more, though.

Seeming to corroborate Sen. McConnell’s version of events is this e-mail I received today from Bill Rogers, head of the press association, before I saw the item on The Shot:

Brad:

FYI, Glenn McConnell’s This Week in
the Senate press conference is for accredited media only. The room is very
small and there is no room for the general public. I noticed your blog posting
seemed to invite the public to attend. Only one person showed up, and he was
able to watch from the lobby.

It was an interesting half
hour.

Bill

My response to Bill was apologetic, not knowing the circumstances. And indeed, I generally do leave out phone numbers and such on press releases, to keep hundreds of calls from tying up the lines and preventing anybody from communicating effectively.

Now that I do know the circumstances, I’m not sure what to think. Yeah, if the room was small, you can’t accommodate a crowd. But one guy? I don’t know. Once again, what do y’all think?

I didn’t call Joe Darby names

13 Replies

Just FYI, I never called the Rev. Joe Darby an extremist, or anything else unpleasant. I like Joe Darby. Nevertheless, he felt obliged to stick up for himself on our op-ed page today, to wit:

The State’s editorial pages have been filled in recent weeks with
reactions to coach Steve Spurrier’s welcome comments on the Confederate
flag. They included columns by Brad Warthen, who supported the flag’s
removal but labeled the NAACP’s approach on the flag extreme, and Sen.
Glenn McConnell, who made the case for standing by the present flag
location and moving on.

Both
gentlemen merit a response, and I offer it as a former first vice
president of the South Carolina NAACP and one of those who drafted the
resolution for the NAACP’s interstate tourism sanctions.

It’s
your turn first, Brad — hope you don’t mind an extremist using your
first name. I’d remind you that school desegregation, voting rights and
civil rights laws didn’t just spring into being because America’s
powers that be suddenly said, “Hey, I see something unjust, let’s fix
it!” We acted as a nation in the 1960s only when organizations like the
NAACP took aggressive action, ranging from lawsuits to civil
disobedience, to demand equity. They weren’t called “extremists” back
then, but “outside agitators.” History shows that we only change and do
the right thing when we’re compelled to act and have no choice, and
that’s true in the case of the Confederate flag.

Well, I haven’t used the word "extremist" lately in this context, but I think this is what he was referring to:

… But up to now, we might as well have been shouting at a stone wall.
The NAACP and its opponents were the only ones out there making any
news on the subject, largely because news coverage is attracted,
unfortunately, to conflict.

The extremes did such a great job of
hijacking this issue, it’s like they got together and worked it out
ahead of time between them. The rest of us are trapped in this comedy
of the absurd, with the entire country laughing at us. (Have you ever
heard of anything more pathetic than the city of Columbia spending
$15,000 in a ridiculously doomed effort to get people covering the
presidential primaries here to ignore the flag? We make ourselves into
a freak show, and we think they’re going to ignore it? Come on!)

By the way, this is our editorial position on the NAACP’s stance, in case you missed it.

There’s nothing extreme about the NAACP’s position on the flag. But its approach to doing something about it polarizes the issue in a way that makes any kind of positive action extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I would never want to see the flag come down because our state felt FORCED to do it, even if that were possible. If we don’t grow to the point that we are unified in WANTING to take it down, then nothing is really accomplished.

People keep saying that there are many more important issues to be writing about — education, economic development, etc. To which I can only say, Duh. Why do you think we write about those things, day in and day out?

But the flag is worth writing about, too, because the very attitudes and detachment from reality that keep it up there also keep us from dealing meaningfully with the challenges that keep us last where we should be first. But we have to make the decision to move beyond that self-destructive mindset ourselves. Nobody can make us do it; that’s a logical contradiction.

Rev. Darby compares the NAACP’s coercive posture on the flag (or rather, attempted coercive posture, since the boycott is a bust) to marches and boycotts back in the civil rights era, when it was necessary to make courageous stands against laws that denied black people the right to vote, the right to a good job, a right to be treated equally.

But there’s a big difference. When you have a concrete obstacle such as a law that says if your skin is this color, you can’t cross this line, then whatever means you use to remove that law, you’ve had a positive effect. A barrier removed is a barrier removed, however you get there.

But the flag itself, as a concrete object, doesn’t matter. It is, as some who want to dismiss the issue, just a piece of cloth. This is about the attitude that keeps the flag flying. We have to change that. If you get rid of the flag and the attitude is unchanged, all you’ve done is hide the attitude, which will continue to poison and confound all our best efforts to achieve consensus on addressing education, economic development, public health, etc.

Personally, I believe most of us have indeed grown beyond that attitude. But our Legislature won’t recognize that. Hence my speaking up on the flag, and encouraging others to do the same — somebody besides the obsessed types who always speak up. You know, the extremists.

Ted Pitts gets “flagged”

24 Replies

Poor Ted Pitts. My House representative wasn’t in the Legislature when this issue was raging before. So he made the mistake of speaking candidly with me about the Confederate flag, and I wrote about it, and he found out how much sound and fury it can generate. I just got this letter from him:

Dear Editor,

Recently an editorial [my column of April 22] was published by Brad Warthen that
included remarks from a phone conversation he and I had regarding the
Confederate Flag. I agreed with the point he made in a column that
outsiders can not move or remove the flag and the issue will be decided by South
Carolinians. There was an impression given to some that I was leading a charge
to take down the Flag from behind the Confederate monument which is not the
case.

I am elected to discuss, develop opinions and try
to improve things in our State. This includes education, healthcare, economic
development and anything the people of South Carolina want their elected
representatives to deal with. This list currently includes the Confederate flag
that flies in front of the Statehouse. Some say I should avoid the topic all
together but that is not what I feel I was elected to do. I have always found
the dynamics of the flag topic to be very interesting and never really felt like
I had a dog in that fight.

Since Mr. Warthen’s editorial I have gotten a crash
course on the Flag, the Confederate Monument and the tremendous efforts that
were undertaken to arrive at a compromise. I have spoken to constituents,
legislators past and present, people of all races, business interests, long-time
South Carolinians and new residents of our state about the Flag and will
continue to do so.

The Confederate Monument is one of many on the
statehouse grounds including an African-American monument that was built as a
result of the compromise. I was not a member of the General Assembly when the
flag came off the dome and out of the Senate and House Chambers; but as a South
Carolinian I supported moving the Flag and now as a member of the SC House I
support honoring the compromise.

Sincerely,

Ted Pitts

Cigarette tax: Whoop-te-doo

29 Replies

So the House decided to increase the cigarette tax to about a third of the national average? Well, whoop-te-doo.

Of course, at least it’s something. And if you’re going to cut a tax with the money, the grocery tax is a far better choice than the income tax, because the former is actually comparatively high, while the latter is not. It also funds a youth smoking cessation program, so on the whole it’s pretty decent legislation, certainly better than doing nothing.

There was a lot of fuss made about lawmakers not using all the money for Medicaid or some such. This did not bother me. As I’ve said before, I don’t really care what happens with that money, you could burn it and still accomplish the most significant goal that has motivated me to want to raise it all these years: Study after study has shown that if you raise the price per pack, fewer kids become nicotine addicts.

Anyway, Medicaid costs — just like the costs of those of us who are in private health insurance plans — are climbing so fast that even if you had devoted all the money to that, it would only cover one year’s increase in the expense. Then what do you do? The answer to rising Medicaid costs is the same as the rising private health care costs: We need to overhaul the entire system, and that is one of those few things that might have to be done on the federal, not the state, level.

For details on exactly what happened on this vote, I share with you this memo that my colleague Cindi Scoppe prepared for me. Enjoy:

On Wednesday, the House voted 78-37 to increase the cigarette tax by 30 cents and reduce the sales tax on groceries by 1.6 cents. (H 3567) The tax increase is projected to bring in about the same amount of money as the tax decrease, around $100 million.

There were actually two major questions concerning the cigarette tax: whether to increase it and, if it was to be increased, what ELSE to put in the bill.

The Ways and Means Committee bill increased the cigarette tax by 30 cents, reduced the sales tax on groceries by 1.5 cents, expanded Medicaid coverage, funded a youth smoking prevention program and paid for a couple of other programs. It was designed this way in order to satisfy two separate constituencies in the House: those who would only vote for a tax increase if it was offset by an equal or larger tax decrease, and those who wanted money from a cigarette tax increase to go to Medicaid and other health initiatives. The problem was that this meant the bill would have actually cost the state about $100 million. To see the details of that package, go to the April 20 version of the bill and scroll down until you see the Fiscal Impact statement.

After initially sticking by this plan, the House eventually changed course and voted 64-52 to strip out nearly all of the spending and make the bill a straight swap: a higher cigarette tax for a lower sales tax on groceries. Here’s that vote, followed by the vote to pass the bill:

Voting to strip out the Medicaid spending:
Ballentine          Bannister             Barfield
Bedingfield          Bingham             Bowen
Brady                Cato                Chellis
Clemmons             Cooper                Crawford
Delleney             Duncan                Edge
Frye                Gambrell             Gullick
Hagood                Haley                Hamilton
Hardwick             Harrell             Harrison
Herbkersman          Hinson                Huggins
Kelly                Kennedy             Kirsh
Leach                Littlejohn          Loftis
Lowe                Lucas                Mahaffey
Merrill             Mulvaney             Perry
Pinson                E. H. Pitts          M. A. Pitts
Sandifer             Scarborough          Shoopman
Simrill             Skelton             D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith          J. R. Smith          W. D. Smith
Spires                Stewart             Talley
Taylor                Thompson             Toole
Umphlett             Viers                Walker
White                Whitmire             Witherspoon
Young

Voting to keep the Medicaid spending in the bill:
Agnew                Alexander             Allen
Anderson             Anthony             Bales
Battle                Bowers                Branham
Brantley             Breeland             G. Brown
R. Brown             Ceips                Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter          Coleman             Cotty
Dantzler             Davenport             Funderburk
Hart                Harvin                Hayes
Hiott                Hodges                Hosey
Howard                Jefferson             Jennings
Knight                Limehouse             Mack
McLeod                Miller                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Neilson             Ott                   Owens
Parks                Rice                Rutherford
Scott                Sellers             G. M. Smith
Stavrinakis          Vick                Weeks
Whipper

—————————————-
The House passed the bill by a vote of 78-37:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                Allen                Anderson
Anthony             Bales                Ballentine
Bannister             Bingham             Bowen
Bowers                Brady                Branham
Brantley             Breeland             Ceips
Chellis             Clemmons             Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter          Coleman             Cotty
Crawford             Dantzler             Delleney
Funderburk          Gambrell             Gullick
Hagood                Hamilton             Hardwick
Harrell             Harrison             Harvin
Herbkersman          Hiott                Hosey
Howard                Huggins             Jefferson
Jennings             Kelly                Knight
Limehouse             Littlejohn          Lucas
Mack                Mahaffey             McLeod
Merrill             Miller                Mitchell
Moss                J. H. Neal          J. M. Neal
Ott                   Owens                Parks
Perry                Pinson                E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts          Rice                Rutherford
Sandifer             Scarborough          Simrill
Skelton             D. C. Smith          G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith          Stavrinakis          Stewart
Taylor                Toole                Vick
Walker                Whipper             Whitmire

Total–78

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander             Barfield             Battle
Bedingfield          G. Brown             R. Brown
Cato                Cooper                Davenport
Duncan                Edge                Frye
Haley                Hart                Hayes
Hinson                Hodges                Kennedy
Kirsh                Leach                Lowe
Mulvaney             Neilson             Scott
Sellers             Shoopman             G. M. Smith
W. D. Smith          Spires                Talley
Thompson             Umphlett             Viers
Weeks                White                Witherspoon
Young

Total–37

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits