Governor threatens to take Legislature to court

e-mail this story

"Beyond the fact that it's an outrage from a taxpayer's perspective, it's a broken way of doing things and as long as I'm governor I'm going to fix that process," he said Thursday.

Sanford and lawmakers said taking the matter to court could delay any benefit from the bill, which was expected to help lure a major pharmaceutical firm to Greenville County.

The governor announced his intentions the day after the Legislature voted decisively to override his veto of the bill.

He said Thursday the state's constitution requires that any bill be limited to one subject. He said the Legislature's numerous "tack-ons" with the Life Sciences Act opens the legislation to a legal challenge.

If Sanford chooses to go to court, he would seek a declaratory judgment in the State Supreme Court.

Sanford said he would make a decision soon. He said he also was considering a legislative remedy, but he didn't disclose any specifics.

Some senators wondered about the same issue when debating whether to override the veto Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Hugh Leatherman told them it was not a concern because all the provisions concerned economic development.

Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Columbia Democrat, said he suspects Sanford is "politically posturing" because he did not lobby to sustain his veto.

"If he wants to be serious, tell him to contact the pharmaceutical company and tell them do not come to South Carolina because you're coming under an illegal act of the General Assembly," Jackson said. "But he is not going to do that because he wants that pharmaceutical company."

House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville said he did not approve of the way the bill was crafted but its benefits outweighed its negatives.

"I believe what we ought to be about, rather than lawsuits, is about creating jobs and creating a positive business environment," he said. "I believe the bill we passed and the governor vetoed does that."

The bill would provide financial incentives for drug companies that invest in South Carolina and create a $50 million venture capital fund to help startup companies.

It also will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for "research infrastructure" needs in the state's colleges, primarily at the South Carolina's three research universities: Clemson, the University of South Carolina and the Medical University of South Carolina.

But some lawmakers had labeled the legislation the "kitchen sink bill" because of tacked on measures that include making the University of South Carolina's branch campus in Sumter a four-year school, new criteria for LIFE scholarship recipients and creating a committee to study the idea of starting a law school at S.C. State University in Orangeburg. They also added a last-minute provision to pay $7 million toward a Myrtle Beach convention center.

Sanford vetoed the measure Tuesday night, complaining the bill had become loaded with "politically driven, pork-barrel spending" projects unrelated to the core legislation dealing with economic development. The Senate voted 39-4 Wednesday to override his veto, while the House voted 81-24 to override, making the bill law.

Sen. Phil Leventis, a Sumter Democrat who pushed for the provision concerning USC-Sumter, said he did not think Sanford would win a legal challenge and was missing the point of governing.

"He's much too consumed with process and not consumed enough with progress," said Leventis, who attended the governor's Thursday press conference. "He's much too concerned with symbolism and not enough with substance I think he means well. But at the end of the game all we're going to measure is the score, not the intent."

Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican, said he agrees with Sanford's frustration and the need to limit the process of combining legislation, called "bobtailing." But he said he doesn't want to see possible jobs for the Upstate turned away because of a political or legal argument.

Sen. Greg Ryberg, an Aiken Republican and one of the four senators who sustained Sanford's veto, said Sanford's intentions are justified.

"I think we will stay last in everything the state is last in if we continue to write legislation like this," he said. "We ought to be arrested for stealing from the people of South Carolina like we did under (this bill)."

Lawmakers said the Legislature has cut back in bobtailing bills in recent years and now forbids the practice in crafting the budget. Martin said the courts have generally left it to the Legislature to determine whether a bill's subject can be interpreted narrowly or broadly.

He said almost all the provisions can be lumped under the subject of higher education, though he said the convention center's funding would stick out.

University officials had said they were pleased at what the bill would do for their immediate future in research.

"This is a significant development for Clemson and our ability to focus on research to create the kind of facilities that can spin off companies and help the Southeast become a magnet for research-oriented economic development," said Cathy Sams, a spokeswoman for the university.

She said the school's first priorities for the bond money provided under the bill would be for Clemson's automotive research campus and for the advanced materials project at Clemson's Anderson research park.

Russ McKinney, a spokesman for USC, said the money would help that school's planned 5-million square foot research campus.