Print Page

MONDAY'S EDITORIAL

Appointment of S.C. officers not priority

THE ISSUE: Making change to appointing two state officers

OUR OPINION: Electing state constitutional officers is not fundamental problem

The state's lawmakers may not be ready to give Gov. Mark Sanford what he wants in the way of government restructuring. And even if they do, citizens may not go along.

The S.C. House has decided by a two-thirds vote to approve a bill that would put before voters a proposed constitutional change about elections for two state offices. The education superintendent and the secretary of state would become gubernatorial appointees.

Sanford also wants the adjutant general and agriculture commissioner appointed, just as he wants the lieutenant governor to run on a ticket with the governor in a fashion similar to the national presidential race.

The House has decided against sending any recommended change to the Senate on the adjutant general and agriculture commissioner. The lobbying by farmers is one thing that dissuaded the lawmakers on the commissioner's post. And National Guard interests long have made clear their opposition to dropping election of the adjutant.

The Senate, we suspect, may put an end to the plan for the other posts, too. That would be best at this time.

The system of electing constitutional officers is no governmental albatross. In fact, it has worked quite well in an unusual situation involving the commissioner of agriculture.

Yes, the post is an elected one and would remain that way. But state law allowed Gov. Mark Sanford to make an appointment when former Commissioner Charles Sharpe pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges and resigned from office. Bowman dairy farmer Hugh Weathers, who was serving as interim commissioner, was appointed by Sanford to complete Sharpe's term.

Appointment is such a case makes sense. Holding a statewide special election for one office to complete less than half the term would be more an exercise in waste than a testament to citizen choice.

Weathers is an excellent choice to be agriculture commissioner. Yet if he is to hold the post beyond the election in 2006, he'll have to convince the state's voters of just that. And that's not a bad thing.