Sanford may sue over veto override

Just when it looked like the curtain had dropped on the drama surrounding an economic development bill, Gov. Mark Sanford wrote a new act.

Sanford said Thursday that his office is exploring the possibility of legal action against the General Assembly over the process that eventually led the Legislature to override his veto of the bill.

"This bill trampled all over the taxpayers of South Carolina," Sanford said. "That's why I vetoed it. There's also a good case to be made that it trampled all over the Constitution."

The bill creates a $50 million venture capital fund and makes pharmaceutical and laboratory instrument manufacturers eligible for the same economic development incentives offered to other manufacturers, proposals that Sanford supported.

But tacked onto the bill were provisions that: made more than $200 million available to research universities for qualifying projects; made the University of South Carolina Sumter a four-year institution; created a four-year culinary arts program at Trident Technical College, mandated that no USC campus could be closed without the General Assembly's authorization; and increased the number of students eligible to receive LIFE scholarships while lowering the standards for retaining the scholarships.

Supporters have said passage of the bill could be a factor in determining whether an unidentified pharmaceutical company brings its high-paying jobs to Greenville County or to Texas.

Sanford vetoed the bill late Tuesday night, saying it was overburdened with pork projects. The General Assembly overrode the veto less than 24 hours later -- the Senate by a 39-4 vote and the House by an 81-24 margin.

"This politics-as-usual process of tacking on numerous pieces of totally unrelated pork barrel spending to individual bills has raised any number of constitutional concerns," Sanford said. "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 fight to fix that process."

Sanford, Chief Legal Counsel James White, Deputy Legal Counsel Swati Patel and Chief of Staff Tom Davis will be the main players in deciding whether to go to court. The decision will come in days, not weeks, Sanford said.

James Underwood, professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Law, said Sanford might have a good case. Underwood said a provision in the state Constitution requires all parts of a piece of legislation to relate to one topic.

The provision was added in the late 19th century, Underwood said, to prevent large bills with many different projects from getting through the Legislature.

"This was done so that legislators would know exactly what they are voting on," Underwood said. "Also, there was a feeling that we weren't getting majority support for the full legislation. Some might vote for it because of one provision, some for another."

The problem, Underwood said, is that the provision is freely violated.

"You'll find legislation all the time that has, technically, a violation. Until somebody challenges it, it gets by," Underwood said.

State Sen. Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, said everyone in the Senate had parts of the bill that they opposed. But in the end, they decided the bill's potential to create jobs was the determining factor.

"I respect the governor's desire for pure legislation," said Ritchie, who developed the venture capital portion of the bill. "We would all prefer that. But part of governing is doing the very best you can within the limitations of building a majority of support."

Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, said he was disappointed that Sanford was going to rush to the courthouse rather than try to resolve the issue by working with the Legislature.

"That (litigation) should be a last resort and I hope he'll reconsider," Hawkins said. "If the goal is to protect taxpayers, the last thing we need to do is to make a bunch of lawyers rich off of this questionable lawsuit."

House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, said Sanford should have used his authority to line-item veto the provisions of the bill he didn't like.

"He didn't, and I'm disappointed in the governor from that aspect," Smith said. "I hope he doesn't waste valuable funds and challenge this in court."

Smith, however, said the Senate created the issue by "bob-tailing," -- adding new legislation onto an existing bill. He said he thought the practice would stop when the Republican Party gained control of the Senate.

"But they have clear problems with their leadership," Smith said. "They need to show some intestinal fortitude and stop."

Smith called on Hawkins, Ritchie and Sen. Glenn Reese, D-Boiling Springs, to "be the leaders I think they are and stand up and say this is not going to happen again."

Hawkins said Smith's criticism rings hollow.

"If he felt that strongly about it, he should have voted not to override," Hawkins said. "Our majority and our leadership does the best it can to produce quality legislation. At the end of the day, the question ultimately for me was how could I vote against legislation that could bring hundreds of jobs to my constituents."

Ritchie was more reserved in his response.

"I hope that in the balance of the session that the House and Senate can work together to address these concerns," Ritchie said. "But I don't think it's productive to point fingers at one body or the other. We all passed the bill on many votes."

Robert W. Dalton can be reached at 562-7274 or bob.dalton@shj.com.

More Headlines