This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Jul 4, 2004
Legislative bobtailing: Supreme Court should side with the attorney
general
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, choosing not to
defend the state against a lawsuit challenging an economic development measure
approved in the spring by the General Assembly, has brushed politics aside in
the interest of upholding the state's constitution.The attorney general, who
might have been expected to side with lawmakers wanting sole authority for
matters in their districts and generally expected to defend the state at all
costs against a suit over their work, is acting in the best interest of the
state.McMaster has applied sound judgment by siding with government watchdog
Edward Sloan Jr. of Greenville. Sloan has sued the state, saying the structure
of the economic development measure known as the Life Sciences Act is
unconstitutional, and he makes a valid argument.The legislature passed a law in
March that was designed to provide greater incentives to pharmaceutical
companies. It was a popular measure that had wide legislative support. But by
the time lawmakers had passed the Life Sciences Act, it contained pet projects
of a few members of the General Assembly.The act, through what is known as
legislative bobtailing, picked up several amendments. These were local projects
tacked on by lawmakers who saw the act as an opportunity to get pet concerns
approved that otherwise might not have passed on their own merits.Among those
projects was the expansion of the University of South Carolina Sumter to a
four-year college. As a separate measure, that expansion proposal likely would
have been defeated by the legislature. Lawmakers tacking this proposal onto the
Life Sciences Act clearly were acting out of self-interest, evident by the fact
that the Higher Education Commission and the board of trustees for USC would not
endorse expansion of the college.The amendments stood, and Gov. Mark Sanford,
who supported the original intent of the Life Sciences Act, vetoed it, arguing
that each legislative bill should address a single subject, that to tack on
other matters through legislative bobtailing is unconstitutional. The state's
lawmakers, however, wasted no time in protecting their ability to approve their
pet projects. They overrode the veto, acting in their own interests, not what
was best for the entire state.It is prudent that this process is being
challenged in court, and the state's attorney general has made the proper
response.The Supreme Court should side with the argument that legislators have
chosen their own interests over the state's constitution and what is best for
the whole state.