We're not sure why some local lawmakers were so startled by the recent gubernatorial vetoes. Mr. Sanford's predecessors, including governors from Richard Riley on, routinely have vetoed bills they felt violated the prohibition against special legislation in Article III or the Home Rule provision of Article VIII that forbids local legislation. The Home Rule provision does not apply to the current controversy. Even if it wanted to, Charleston County Council has no power to establish or merge the Board of Voter Registration or the Election Commission.

Instead, those boards are established by general law, and thus are exempt from the Home Rule provision. So is legislation that deals with education, including a Greenville bill regarding snow days that the governor incorrectly vetoed. At issue is whether the bills in question are illegal special legislation. Under Article III, lawmakers are prohibited from passing special laws when a general law could apply. Could a general law be passed that calls for the merger of the Charleston boards in question? Perhaps, but it doubtless would be difficult to get a consensus from legislators representing the remaining counties that have yet to take this reform step.

We agree with those who consider the Charleston election bill to be in one of those legal gray areas. It should be noted that then-Gov. David Beasley didn't veto one such merger bill, but neither did he give it his signature.

Legislators know the odds. They count on the fact that the law presumes that the bills they pass are constitutional. And generally they aren't challenged. The exception is when the stakes are high.

For example, the legislation that allowed the most recent James Island incorporation has been struck down at the circuit court level as special legislation. That bill, by the way, had the support of the attorney general and wasn't vetoed by the governor. In the end, of course, only the courts can say what is and isn't constitutional.

Meanwhile, it's the Legislature's job to pass the laws and the governor's right to have his say. Vetoes ought to be overridden or sustained on their merits. But when it comes to legislation of interest to only a relative few, so-called legislative "courtesy" too often has been the prime consideration.