High court to hear local man's lawsuit against state

e-mail this story

The lawsuit, filed last month by Ed "Ned" Sloan of Greenville, challenges the constitutionality of a mammoth economic development bill passed by the Legislature this year called the Life Sciences Act.

Upstate lawmakers had pressed for the legislation because they said incentives offered in the bill might lure a major pharmaceutical firm to the Greenville area.

Sloan alleged in his suit that because so many items were tacked onto the original legislation — a practice called bobtailing — the final bill violates a requirement in the state's Constitution that limits legislation to one subject.

Supporters of the legislation said Tuesday they were neither surprised nor opposed to the state Supreme Court hearing the issue.

"I don't think you'll find anyone in economic development against the Supreme Court hearing this because the court has the ability to take out all the bobtailing stuff and leave it as a clean Life Sciences legislation." said Brent Clinkscale, chairman of the Greenville Area Development Corp., the county's economic development arm.

"There are some who believe this might be a good thing for economic development in the future because it means that economic development bills will be streamlined and you can't attach things to them that might slow them down or get them defeated."

Legislative supporters of the bill have noted that the Life Sciences Act contains a legal provision designed to allow any portions of the bill not specifically struck down by a court ruling to stand. So even if the justices strike the tacked-on measures as unconstitutional, the initial legislation will survive, they say.

Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican who supports the bill, said he expected the hearing and is hopeful the justices will side with the Legislature.

"I'm optimistic it will be found constitutional," he said.

The justices' two-page order stated that they found "compelling reasons" enough to assume jurisdiction in the case without waiting for the lower courts to handle it.

Sloan had asked for the Supreme Court to handle the case, just as he did last year when he sued Gov. Mark Sanford over his service as an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. The justices sided with the governor in that suit.

Jim Carpenter, Sloan's attorney, said he doesn't expect the justices to hear oral arguments in the case before this fall, if the court requests them.

Jerry Howard, president of GADC, said the legislation "is essential to our success."

"Without it, we can't be competitive and we have no chance," he said.

But Howard and Clinkscale said economic development activity in the area of biotechnology has increased since the bill's passage, indicating that firms aren't frightened by the lawsuit.

Karl B. Kelly, chief executive officer of S.C. Bio, a public-private partnership created to nurture starting technology companies in the state, said some firms are now interested in South Carolina because of the Life Sciences Act.

"We think it's going to get resolved very quickly," he said. "People realize that as it stands right now, it is the law. And the issue is not with the law or the intent but with some of the amendments associated with it. We're looking forward to the results from this act."

Lawmakers in April crafted a "clean" Life Sciences bill free of any tacked-on measures in an attempt to limit any prospects' fears when it appeared Gov. Mark Sanford might sue the Legislature over the legislation. The bill passed the House but remains on the Senate calendar, opposed by one senator.

The full Life Sciences Act provides financial incentives for drug companies that invest in South Carolina and creates 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.

Sanford objected to several 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 a S.C. State law school study. Lawmakers also added a last-minute provision to pay $7 million toward a Myrtle Beach convention center.

Sanford vetoed the legislation but lawmakers voted to override his veto.