S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster has taken a bold step that could help clarify a muddy area of state governance. McMaster has sided with the plaintiff in a legal challenge of the old legislative practice of "bobtailing."

The plaintiff is a citizen with a history of being a government watchdog. He has challenged the constitutionality of a bill passed in the General Assembly this year, claiming many provisions tacked on by legislators are not germane to the original bill. They call the practice "bobtailing" and it is common in the legislature.

No matter who wins the court case, the state should be better off because the nagging issue will be addressed.

The bill in question is called the Life Sciences Act. It enjoyed widespread support as a means of fostering economic development around the state's research universities.

But before it was passed, it had become a $220 million grab bag that legislators themselves called the "kitchen sink bill." They had circumvented the Commission on Higher Education and the University of South Carolina board to create four-year programs at two colleges. They had changed LIFE scholarship requirements and funded a convention center, among many other things.

Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the bill, saying it violated a constitutional mandate for all parts of a legislative bill to be germane to a single topic. The legislature quickly overrode the veto, insisting that all parts of the bill pertained to economic development. The governor said he might challenge it in court, but backed away following a closed-door meeting with legislative leaders who insisted it is legal.

McMaster surprised a lot of people when he sided with the citizen. But what he is doing cannot be considered siding against the state. In fact, it is the attorney general's job to defend the state. In this case, he believes he is defending the constitution. We think he is right, and the constitution bans bobtailing for good reason. It is true that many provisions of the Life Sciences Act may be beneficial for the state, and that many amendments through the years have resulted in community improvements. For example, the legislation enabling the creation of the Volunteers in Medicine Clinic was an amendment some might have called bobtailing.

But the practice dilutes accountability, shortcutting some of the checks and balances that should be part of all new law.

The courts should take this occasion to help bring new clarity to the lawmaking process.