Give a big hand to state Attorney General Henry McMaster. He's decided to back a private citizen who is challenging the legality of the controversial Life Sciences Act, better known as the "kitchen sink" bill. Fortunately, Mr. McMaster not only recognizes unconstitutional legislation when he sees it, he's willing to go to court and say so.
The attorney general had to decide which side to take when the state of South Carolina and leaders of the House and Senate were sued by Edward D. Sloan Jr., a retired Greenville businessman. Mr. McMaster, the legal representative of the state, announced Wednesday that he would join with Mr. Sloan in arguing the unconstitutionality of the law. The Legislature passed the act a few months ago by overriding the governor's veto. Briefs are due to be filed next month with the S.C. Supreme Court, which has expedited the case.
While Mr. McMaster's decision not to defend the Legislature is unusual, it by no means is without precedent. Indeed, we were reminded that the late former Attorney General Daniel McLeod challenged the constitutionality of a number of laws during his tenure. More recently, former Attorney General Charlie Condon sued then-Gov. Jim Hodges on a budgetary matter, and the S.C. Supreme Court upheld his right to do so. "The attorney general has a dual role," the court wrote. "He is an attorney for the governor and he is an attorney for vindicating wrongs against the collective citizens of the state." Of course, the same would hold true in a case involving the General Assembly.
Mr. McMaster tells us he believes the matter is pretty clear-cut. The so-called "kitchen sink" bill started off as economic-incentive legislation aimed at attracting the biotech industry to this state. It wound up loaded down with a multitude of pet legislative projects, from the controversial expansion of USC-Sumter to a four-year college, to funding for a new convention center at Myrtle Beach, to the study of a law school at S.C. State University, to a culinary institute at Trident Technical College.
The attorney general said some veteran lawmakers conceded to him that the bill was one of the most egregious examples of "bobtailing" in their experience. The all-too-frequent practice of attaching unrelated items to legislation is specifically prohibited by the state constitution, which stipulates that every act or resolution can relate to but one subject.
Mr. McMaster contends that the Life Sciences bill more properly fits the Black's Law Dictionary description of "hodgepodge" or "logrolling" legislation. Both are apt descriptions. "Logrolling," by the way, is described as a "mischievous legislative practice" that embraces in one bill several distinct matters that can't make it on their own but have support among enough minority factions to achieve a majority. That's no way to do the public's business. Indeed, logrolling is one of the major flaws of the U.S. Congress.
Unfortunately, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the practice. Fortunately, there is a prohibition against it in the S.C. Constitution. Also, very fortunately, there are those, including our attorney general, willing to do their part to see that the state constitution is upheld.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/062504/edi_25edit1.shtml