Governmental restructuring may be coming
to South Carolina -- but only in bits and pieces, and maybe not at all.
State representatives recently approved a bill that would allow South
Carolinians to decide whether to eliminate elections for the state
education superintendent and secretary of state. The bill, which
required a two-thirds vote, passed 90-30 after about two hours of
debate.
Because the measure would require a change in the state constitution,
a statewide referendum would be necessary. But the bill first must make
its way through the Senate, where a similar measure died last year.
The House bill is only a tentative embrace of Gov. Mark Sanford's far
more ambitious plan to restructure state government. Sanford would like
to see elections eliminated not only for superintendent and secretary of
state but also agriculture commissioner, adjutant general and
comptroller general. He also has called for the lieutenant governor and
governor to run on the same ticket, a system used by several states.
Last year, the Senate bill specified changing only one position from
an elective to appointive office -- education superintendent.
Coincidentally, that was the only constitutional office held by a
Democrat.
This year, the secretary of state has been added to the list, perhaps
to make the measure more palatable to some Democrats. In truth, though,
the issue is a non-partisan one; nobody can predict how long a party
will control a particular office. Still, we find it odd that lawmakers
singled out the superintendent, one of the more highly visible elective
offices, as one that should be appointed.
Why not adopt Sanford's suggestion and add the more obscure
constitutional offices to the list? Lawmakers had toyed with the idea of
making the agriculture commissioner an appointed office but the state's
farm lobby objected, and the idea was dropped. But that is one good
example of an office that few voters -- other than farmers -- have much
knowledge of.
Adjutant general also falls into that category. South Carolina is the
only state in the nation that still elects its adjutant general. We
doubt that many voters have a clear idea of what the adjutant general
does or, for that matter, what the official duties of the secretary of
state, comptroller general and secretary of state are.
Allowing the appointment of constitutional officers would entail a
shift of power to the governor's office. Perhaps the fact that the
current system favors a strong legislature over a relatively weak
governor is one reason lawmakers have not warmed up to restructuring.
There are risks in vesting the governor with the power to appoint
these offices. It could result in patronage and unqualified
appointments.
But, by and large, we think the idea of a unified appointed cabinet
as opposed to partisan elected officials in these posts makes good
sense. They could serve the state better as a team chosen by the
governor than as disparate officials presiding over their own fiefdoms.
Here's another option: Require voters, before they cast a ballot, to
explain what each of the constitutional officers does. Support for the
governor's plan should rise appreciably.
