If nothing else got done in the South Carolina General Assembly this year, at least it was expected that lawmakers could agree on a proposed constitutional amendment for the November ballot that would restrict eminent domain.

Along with Georgia and many other states, South Carolinians were distressed at last June's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows state and local authorities to seize private property to turn over to developers to beef up the tax base and fatten government revenues.

With the legislative session starting in January, and only a couple of weeks left before it ends, one would think that by now the constitutional amendment would have long since been squared away. Well, think again.

After being stalled for months, last Tuesday the House Judiciary Committee did finally send the Senate-passed bill to the House floor for a vote with a few minor changes. But it's not out of the woods yet.

There's a movement among a number of determined House members to attach a regulatory takings provision to the property protection measure. Regulatory reform also is popular with many property owners - it would pay them for any government action that lessened the value of their property. For instance, an environmental law that reduced property values would entitle property owners to compensation from the government.

It's a good provision, but it should not be attached to the proposed constitutional amendment bill because if it is, the Senate will not OK it - at least not in time - and property protection would go down the tubes for this year. And the only way to revive it would be to call a special session.

Taxpayers already have shelled out way more than they should for the inexcusably long six-month legislative session without lawmakers being called back to Columbia to deal with an issue that should have been disposed of by mid-February.

It often seems like the South Carolina legislature is the perfect example of Parkinson's Law: work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion. Except if a special session is called, Parkinson's Law would actually be repealed.

Perhaps there is no way for Palmetto State lawmakers to get their work done on time, because they can't seem to get their work done at all.

In any event, the House leadership should do whatever it takes to ensure a clean vote on restricting eminent domain without the complication of the regulatory provision. A stand-alone vote would virtually ensure its passage by adjournment in a few weeks. Regulatory reform also deserves a vote, but separate from eminent domain. However, it's not as urgent, and could wait until next year.