Good riddance to bobtailing

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

The court, in a 4-1 decision, said the add-ons violated the state Constitution's "one subject" requirement. Article III, section 17 says that "every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the bill, which was filled with pork-barrel spending, but the Legislature overrode in return. Ned Sloan of Greenville, who has become a serial plaintiff against government over procedural matters, filed a lawsuit against the Legislature last year. He argued the "bobtailed" measures, such as a culinary arts school in Charleston and the expansion of the USC-Sumter campus to a four-year school, violated the law.

On Friday, House Speaker David Wilkins hailed this ruling as a victory for both economic development and accountable government. This is clearly a needed check by the courts on what had become a friendly path for pet projects to escape debate and become law.

Typically, bobtailed amendments are inserted in popular bills because the authors realize their ideas stand little chance to pass on their merits. Now those measures are more likely to have to stand on their own, meaning their chances of passing have been reduced. That means the provincialism at the heart of some of the most dubious program expansions and pork-barrel spending has been dealt a blow. It means, plainly, that the add-ons struck down, such as the revision of LIFE scholarship qualifications and the feasibility study to create a new law school, didn't reflect the bill's original intent of economic development as clearly as the parts of the acts that were saved, such as the Venture Capital Investment Act and the South Carolina Research University Act.

The court ruled that the "offending provisions" are "severable," which means the court gave itself room to strike some parts of the bill while keeping items germane to the bills' intent. To his credit, state Attorney General Henry McMaster pushed this solution.

A possible drawback is this: Another court could push the one-subject standard too far in the other direction. An overly strict interpretation of the rule would be a burden to efficient lawmaking, which sometimes demands that laws be broad in scope. But overall, this is a reasonable interpretation of the one-subject standard that lawmakers should have conducted themselves by all along. It strikes a good balance, and it should stand as a guideline for how the General Assembly does its business.

State lawmaking has been vastly improved by the Supreme Court's sound view of the one-subject rule. The real winners, of course, are the taxpayers.