This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Dec 3, 2004
Supreme Court should rule against legislative tactic of
bobtailing
The South Carolina Supreme Court should rule
against the legislative practice of bobtailing and in favor of a more open
legislative system.Bobtailing is the practice of adding unrelated provisions to
a popular bill to increase their chances of getting passed.The practice was
highlighted in the passage of the Life Sciences Act last year. The act was a
worthwhile legislative initiative that created incentives for pharmaceutical
companies to locate in the state, to spur research in South Carolina and to
update the ways in which the state's universities can sponsor research.It was
supported by most leaders in the state and was headed toward sure passage.
That's why lawmakers started adding other provisions to it.Lawmakers from Sumter
wanted the University of South Carolina branch campus there turned into a
four-year school. Charleston lawmakers wanted a culinary arts program at Trident
Technical College. A number of other provisions were added to the bill before it
passed.The problem is that these other provisions had nothing to do with the
purpose of the bill. And the state constitution requires each bill to deal with
only one topic, which must be reflected in the title of the bill.That's why the
passage of the Life Sciences Act violated the constitution.There is wisdom to
the constitutional requirement. It makes the legislative process more
transparent and makes it more difficult to hide less popular provisions in
popular bills.It also requires bills to be more fully debated and to be voted on
according to their own merits, not on the merits of another bill.For example,
the provision making USC-Sumter a four-year school was opposed by the USC board
of trustees and the Commission on Higher Education. It did not fit in with any
plan for the statewide use of South Carolina's educational resources. If it had
to stand on its own merits, it might not have passed.A citizen watchdog has
taken the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the case this
week. The court should take the opportunity to push the General Assembly back
toward a more open and constitutionally sound legislative process. The justices
should follow the arguments made by Attorney General Henry McMaster and strike
the unrelated items from the law.