High-tech jobs law survives court review

e-mail this story print this story Related Previous coverage • Greenville man sues lawmakers over Life Sciences Act • Clean Life Sciences Act might stall in Senate

In a 4-1 ruling, the justices found the core elements of the Life Sciences Act adopted last year were fine, but nine provisions tacked on by lawmakers were unrelated to the subject of economic development and therefore unconstitutional.

The stricken provisions included proposals to allow the University of South Carolina at Sumter to offer four-year degree programs; the creation of a committee to study whether to create a law school at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg; and the creation of a culinary arts program at Trident Technical College in Charleston.

Greenville businessman Edward "Ned" Sloan filed the lawsuit last year against the Legislature, challenging the constitutionality of the act after Gov. Mark Sanford said much of the bill was political pork and an example of legislative "bobtailing," which links unrelated pieces of legislation.

The Constitution says each bill or act must deal with only one subject.

Bikash Chatterjee, a California consultant who last year evaluated South Carolina for drug companies considering expansions, said the court ruling sends a "very reassuring statement to the industry that South Carolina is committed towards developing the biotech marketplace."

Jerry Howard, president of the Greenville Area Development Corp., the county's economic development arm, said the ruling will further help lure high-technology firms to the Upstate and other parts of South Carolina.

"We're delighted with the ruling," he said. "We've got several life sciences companies that are interested in South Carolina and the Greenville area because of that legislation. We certainly didn't want to see those projects jeopardized. We're tickled to death."

Will Folks, a Sanford spokesman, called the ruling a "big win for the taxpayers."

"The governor has said throughout this process that we ought to debate individual bills based upon their merit," he said. Jim Carpenter, Sloan's attorney, said he was satisfied with the ruling.

"All in all, it was a good result," he said. "We're pleased the court upheld the Constitution, that they agreed that the act contained many more than one subject and that they struck the most egregious parts of the act."

Sanford had said in late 2003 and lawmakers in early 2004 that the incentives for life sciences companies were needed to recruit a major drug company to the Upstate.

On Friday, state Commerce Secretary Bob Faith wouldn't say whether that still was the case.

Faith did say the Commerce Department has "multiple prospects" in the life sciences industry for which the incentives law could prove helpful in recruiting. He called the court's ruling "good news" and said it "increases our likelihood of success."

Chatterjee said none of his clients still are evaluating South Carolina.

House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville said he was thankful the justices kept the core of the bill intact, something that could eventually benefit the Upstate.

"I think potentially it could be extremely important," he said. "The Life Sciences was passed to attract certain high-tech companies and it's my understanding those companies haven't located anywhere so I would hope this would put us back on the table."

Justice John Henry Waller, writing for the majority, found that the core provisions of the act that created financial incentives for biotechnology companies and provided bond money for the state's research universities are all related to the subject of economic development.

But the rest of the act is "teeming," he wrote, with unrelated subjects that must be stricken as unconstitutional.

"It is patent that the myriad provisions compromising Act 187 simply do not comprise one subject," he wrote. "On the contrary, the act is teeming with subjects, from life sciences provisions to the establishment of a culinary arts institute."

But Justice Costa Pleicones disagreed. In his dissent, he said he would find that the entire act is constitutional because all the subjects can be tied together.

"The majority's view of what constitutes a subject is too narrow," he wrote.

"That 'economic development' is a general subject does not render it an invalid subject. Act 187 addresses various aspects of economic development, including a knowledge-based workforce, the life-sciences industry, research, education, venture capital, permanent improvements and tourism."

Brent Clinkscale, chairman of the Greenville County GADC, said he was pleased.

"It's going to be a very essential economic development tool for our recruiting life science companies to the state and particularly the Upstate," he said.

Sanford vetoed the Life Sciences Act last year as an example of pork-barrel legislation, but the Legislature overrode his veto.

Michael Hitchcock, assistant clerk of the Senate, argued before the justices in December that all of the act's parts relate to the subject of job creation for a knowledge-based economy.

Asked by justices how the Myrtle Beach convention center and the culinary school relate to a high-tech economy, Hitchcock said those provisions would make the state a more "hospitable place to live," a requisite for luring high-tech firms.

He said the other parts dealing with education relate to expanding the educational opportunities of the work force.

But Waller disagreed.

"We simply do not see any manner in which the above provisions relate to the one subject of the Life Sciences Act," he said. "Any relation which they may have is clearly too tangential to fit within the purpose and meaning of Article III (of the Constitution)."

Wilkins said he doesn't believe the practice of bobtailing will again be a problem because House rules already require germaneness and recently enacted Senate rules now do.

"With the force of this court ruling behind us, I am optimistic this will persuade all lawmakers to craft better bills," he said.

— Business writer Rudolph Bell contributed to this report.