State lawmakers on Wednesday voted to sustain Gov. Mark Sanford's veto of a controversial bill that would have limited how much property assessments can rise.

Following no clear political party lines, House members argued for more than an hour about whether the bill -- a move to cap reassessment increases for tax purposes at 20 percent -- would hurt or benefit South Carolina taxpayers.

In the end, 76 members voted to side with the governor, while 33 voted to override the veto. Two-thirds of the 124-member body is needed to roll back a veto.

The 20 percent cap would have applied to all real property, including homes, apartments, offices and stores. It would have worked like this: If a county reassessed a $100,000 home at $200,000, the property's taxable value would have been limited to $120,000.Supporters of the failed bill say the higher taxes that go hand in hand with soaring property values, particularly on the coast, may be pricing people out of homes.

Opponents contend fewer tax dollars from property owners in affluent areas means more of the tax burden would have been foisted onto less well-to-do parts of the state.

Sanford vetoed the bill because he said it was unconstitutional and would hurt schools, which derive most of their funding from property taxes. The state constitution requires property to be assessed at its fair market value.

The House's decision lifts any remaining uncertainty in four Lowcountry counties set to reassess property this year, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton and Dorchester.

Berkeley postponed its reassessment last year because it wasn't clear whether Sanford would enact the 20 percent cap.

Charleston County Council's acting chairman, Curtis Bostic, said Wednesday's decision underscores the need for the Legislature to find other ways to relieve the property tax burden.

"More and more, as I go to places and talk to people, I hear people asking for property tax relief," he said, adding that many people seem to prefer a sales tax.

Recent reassessments were so contentious in Charleston County that it pursued an earlier version of the cap, although that attempt was later tossed out by the state Supreme Court. The county currently is refunding about $10 million collected illegally from a 15 percent cap in 2000.

The county also is pursuing a lawsuit before the Supreme Court to determine if a different version of the cap, one that applied to homes and commercial properties instead of only homes, would be legal. However, County Council will gain four new members today, and its support for that lawsuit could end soon. Bostic thinks it will.

"What I think what we're hearing the court say is they're disfavoring the tax cap system," he said. "I don't want us to spend money needlessly battling for something that's not going to happen."

North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey called the General Assembly's decision "a smart move."

Summey said any attempt to impose a reassessment cap likely would require a constitutional amendment.

Some members thought the House should wait to see how the Supreme Court ruled before taking action on the bill.

"This whole thing is up in the air again until we hear about what the court says," said Rep. David Mack, D-North Charleston, who voted to sustain the veto.

"This was almost like trying to control water pressure by capping it and not expecting it to come out the other side." Mack said. "Capping taxes in some areas would lead to increases in others."

Rep. Rubin Rivers, D-Ridgeland, put it this way: "If you vote for this, you'll be handing most of your constituents a tax increase."

The decision to uphold the governor's veto came on a day when the House looked at 11 vetoes that spilled over from the last legislative session. In total, the House voted to sustain six vetoes, override four others and delay action on one bill until next week.

Last session, the House overrode all but one of the governor's 105 vetoes.

Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, wanted to extend that streak when it came to the reassessment bill he supported.

Altman said curbing property taxes should be the Legislature's first priority and that the bill Sanford vetoed went a long way toward that.

He said property tax relief should be more important to the General Assembly than reducing the state income tax, one of Sanford's primary agenda items.

"Nobody is losing their home because of the state income tax," Altman said.

Rep. Vida Miller, D-Georgetown, author of the bill, argued that skyrocketing property values along the coast are forcing some people out of property that has been in their family for generations.