COLUMBIA -- Gov. Mark Sanford sent a strong message this session to the state legislature by consistently vetoing most of the local bills that crossed his desk.

But the lawmakers sent an equally strong message back to the governor by overriding 20 out of 21 vetoes, nearly all of them bills aimed at a specific area of the state.

The only bill vetoed by the governor that was upheld by the legislature was one to require hunters to wear bright orange-colored clothing.

Sanford says such special legislation is unconstitutional because under the state's Home Rule Act, the General Assembly may only pass laws that affect the entire state.

Will Folks, the governor's press secretary, said, "The state constitution is pretty clear on the differences between general legislation and specific legislation, and this governor's position has been to uphold the law and support local control unless the constitution specifically prevented him from doing so."

But the General Assembly traditionally has disagreed with a strict interpretation of that law.

During his four years in office, former Gov. Jim Hodges rarely vetoed local bills, preferring instead to let them become law without his signature. For example, during the 2001-02 session, Hodges vetoed only seven bills, none of them special legislation, and all the vetoes were upheld.

Former Gov. David Beasley did veto some local bills, but he also allowed many to become law without his signature. In the 1997-98 session, he vetoed 34 bills; 10 of the vetoes were upheld.

"Carroll Campbell also vetoed local legislation," said state Rep. Skipper Perry, R-Aiken, "but he would call up the local delegation and say, 'I've got to veto this, so get your people lined up to override it.' "

Sen. John Land, D-Manning, agreed that it was Sanford's failure to give lawmakers a heads up that ruffled some feathers.

"Some of us got upset that he didn't give notice, but then, why should he?" Land said. "I think he did exactly what he had to do under the oath of his office. The constitution says laws should be general."

The problem, legislators say, is that there are no provisions for dealing with unusual local situations except through local legislation.

"There is a lot of precedent for what we've done in the past," said Sen. Robert Waldrep, R-Anderson. "We have so many different types of circumstances. ... Sometimes we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. This has been going on for 100 years. Some governors are more sensitive to it than others."

Local legislation typically does not go through the committee system. By the time local bills are introduced onto the floor and put up for a vote, state lawmakers who represent all or part of a county have met, discussed and decided the issue.

"You can't get local legislation through unless nearly everyone in the delegation agrees," Perry said. "So, it is then fairly easy to override a veto. You have the votes."

Many of the bills Sanford vetoed this year concerned school start dates and exemptions for missed snow days. Sanford urged legislators to come up with uniform solutions rather than passing dozens of different bills. On the very last day of the session, the legislature did just that.

While this might be seen as a victory for the governor, Land said the governor's vetoes had little impact.

"We were working on a big bill from the beginning, but it got hung up in committee, which is why we started passing the little bills," Land said.

Other bills, involving the makeup of county boards and commissions and bond issues must also be addressed in local legislation. Sanford allowed about a half-dozen of those types of local measures to become law without his signature. For instance, he allowed legislators to change the Charleston County School District elections from nonpartisan to partisan.

"This governor's actions on local bills have consistently demonstrated his support for home rule and the fundamental notion of preserving local control," Folks said. "He's said from the beginning that the government that governs locally governs best, and unless our state constitution has specifically prohibited something, that's the mindset he's taken when local bills like these have come across his desk."

LOCAL BILLS IN DISGUISE

Experienced legislators say the trick to passing some types of local legislation without violating Home Rule is to draft the bill using descriptions and parameters that are "as narrow as possible," so that while the bill purports to apply statewide, it only affects a specific area.

One example of that is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would remove from state oversight dredging in Sea Pines marinas and waterways. The bill never mentions Sea Pines, but the parameters -- planned communities whose restrictive covenants were filed before January 1966 -- targets the Hilton Head Island community.

"No doubt, the legislature will become a bit more skillful in how they word bills knowing that he is going to enforce Home Rule," said Sanford spokesman Chris Drummond.

At least one bill approved by Sanford this year falls into that category. Sponsored by Land, the bill prevents the "hunting of migratory waterfowl on Dean's Swamp in Clarendon County on waters adjacent to Santee Cooper Resort in Orangeburg County on Lake Marion within 200 yards of a dwelling."

Land said the bill technically isn't a local one because it is the "only area in the state affected."

"That would not be a local bill," Land said. "There's not but one Dean's Swamp in the state. It is similar to the no wake zones in Beaufort that I helped (former) Sen. (Holly) Cork pass on several occasions," Land said.

Perry pointed out that the bill contains the names of two counties.

"If you include more than one county, it becomes a statewide bill," he said.

Perry maintains the dredging bills that he and Waldrep are sponsoring in the House and Senate are not local bills because they have been directed to committee for debate rather than left up to the local delegation to get passed. But two local lawmakers -- Sen. Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head, and Rep. Bill Herbkersmann, R-Bluffton -- say they oppose the bills.

"This thing needs a full vote in the House and Senate," Perry said. "It's not a local bill because it concerns state-owned water. ... And it's going to be aired out. There aren't going to be any backroom deals."