Attorney general challenges constitutionality of Life Sciences Act

e-mail this story

His comments further complicate a lawsuit brought by Greenville businessman Ed "Ned" Sloan against the state and legislative leaders.

Sloan alleged in his suit that because so many items were tacked onto the original legislation — a practice called bobtailing — the final bill violates a requirement in the state's constitution that limits legislation to one subject. The South Carolina Supreme Court in May agreed to decide the case.

The mammoth economic development act would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to universities and businesses in the form of financial incentives, which lawmakers hope will translate to new jobs and high technology economic growth.

Critics of the act, including Gov. Mark Sanford, have labeled it pork barrel legislation because it included so many added items unrelated to the initial bill.

McMaster said he is arguing only against provisions in the act unrelated to the biomedical research and financial incentives.

Those include a provision to make the University of South Carolina at Sumter a four-year school, another to create a culinary arts school at Trident Technical College, another to provide $7 million in bond money for an international trade center in Myrtle Beach and the creation of a committee to study the idea of a law school at S.C. State University in Orangeburg.

While McMaster's opinion doesn't carry the force of law, it places lawmakers in the awkward position of watching the state's top lawyer side with the man suing them.

McMaster said his position is necessary given the law.

"The first obligation of this office is to support and defend the constitution," he said. "Our view is it violated the constitution."

McMaster's comments surprised lawmakers.

"He's our attorney and if he's going to leave us in the lurch, that's pretty bad," said Sen. John Land, a Manning Democrat who said he hasn't researched the case.

Sen. Phil Leventis, a Sumter Democrat who pushed for the USC-Sumter provision, said he was surprised at McMaster's stance but remains confident the act will be upheld.

"I'm disappointed the attorney general has taken this position," he said. "But I expect the court to rule with the Legislature."

Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said while McMaster has a right to his opinion, he believes case law supports the Legislature.

"I certainly defer to his judgment," he said, "but in this instance it's clearly a case the court will have to decide."

House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville, named as a defendant in the suit, said he could not comment on McMaster's comments because he is a party to the litigation.

James Carpenter, Sloan's lawyer, said McMaster's comments would help Sloan's case.

"When the state attorney general and the governor state publicly this act is unconstitutional, I think that gives some weight to our side," he said. "I think that helps. It's a whole lot better than having them go the other way."

Sanford vetoed the Life Sciences Act earlier this year, arguing it was unconstitutional because of the bobtailing. But lawmakers disagreed and quickly overrode his veto.

Because of threats from the governor that he might sue the Legislature over the issue, lawmakers tried to pass a stripped-down version of Life Sciences, containing only the original provisions. But that bill died in the Senate.

McMaster said no matter what he argues or the court rules, he believes the core of the bill offering financial incentives and research dollars is protected by a severability clause.

He said while his office represents the state in the matter, the Legislature is represented by its own lawyers.

McMaster's opposition to the act is not unprecedented, he said. Previous attorneys general have gone to court to argue legislation was unconstitutional.

The justices are expected to hear the case sometime later this year or early next year.