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 Apr 9, 2004
Sloan sues lawmakers for failing to abide by state
constitution
Edward Sloan Jr. has a point this time.The man
who sued Gov. Mark Sanford, claiming he shouldn't serve as governor and as a
member of the Air Force Reserves, has filed another suit against state
government officials.In fact, the self-appointed government watchdog has filed
more than 30 lawsuits against government officials and agencies. This time, his
unique hobby could do great good for the entire state.Sloan is making good on
the threat Sanford chose to put aside. He is suing the Speaker of the House,
David Wilkins, and the president of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, over the
structure of the Life Sciences Act.The bill started out as a popular economic
development bill but, by the time lawmakers passed it, it was encumbered by the
pet local projects of a few lawmakers.Sanford vetoed it, citing the
constitutional requirement that each bill deal with only one subject. The House
and Senate overrode the governor's veto. Sanford threatened to sue but allowed
lawmakers to convince him to seek a legislative solution to the problem
instead.Sloan has now taken up the cause and has asked the state Supreme Court
to decide the issue. The court should do so, and it should decide in favor of
Sloan and of the entire state.Sloan's cause this time is not an obscure point of
law, it is the best interests of the state.When lawmakers allowed local pet
projects to be added to the Life Sciences Act, they acted in their own best
interests, not those of the state.For instance, they allowed Sumter lawmakers to
insert a provision making the University of South Carolina Sumter a four-year
school. They did so despite the fact that such a change doesn't fit with any
state-wide higher education plan. They did so over the objections of the Higher
Education Commission and the USC Board of Trustees.They didn't approve the
measure because it makes sense for the state. They approved it because they want
lawmakers to have complete authority over matters involving their districts.
They voted for the measure to protect their own ability to get their pet
projects approved.They sided with lawmakers' privilege and against the
priorities and needs of the state as a whole.Sanford and Sloan, in separate
ways, are working to reform the legislative process, to push lawmakers to put
statewide priorities above their own parochial plans.They need help from the
Supreme Court. The court should take Sloan's case and give the entire state
relief from legislative arrogance.