|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a decisive victory for the rule of law in South Carolina – and a rare display of the constitutional separation of powers – the Palmetto State’s top court rebuked its legislative overlords and temporarily blocked a constitutionally dubious pay raise for politicians.
By a 5-0 margin, the S.C. supreme court – which is elected by the S.C. General Assembly – imposed a temporary injunction against the state which prohibits it from “distributing any funds” from a budget proviso which would award state lawmakers an additional $1,500 per month from the taxpayers.
The court has not permanently blocked the proviso, but it has determined the money should not be paid out while the constitutionality of the raises are in question.
The temporary injunction against the pay raise was sought by S.C. senator Wes Climer of Rock Hill, S.C. and state retiree Carol Herring, both of whom have argued in court filings that “the South Carolina Constitution prohibits a General Assembly from increasing the compensation of its own members.”
“I’m grateful to the court for upholding the Constitution’s prohibition on legislators giving themselves more of the people’s money in real time,” Climer said in a statement provided to FITSNews. “This Constitutional principle is a critical safeguard against the Legislature prioritizing itself over the needs of the People and it is worth fighting to protect.”
***
News of these raises – and Climer’s bid to block them – were both exclusively reported by FITSNews. As we noted in our original coverage, the overwhelming majority of South Carolina’s “Republican” supermajority voted to give themselves an additional $25,500 between now and next November (unless they opted to send the money back). All told, the raises would cost taxpayers $4.3 million between now and the end of the 2025-2026 legislative session.
The raises were subsequently rubber-stamped by “Republican” governor Henry McMaster, who declined to veto the budget language authorizing them.
Former S.C. senator Dick Harpootlian represents Climer and Herring in the case. He told us the court’s order was “a situation in which the separation of powers and the rule of law is demonstrated.”
“This shows why we need an independent judiciary that can restrain the excessive impulses of the legislature,” Harpootlian told FITSNews.
That’s something our media outlet has editorialized in support of for years…
Legislative leaders have hired well-heeled attorneys to argue in support of the pay raises – amassing huge legal bills which will continue to climb as the high court prepares to hear this case.
***
***
In addition to addressing the clear constitutional prohibition against legislators voting themselves more money, these attorneys must now confront the controversial method lawmakers used to try and sneak these pay raises into the state’s $41 billion budget. Rather than debate the pay raises on their merits during the budget process, lawmakers instead chose to amend a budget proviso that previously gave them $1,000 per month in additional compensation to give them $2,500 per month instead – a 150% increase.
That move may come back to cost them in more ways than one…
By virtue of the court’s order, the state has now been enjoined from distributing any money based on that proviso – meaning lawmakers may have inadvertently given themselves a $1,000 monthly pay cut.
“I’m astonished they did this,” Harpootlian said of lawmakers’ attempt to circumvent the normal budget cycle to give themselves more money.
FITSNews has made it abundantly clear our media outlet has no objection to lawmakers being paid more money – so long as they accompany any funding increases with stringent anti-corruption legislation. In fact, eight years ago we proposed an inflation-adjusted $80,000 annual salary for lawmakers – although this pay hike would have been accompanied by “the most draconian anti-corruption measures South Carolina state government has ever seen.”
Under our proposal, lawmakers would have received a larger base salary – enabling more non-attorneys to serve – but their ability to profit from their elected offices would have been eliminated. Included within this draconian ban would have been constitutional restrictions on legislative meddling in other branches of government – including eliminating the current legislatively controlled judicial selection racket.
Until those reforms are enacted, lawmakers should not receive any additional taxpayer-funded compensation.
***
THE ORDER…
(S.C. Supreme Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
3 comments
“…the Palmetto State’s top court rebuked its legislative overlords and temporarily blocked a constitutionally dubious pay raise for politicians.”
The “overlords” comment is funny in an article where the Supreme Court has decided against the legislature. But you have to drop in something like that right?
Have you ever thought what your blog would look like if you did any honest reporting? I guess you couldn’t collect pay from people who want stories planted, but you could gain a shred of credibility.
You need to get a life.
Haha. Holler, hit dog.