Lowcountry Democrat Anne Peterson Hutto will be sworn in as a State Representative today, becoming a voting member of the General Assembly while House members wait to sort out a challenge to the validity of her election raised by one of their own.
Having been certified by the Secretary of State, Hutto will be sworn in and given committee assignments as well as an office in Columbia, although how long she stays will depend on the outcome of former Rep. Wallace Scarborough’s appeal.
Hutto defeated Scarborough by 221 votes in a hotly-contested race for House District 115 (James Island and Folly Beach) back on November 4. Since then, Scarborough has alleged that as many as 365 votes were cast illegally, and has twice challenged the validity of the official results.
His request for a new election was denied by the State Election Commission, but his attorneys believe the commission made an “error of law” in reaching that decision, and have appealed the ruling to the S.C. House of Representatives, where Scarborough has served since 2001.
Scarborough’s challenge – as well as the murky picture of how it should be resolved – has set off mass confusion at the State House as well as red hot rhetoric in the district.
Just yesterday, a local party official chairman blasted Scarborough for participating in a Christmas parade on Folly Beach with signs declaring that he was still “the official representative for Folly Beach and a current member of the SC House of Representatives.”
“The time has come to ask some tough questions about Scarborough’s motivation and reasoning,” said Charleston County Democratic Chairman George Tempel. “A rational person in Wallace Scarborough’s position should know he is no longer a member of the legislature, and that he has no right to identify himself that way.”
So how will Scarborough’s appeal be resolved?
Getting first crack at the hot potato will be the House Election Laws Subcommittee (chaired by Myrtle Beach Republican Alan Clemmons), which will quickly be followed by the House Judiciary Committee (chaired by Columbia Republican Jim Harrison).
A recommendation from Judiciary resolving the matter would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives.
Three options are available to lawmakers.
They could dismiss the protest (thus keeping Hutto in the seat), order that the seat is vacant (thus triggering a special election) or elect to seat Scarborough, a so-called “nuclear option” which is highly unlikely.
The House reconvenes on January 13, and lawmakers we’ve spoken with say Scarborough’s appeal will be taken up almost immediately upon their arrival in Columbia.
By Danny B December 16, 2008 at 11:39 am
How is it possible that our backwards, ethically challenged legislature is in charge of this? Seriously! Those guys are going to hear an appeal and analyze whether an “error of law” occurred? These are the same people who can’t understand the state budget they vote on every year, and who would sell their own mothers for a little bit of power. There is a reason that in this country we usually put qualified judges in charge of hearing appeals.
By Cliff December 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Wow, I guess he want’s it pretty bad, I wonder why?
By just Wondern December 16, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Hey Wally, the voters have spoken. Get a grip man. The fact that some have moved out of the area and others may have passed on is of no importance. You are a prime arguement for term limits as you refuse to go away any other way.
By baker December 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Interesting stuff….thanks, Will, for explaining the “three options” — I wasn’t sure on how that works.
By Crooner December 16, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Why do we bother to hold elections?
By roger December 17, 2008 at 1:05 am
It does cause some concern that any matter of law — and elections are a matter of law — would be interpreted by the body to which the appellants want to be elected. Perhaps there is some rationale that I am missing, but that would seem to be an inherent conflict. The courts should decide this, period. If someone can argue why that is not true, I would be interested to hear it.
By Paul December 17, 2008 at 2:28 am
roger,
You are not missing rationale, you are missing the fox guarding the hen house. Our “oh so ethical, elections laws” send cases like this to the general assembly. It was by design so they could take care of each other. This is a clear explanation of what’s so strong (and wrong) about the power of an incumbent.
I suspect the republican dominated house judiciary will give Wally what he wants and that is a new election.
By Gen. Longstreet December 17, 2008 at 9:40 am
And what about that popinjay Scarborough? What’s the pretty boy gonna due? Hell, a man who perfumes himself like Pickett ain’t gonna take this laying down (although rumor has it he’s taken more than that in the past whilst prone).
By Gen. Longstreet December 17, 2008 at 9:47 am
Roger, my compliments, but with respect, the validity of elections is a compendium of law AND fact. For example, facts may show that one who voted did not live in the voting district; an application of the law to that fact then forms that basis of the decision on whether the vote was legally cast. This makes sense to me. At Gettysburg, the fact is that there was no way in hell our boys could break that Union line on Cemetary Ridge. Empirically could not be done. The “law” of military strategy dictates, then, that another approach was warranted; to wit: my suggestion that we swing my corps southerly around that Rocky Hill for a flanking attack. Bobby Lee ignore that “law” and we paid the price. It amazes me that, 145 year later, people in the South still revere Lee as a God, when he single-handledly lost the war for us. Oh sure, he was Honorable and a Gentleman, and I admittedly was a rough piece of work. But will History not set things straight. My apologies on the digression, sir.
By DA Manos December 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Well, this buffoon is getting national attention now.
http://jonesonpolitics.com/2008/12/18/the-strange-and-bizarre-story-of-wallace-scarboroughs-fight-against-democracy/
Where is our GOV when we need him to protect our state?