The official journal of the S.C. State Senate – where lawmakers’ votes are recorded for posterity – has been altered after a FITS story called into question a State Senator’s vote on federal “stimulus” funds.
It all goes back to last month’s vote on a key amendment to the state budget that was sponsored by Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman.
When we published our original story last week, the Senate Journal showed Sen. Shane Martin (R-Spartanburg) voting in favor of Senator Leatherman’s amendment – which authorized the legislature to override Gov. Mark Sanford and accept $740 million in federal “stimulus” funds.
Leatherman sponsored the amendment after the State Supreme Court effectively advised lawmakers to challenge Sanford on the disputed funds, which represent roughly a tenth of the state’s bailout cash.
Of course, this vote contradicted Martin’s pledge to “roll up his sleeves” in support of the governor’s decision to use this particular pot of bailout money for debt repayment.
Greenville Sen. David Thomas also flip-flopped from his “sleeve-rolling” position and voted with Leatherman.
Needless to say, our story exposing this hypocrisy did not go over well.
In fact, we had to copy and paste the official record of this 34-10 tally (complete with Martin’s “aye” vote) directly from the Senate Journal when Sen. Martin challenged our reporting.
Still, Sen. Martin claimed that we got it wrong, specifically telling us that we had confused him with uber-liberal Upstate Sen. Larry Martin – even though the Journal clearly showed both “Senator Martins” voting in favor of the amendment.
Since then, on the advice of our attorneys, we began to collect various statements from individuals who were present at the time of the vote as a means of documenting our claim – a process we engage in anytime our reporting is challenged.
We also started keeping a close eye on the Senate Journal … although we never expected to see what we saw this morning.
Earlier today, a FITS staffer accessed the April 29, 2009 edition of the Senate Journal and discovered that last week’s 34-10 vote had been changed to show a 33-11 vote, and that Senator Shane Martin – previously listed as voting in favor of the Leatherman amendment – was now listed as having opposed it.
Take a look …
That’s right, people … the official record of the State Senate has been altered.
FITS has already re-confirmed with multiple State Senators and Senate staffers who have informed us that Sen. Shane Martin indeed voted “aye” to the Leatherman amendment – just as the original, unaltered Journal reflected.
So … who changed the Journal?
And at whose request was it changed?
Stay tuned … this could get very, very interesting …
Loading ...
By hammerheadSC May 13, 2009 at 11:13 am
So what are the penalties for changing/altering the journal, and who has access to do it?
By AlexS May 13, 2009 at 11:45 am
Can’t he just make a motion on the floor of the Senate to change his vote on the matter, not affecting the outcome, to the other side with I believe unanimous consent. Its not a big deal at all.
By FITS May 13, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Alex-
Where is the public record of such a motion?
Oh, and if Senators going back after the fact and changing their hypocritical votes because they got publicly called out for being hypocrites is “not a big deal at all,” then our state is truly more effed up than we thought.
Let your ‘yes be yes’ and your ‘no be no.’
-FITS
By Salkehatchie May 13, 2009 at 12:24 pm
A Senator can record have his vote recorded one way or the other “not affecting the outcome” on a voice vote. But a recorded vote is recorded specifically so that constituents can see how their Senator actually voted. I think most people just sort of assumed that the Journal was a correct and permanent record of votes as they were taken.
But I guess “most people” was wrong.
If the Journal is not a reliable record of actual votes taken then this certainly makes opposition research a lot more unreliable.
By Philip Branton May 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm
This “Journal” needs to be ON-LINE and DATE Stamped…!?!?! In addition to being in Recorded PRINT….!!
What kind of ETHICS do we have being displayed…!?!
By Brandon May 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Why don’t you just get a copy of the video from the session that day. When the clerk calls the roll he follows by announcing how each senator voted.
By weighing in May 13, 2009 at 1:50 pm
the senate does not use electronic voting therefore making it subject to human error, which should be allowed to be corrected provided the proper evidence and as long as it does not effect the outcome, which unless Senator S. Martin had an extra 20+ people to vote with him it wouldn’t matter, and trust me if this were a 24-22 vote, I assure you it would probably been recounted 10 times
By Enough is Enough May 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Weighing…axel…and other apologists:
All of that sounds very nice. The clerk made a mistake…Shane didn’t understand the vote…etc.et.cetc.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: Martin voted to take and spend the stimulus money. Several people asked him about it, and he confirmed it. There was no human error on the part of the clerk. There was no misunderstanding. He voted that way, and that is that.
It would be better for him if he had just owned up to it instead of trying to cover his tracks.
Gresham voted to take the money, and he has borne the brunt of the reaction. Nikki Haley voted to take the money, and she still has to face that music. Shane should be no different.
By Richard May 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Sounds like Martin got called out! And how did Haley exactly vote for the stimulus? Just yesterday she voted against the budget with the stimulus. I think you may be confused with her voting a month or so ago to DEBATE the budget with the stimulus and one without. Either way it looks like Martin came to his senses.
By Any more questions about Nikki? May 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Reps. COOPER, BINGHAM, J. E. SMITH, and SELLERS proposed the following Amendment No. 73 (Doc Name h:\legwork\house\ amend\H-WM01\arra fund auth dc jes bs.docx), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part IB, Section 90, STATEWIDE REVENUE, page 532, after line 6, by adding an appropriately numbered paragraph to read:
/ (SR: ARRA Fund Authorization) It is the intent of the General Assembly to accept all available funds from the State Budget Stabilization Fund contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Office of State Budget is directed to increase agency federal fund authorizations for funds from the State Budget Stabilization Fund allocated by the General Assembly. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and titles to conform.
Rep. COOPER explained the amendment.
Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Yeas 108; Nays 8
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen
Allison Anderson Anthony
Bales Bannister Barfield
Battle Bingham Bowen
Bowers Brady Branham
Brantley R. L. Brown Cato
Chalk Clyburn Cobb-Hunter
Cole Cooper Crawford
Daning Delleney Dillard
Duncan Edge Erickson
Forrester Frye Funderburk
Gambrell Gilliard Govan
Gullick Gunn Haley
Hardwick Harrell Harrison
Hart Harvin Hayes
Hearn Herbkersman Hiott
Hodges Horne Hosey
Howard Huggins Hutto
Jefferson Kelly Kennedy
King Kirsh Limehouse
Littlejohn Loftis Long
Lowe Lucas Mack
McEachern McLeod Merrill
Miller Mitchell Moss
J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson
Ott Owens Parker
Parks Pinson E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford
Sandifer Scott Sellers
Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith
Sottile Spires Stavrinakis
Thompson Toole Umphlett
Weeks Whipper White
Whitmire Williams Willis
Wylie A. D. Young T. R. Young
Total–108
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Hamilton
Millwood Nanney G. R. Smith
Stewart Viers
By wrybread May 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm
This is a good catch; kudos!!
I’m certain there is a legitimate floor procedure for a legislator who needs to change a vote. The true offense here was not the change of vote, but an apparently “extralegal” modification to the record. It is the non-kosher change to the Journal, and NOT the character or content of that change, that is of concern, and which should be harshly penalized.
This is a BIG DEAL, that goes way past what anyone’s position was on the stimulus spending or any other motion. It goes straight to whether the voters can place any trust of the official legislative record!
Speaking rhetorically — what does “of record” mean in South Carolina, if (presumably) legislators are afforded the means to change the record ex post facto?
It’s not a red issue or a blue issue, it’s a democracy small-d issue. PLEASE keep after this constitutional issue, since it is critical a. that the SJ not be modified from its initial, accurate version, and b. that we all find out how this happened.
By FromChucktown May 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Once a Roll Call vote has been taken and all the “aye” and “nay” votes have been recorded, the votes cannot be changed, however, before the votes have been tabulated, a Senator can change his vote, only if it will not affect the outcome. Once the votes have been recorded, a Senator does have the option of asking to have a statement entered in the journal to clarify his vote. It is unbelievable that the journal was altered. The only person with the power to do that is the Clerk.
Maybe the Senate needs to use the electronic voting machines. Remember, it was the “phantom” vote cast regarding the Barnwell Nuclear Waste site that prompted Sheheen to institue the “locks” on the voting boxes in the House…..
I hope you are able to find the truth…although, I doubt you will be able to.
By The Truth Is Out There May 14, 2009 at 7:56 am
Chuck’s first sentence is incorrect…because his fourth is accurate.
And his third is spot-on.
By Freddie Guy May 14, 2009 at 11:20 am
Nicki Haley voted FOR the stimulus! Now that is a story you won’t read on FITS News!
By Ron May 15, 2009 at 8:43 pm
This needs to come out as to who allowed this vote to be changed. This must be reckoned with by the leaders of the Senate, McConnell and Bauer! leaders of the senate!!! What a freekin joke! General McConnell and Evil Knievel Bauer!! LOL What a circus!! “What a tangled web we weave”. Maybe we should entrust RINO Hugh Leatherman w/the journal! That’ll be the day!!
By Ron May 15, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Freddie Guy! You’re correct, Nikki favored the stimulus! And they all favored the tax shift of 2006. So who are we to support for Gov.? Anton?
By KeHoeff May 28, 2009 at 4:24 pm
hey this is a very interesting article!