A “confused” South Carolina Senator who was “distracted by other Senate business” received bad information on a critical budget amendment and cast an erroneous vote, according to S.C. Senate Clerk Jeffrey Gossett.
Accordingly, Gossett agreed to change this Senator’s vote in the official Senate Journal after the fact – which he did at the Senator’s request.
Such is the official explanation being offered for a controversial “Switcheroo” of GOP Sen. Shane Martin’s vote to accept a portion of federal stimulus money in the state budget – a vote that was changed shortly after a story on FITS highlighted Martin’s previous well-publicized opposition to accepting this particular pot of money.
From the official response of the S.C. Senate, submitted to us this morning by Gossett:
It is my understanding that (Sen. Martin) was distracted by other Senate business at the time Amendment #72 was debated and during the call of the roll someone gave him a brief explanation of the amendment that was in error. This confusion caused him to vote “aye”. Once he realized the true import of the amendment, Sen. Martin approached me about his options for changing his vote to “no”. I reviewed the vote, noted that this correction would not change the result of the vote, and informed him that I would make that correction along with other corrections that were being made to the daily Journal.
Well, well, well …
We’ll obviously have much more on Martin’s vote – and this lame explanation for it – in future posts, but Gossett’s letter also seeks to address some of the broader issues we’ve raised in recent days.
For example, contrary to reports received from numerous Senators, lobbyists and other political insiders, Gossett says that an official Journal of the Senate will be printed this year.
He also disputed the claim that Senators must put their vote changes “on the record,” and in so disputing seemingly grants wide latitude for future vote switches.
“There is no rule or requirement that a vote change be made with unanimous consent during a Senate session,” Gossett writes. “However, changes of this type would never be made if the change would alter the outcome of a vote taken during session or after publication of the permanent Senate Journal.”
So basically, according to Gossett, at any point during a legislative session any Senator can switch their vote on any tally at any time as long as it doesn’t change the final outcome of a bill or amendment.
That’s downright disturbing … and frankly a mockery of the Democratic process.
Finally, Gossett manages to get in a parting shot at FITS in his letter.
“This answer may not fit neatly into the conspiracy theories being woven on your website, but it has the advantage of being true,” Gossett writes.
Dated last Friday, we received Gossett’s letter at 10:30 a.m. this morning, shortly after our most recent article about the “Switcheroo” was published.
Obviously, we’re just beginning to dissect the two-page document, so stay tuned … and of course, you can read Gossett’s letter for yourself in its entirety by clicking on the link below.
WEB EXTRA
By Ben May 18, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Can this joker tell us how many times he has done this in the last year?
He seems upset someone not in power should question his vote switching.
We do not need that kind of attitude – we need answers . If Mr. Gossett is incapable of giving them to us , let’s replace him and find someone who can.
By Mr. Webster May 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm
When I look up the definition of conspiracy , I see :
A secret scheme to do something.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
I see a video clip of an elected lawmaker casting his vote
-which most people believe is a vote for the record. Then apparently, with the TV cameras turned off,two people agree to change the vote.
It sure looks , smells, and feels like a conspiracy to me.
By CNSYD May 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm
In the immortal words of Captain Renault, I am shocked to discover that a politician would do a deed such as this!
By go figure May 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Lets have more on the record voting so we can change the record!
By Pete May 18, 2009 at 10:48 pm
This guy should work for CJ Jean Toal. Sounds like some crap she would spew.
By Ron May 19, 2009 at 8:44 am
The SC Senate is at least 20 years over due for electronic voting. These professional politicians are traditionally very resistant to change. In my view, change must be demanded at the ballot box and needs to begin in “the General’s” district. And then in Florence and so forth! LOL
By Reese May 19, 2009 at 10:44 am
From Gossett’s letter:
It is my understanding that he was distracted by other Senate business at the time Amendment #72 was debated and during the call of the roll someone gave him a brief explanation of the amendment that was in error. This confusion caused him to vote “aye”.
Once he realized the true import of the amendment, Sen. Martin approached me about his options for changing his vote to “no”. I reviewed the vote, noted that this correction would not change the result of the vote, and informed him that I would make that correction along with other corrections that were being made to the daily Journal.
WHEN did he “realize the true import of the amendment”? A few minutes later? A few hours later? A few days later?
By Bill the Lexington GOP delegate May 27, 2009 at 11:01 am
Believe it or not, this happens sometimes. Also, sometimes they DO get the vote count incorrect, and it has to be corrected in order to accurately reflect what all lawmakers votes actually were.
Any lawmaker should be able to go to the clerk and demand that his vote be corrected. If the Senate had ON THE RECORD voting for every vote, with a big lit up board like the House has, this problem would be solved. It is RINO lefties like Jake Knotts who fight such attempts at open government.