BEAUFORT, S.C. – South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis released the following statement regarding the order (attached) filed yesterday by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the matter of Davis v. Leatherman, et al., wherein the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition filed by Sen. Davis on December 12, 2016, seeking a clarification regarding certain amendments to the South Carolina Constitution pertaining to the office of the Lieutenant Governor:
“As a long-standing matter of state jurisprudence and as recently stated by the Court itself, the Court exercises its original jurisdiction “where the issue involved is of such public importance that its resolution is required for future guidance.” (Quoting from South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank, 403 S.C. 640, 645 (2013)). The petition I filed with the Court is a classic case of such guidance for the future being required and the Court, by accepting jurisdiction, is to be commended for recognizing that fact.
“The Court is also to be commended for setting an expedited scheduled for the filing of additional briefs (close of business this Friday) and the presentation of oral arguments (next Wednesday at 2:30 p.m.). Clearly, judicial notice is being taken of the political dominoes that will start to fall soon after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration onJanuary 20 – specifically, when Gov. Nikki Haley is confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be our country’s UN ambassador and Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster vacates his office to become governor.
“But this isn’t about just a single succession issue; also at stake is whether, beginning in 2018, the people of South Carolina will start to elect the governor and lieutenant governor on the same ticket. If the ratification of the constitutional amendments by the General Assembly in 2014 is defective, then the amendments approved by the people in the general election of 2012 are a nullity, and the governor and lieutenant governor will continue to be elected separately. Forever shutting the door on such a “defective ratification” argument is of the utmost importance.
“That latter point deserves particular emphasis: the legitimacy of all the Article III and IV amendments approved by the voters in 2012 is now under a cloud because, arguably, the General Assembly’s ratification failed to precisely conform to the amendments that were authorized for consideration by the voters and to the amendments that were actually approved by the voters. Ratification by the General Assembly is the third and final step of the constitutional amendment process; it’s not simply a scrivener’s task or a simple act of codification.
“Given these stakes, I was disappointed when the return to my petition filed by Speaker Jay Lucas and Rep. Greg Delleney asked the Court for a dismissal, alleging that “if a majority of the General Assembly believes that any clarifications are needed to 2014 Act 214, those clarifications can be enacted.” That is simply untrue; Article XVI of the state constitution provides the legislature’s ratification had to occur after the 2012 general election in which the constitutional referendum was approved by the qualified electors and before another general election, and that window of time for legislative action has closed. It is my hope that, at the oral arguments next Wednesday, Speaker Lucas and Rep. Delleney will abandon that position and acknowledge the necessity of a declaration by the Court to carry out the people’s will.
“I was also disappointed when the return to the petition filed by Senate President Pro Tem Hugh Leatherman and Sen. Luke Rankin asked the Court to dismiss the petition, alleging that, until the office of the Lieutenant Governor is actually vacated, “the Court would be wading into a hypothetical arena devoid of established facts in violation of the ripeness doctrine.” The Court was right to reject this argument; the ambiguity in regard to the constitutional amendments has existed ever since the 2014 ratification and the subsequent codification of the changes to the state constitution by the Legislative Council, and it will continue to exist if and when Lt. Gov. McMaster succeeds Gov. Haley later this month. It is my hope that, at next week’s oral arguments, Senate President Pro Tem Leatherman and Sen. Rankin will abandon this “ripeness” argument and join in my prayer for a declaration by the Court carrying out the people’s will.
“This goes to the very heart of constitutional governance; the people’s will, legitimately exercised in the manner authorized by the state constitution, has not been clearly carried out; the people without question intended for the amendments to Articles III and IV to be effective after the joint election of the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor at the general election in 2018, but this isn’t what the amendments as ratified by the General Assembly and codified by the Legislative Council currently provide. This ambiguity cannot be allowed to stand.
“In recent days, some elected officials have asked me to drop my petition, believing that if we do nothing, then the problem will eventually go away on its own. But simply putting our heads in the sand and hoping nobody ever files a “defective ratification” challenge is irresponsible; instead, we must act now and forever shut the door on such an argument ever being made.
“For these reasons, it is my hope and expectation that, at the oral arguments before the Court next Wednesday, all of the respondents to this action will join in my prayer that the Court declare all of the constitutional amendments to be effective “beginning with the general election of 2018” and “upon the joint election” of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.”
###
Editor’s Note: The above communication is a news release from an elected official does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of FITSNews.com. To submit your letter, news release, email blast, media advisory or issues statement for publication, click here.
(Banner via Sic)