|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina’s “Republican-controlled” General Assembly is staring down a lawsuit from one of its own members after lawmakers gave themselves pay raises in the $41 billion state budget set to take effect on July 1, 2025.
The controversial move – first reported by FITSNews – would give each member of the legislature 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.
Late Friday (June 6, 2025), one member of the S.C. General Assembly – state senator Wes Climer of Rock Hill, S.C. – petitioned the S.C. supreme court to issue a writ of injunction blocking the disbursement of any monies related to these pay raises. Climer and his co-petitioner – state retiree Carol Herring – are represented by former S.C. senator Dick Harpootlian.
Climer was one of only a handful of lawmakers to vote against the budget containing the pay raise.
***
Per the filing, “the basis for this petition is that the South Carolina Constitution prohibits a General Assembly from increasing the compensation of its own members.”
“For a General Assembly to vote to give its own members public money is akin to a judge presiding over his own trial, or to a police officer investigating his own alleged conduct,” the filing noted. “It is a violation of the ancient principle that nemo index in causa sua – persons with a personal interest in a legal matter should not be the persons who decide that matter.”
As FITSNews reported last month, constitutional questions about the pay raise have been swirling almost from the moment it was proposed.
According to the S.C. Constitution (Article III, Section 19), “no General Assembly shall have the power to increase the per diem of its own members.” In other words, lawmakers are only allowed to award pay raises to future legislatures – i.e. those General Assemblies chosen in subsequent election cycles. They are not allowed to pay additional funds to themselves.
“Our constitution has always provided that the General Assembly may not increase the compensation of its members before an intervening general election,” the petition noted. “(This) proviso raises legislators’ compensation by 80% before any intervening general election.”
***
RELATED | DID LAWMAKERS’ PAY RAISE VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION?
***
Lawmakers who supported the pay hike – which was approved by governor Henry McMaster – insist the money is not “compensation” because it is earmarked for “official use.”
Climer’s petition shreds that fiction, referring to lawmakers’ actions as “a statement of open defiance and contempt for our constitution.”
“Payment for ‘in-district compensation’ is taxable personal income for members of the General Assembly with no restrictions on its use,” the filing contended. “They may use it entirely for any personal purposes. Periodic payments of money, reported and taxed as personal income, with no restrictions on use for personal purposes, to which the recipient is entitled because of services provided to the entity paying the money, are compensation.”
In addition to running afoul of the constitution, Climer’s filing suggests lawmakers knew what they were doing in trying to sneak the pay raises into the budget without a public debate on the constitutionality of the appropriations.
“This unconstitutional attempt to increase members’ income was enacted not only in violation of the constitution – and in violation of every constitution this state has had – but as a budgetary earmark enacted on the last day of the session to avoid all public hearings and legislative deliberation,” the document noted. “For shame.”
“The General Assembly intentionally did what the constitution says it cannot do,” the filing stated. “The General Assembly did so not for some worthy policy goal its members felt so desirable that they were willing to cut corners to achieve it, but merely to take money from the public treasury and put it in their personal bank accounts.”
Several lawmakers have already publicly indicated they are refusing to accept the funds.
“Public service is sacrifice not self-reward,” noted April Cromer, who joined twenty-four of her colleagues in the S.C. House of Representatives in voting against the budget last month.
The court seems inclined to move expeditiously on this matter, alerting attorneys for both sides that returns in the case will be due by 5:00 p.m. EDT next Monday (June 16, 2025) with replies due by 5:00 p.m. EDT next Wednesday (June 18, 2025).
***
UPDATE |
***
THE FILING…
(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.
1 comment
No surprise here – Refresh my memory – who is it who appoints SC Supremes???