THE ISSUE: Roll-call voting

OUR OPINION: S.C. has adequate rules to ensure when voting will be by roll call

Critics of the South Carolina General Assembly say it is among the worst bodies in the nation for letting voters know how it makes decisions. Specifically, Gov. Mark Sanford and the watchdog group the South Carolina Policy Council are out front criticizing lawmakers for not holding roll-call votes.

On the surface, the argument is sound. People should know how lawmakers vote.

In reality, they can. Any so-called failure at transparency in the process can be handled under present legislative rules.

A study by the Policy Council released this past week identifies South Carolina as one of only five states not requiring lawmakers to record their votes when passing bills and as the state with the most burdensome requirement for requesting a recorded vote.

The group’s research shows 41 states mandate a recorded vote on all bills in at least one legislative chamber. Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina and Wisconsin require a recorded vote on revenue bills.

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Vermont are the only states that do not require lawmakers to vote on the record when passing bills.

The contention is that on the record means roll-call votes, which the Policy Council says the S.C. House uses only 8 percent of the time and the Senate 1 percent.

Before further painting a picture of lawmakers anxious not to let people know how they voted, consider that a lot of votes taken in the Legislature are routine, from resolutions honoring or memorializing individuals to legislation that might otherwise be called “local interest.” Plus roll calls may not always be taken after a key vote on legislation came earlier and final approval is but a formality.

The South Carolina Constitution mandates a recorded vote on elections by the General Assembly, taking up the governor’s vetoes, contested Supreme Court elections, removal of officers and amendments to the state Constitution.

Otherwise, lawmakers can make decisions by voice votes. Even then, the vote is not anonymous.

As Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto pointed out during the recently completed election campaign: “We vote in the Legislature all of the time. If you don’t record yourself as voting ‘no,’ then you’ve voted ‘yes.’ If I don’t say ‘no,’ then, I’ve said, ‘yes.’ It’s not really a problem.

“It takes half an hour to physically call roll ... If the vote is 46-0, what have we accomplished ... It’s worked this way hundreds of years and there has not been a problem. I’m certainly not worried about people knowing how I vote ... To physically hold up the work of the Senate would be a waste of time.”

Also, Hutto makes a point that most work on bills is done in committee. Once they reach the floor for a vote, they’ve already faced objections and the compromise has been made.

The Policy Council position is that voice votes should only be used for the “most perfunctory and frivolous resolutions.”

Not waiting to debate the definition of what should and should not be the subject of roll calls, Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington, is ready to push the 2009 Spending Accountability Act. It would amend South Carolina law to establish what the Policy Council calls one of the nation’s toughest accountability standards.

The bill would require a recorded vote on second reading of all bills and third reading if the bill is amended. It would also require a recorded vote on conference committee reports and each section of the state budget. The bill currently has 25 House co-sponsors as well as public support from the governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller general, Senate president pro tempore and Senate majority leader.

The legislation could pass in a wave of sentiment about holding lawmakers accountable. But it is an overreach. For a roll call in the House, only 10 members must make the request. In the Senate, the requirement is five. If Rep. Haley and the cosponsors are adamant about roll calls, they should make the requests.

The South Carolina Legislature is under pressure to shorten the session in a money-saving move. Requiring roll-call votes by law, or even with a group of lawmakers constantly forcing them, will do less than claimed to make government more transparent and potentially bog down a process that is not broken.

You must be logged in to comment.