Best out for ‘home rule’ quandary
Action on a proposed “home rule” constitutional amendment was delayed in a Senate subcommittee last week, and that’s a good thing. There were and still are far too many concerns about making any changes to the hard-fought provision for county “home rule” that was added to the state Constitution in 1973. Further, lawmakers should heed those who contend that there are other ways short of constitutional change to skin the cat.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell proposed the constitutional change as one way to cure legal problems, now faced by a number of local boards and commissions, brought on by the legislators themselves. Those problems all stem from an important “home rule” provision that prohibits lawmakers from passing “local” or “special legislation.” That prohibition was intended to end the days when legislators ran county government from Columbia. Unfortunately, some legislators have continued to defy the ban, resulting in a number of successful protests to the courts.
There was a period of transition when lawmakers were allowed to pass “special legislation” for their particular county in order to turn over the local powers they had given themselves to county councils. But many were reluctant to do so. And even those who later saw the light and passed such local transitional laws were told last year by the S.C. Supreme Court in a Richland case that they had waited too late.
That ruling, for example, has put Charleston County Council’s power to appoint the Park and Recreation Commission in jeopardy along with a number of other boards and commissions. Further, court rulings have given legislators who have ignored the “special legislation” ban cause for regret. The merger of the county’s Board of Voter Registration and Election Commission, whose members still are appointed by legislators, is one local example. Sen. McConnell is concerned that commission decisions in this critical election year are vulnerable to challenge. Officials of the S.C. Association of Counties point out, however, that the constitutional amendment couldn’t solve that problem since it wouldn’t even be put to a vote until the November election.
There is a ready and immediate cure: the passage of statewide bills to handle these issues. For example, a statewide bill could stipulate that all recreation commissions be appointed by county councils or all county boards of voter registration and election commissions be merged. But apparently there still are too many state lawmakers who don’t want to give up any of the local control they have managed to retain to agree to such a statewide mandate.
Sen. McConnell says the cure is to re-open the window of opportunity for “special legislation” by amending the “home rule” section of the constitution, a prospect that has unnerved county officials. Discussion of the McConnell proposal was put on hold by the subcommittee last week while a Senate attorney attempted to allay concerns by tightening the language on what kind of “special laws” could be passed.
At this writing, county officials remain unconvinced and are worried that the amendment could be the beginning of the end of their most vital “home rule” protection. They contend that there is absolutely no reason to amend the constitution when there is an option for statewide legislation that even the most anti-home rule lawmaker should be able to buy. They say a statewide law could be passed that would give legislators the option of continuing to appoint a recreation commission or turn it over to county council. That same option could be written into a state law on the merger of election commissions and boards of registration.
Sen. McConnell should heed the legitimate concerns about tampering with the constitution’s home rule provision and turn his attention to drafting statewide legislation that gives those lawmakers who want to resolve the legal problems in their counties the option to do so.
The Post & Courier
3/17/2008
Comments
Leave a Reply
