Voting records lacking
Some question absence of roll call on some bills
Trying to track down a legislator’s voting record might be a little like chasing Bigfoot: First, you have to find out if it really exists.
Open-government advocates argue the state Legislature’s lack of roll-call votes — revealed in a new study — is designed so that legislators have “plausible deniability” when comes to taking a stance on controversial bills.
South Carolina’s legislative leaders, though, say they and their colleagues want to be on record when it comes to important bills, that taking roll call on procedural matters would clog the system and cost money. Besides, they reason, a bill that passes without a roll-call vote indicates unanimous support on the House and Senate floors.
Further, the South Carolina Policy Council’s analysis of roll-call votes on its own is misleading, legislators say.
What the conservative think tank found is that the House called roll on 8 percent of the bills that became law this year, while the Senate did so only 1 percent of the time. That practice is at odds with standards in most states nationally and in South Carolina’s neighboring states.
Gov. Mark Sanford’s office did not hesitate in condemning the Legislature.
“It’s a shocking lack of accountability,” the governor’s press secretary, Joel Sawyer, said. “Our entire system is built upon this idea of people standing up and being counted and then being held accountable for their actions come November.
“What our General Assembly has done is effectively obscure that from the public view,” he said.
All but nine states have a constitutional requirement for roll-call votes on final approval of legislation, according to information provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Requirements in Georgia, Florida and North Carolina are guided by a mix of constitutional provisions and legislative rules.
South Carolina does require roll call be taken in a few instances, including when considering to override a gubernatorial veto and passing a constitutional amendment.
In the House, all contested items must be passed with a roll call. Roll call also is taken in the House at the request of 10 members. It takes five senators to call for roll on any vote.
House Speaker Bobby Harrell’s office released figures that took a broader look at the matter. For the two-year session that concluded in June, roll was taken 1,102 times in the House. That also takes into account votes cast in 2007, bills that did not become law and voting on amendments, none of which the Policy Council’s tally factored in.
Although voting on amendments is not as easy for the public to track as a straight vote on approval of a bill, amendments sometimes replace the entire text of a bill so the vote in those cases is very telling.
Roll call in the Senate is taken by the reading clerk who calls each senator by name. House members vote on an electronic board, which costs taxpayers $55 for every vote because of the cost of paper, printing, staff time, maintenance, power and technology fees, according to Harrell’s office.
“If some are suggesting that we should spend taxpayer dollars and increase government waste by taking a roll-call vote on every measure — whether warranted or not — I do not think that is a very wise decision,” Harrell, R-Charleston, said.
Here’s a breakdown of the voting tango for the Legislature’s illegal immigration reform bill, which became law on June 4.
On such a complex matter, literally dozens of recorded actions are part of the official record, outside of the three readings needed for a bill to become law. The actual bill that became law received roll-call votes in the House on second and third reading but no recorded votes on second or third reading in the Senate. First reading approval is routine when bills are introduced.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said taking roll on every issue would be a waste of time. A lot of the Senate’s business is conducted by unanimous consent and if a member objects, as in the House, he or she can make a statement to be recorded in the journal.
“It’s not weakening accountability, it’s making efficient use of the time,” McConnell said. “If everyone is in agreement why do you need to call their name out one after another?”
Still, McConnell said he is not opposed to the idea of calling roll more often, and for the past several months, he’s been working with Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington, on legislation to do just that.
“Is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it wholesale wrong the way it’s being done? No,” McConnell said.
Haley said she wants to see roll taken whenever a bill is approved that spends taxpayer dollars.
“I think there is a real opportunity for the people to see the spending habits of those they elected to represent them, and to keep the conscience of every legislator at its peak and also to give accountability and comfort to the public,” Haley said.
Bryan D. Cox, communications director for the Policy Council, said considering the amount of time legislators spend on floor speeches, introduction of guests and other things like proclamations, an argument that there is no time for roll-call votes is “silly.”
Likewise, Cox said, it would be hard for the legislators to say the state can’t pay money for roll-call voting when money from a grant fund goes to pay for things like a balloon festival in Anderson and a peach festival in Gilbert.
The issue is especially important, Cox said, because of government growth in spending.
“Other Southeastern states mandate roll-call voting — tell me a reason why other states can do it but South Carolina can’t do it,” Cox said.
U.S. Rep. and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said he does not think a direct correlation between roll-call voting and transparency exists.
In Congress, any single senator or House member can call for a recorded vote, so Washington insiders explain that all substantial issues are logged.
Clyburn said in the House, roll call often is done for partisan reasons. Bills move through the subcommittee and committee process — which is open for public scrutiny — and ideally when one reaches the floor, it is perfunctory at that point, he said.
Byron Schlomach, director of center of economic prosperity at the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute for policy research said that when it comes to transparency in government, however, more can only mean better.
Schlomach, who worked with state legislatures for 13 years, said the issue is not unique to South Carolina and that legislators in states with more regulations on roll-call voting find ways of getting around being recorded.
“The main reason is so they can have plausible deniability when it comes to their position on various measures,” Schlomach said. “Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted — frankly, that’s what they’ve been asked to do.”
By Yvonne Wenger
The Post and Courier
August 11, 2008