I’m not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the chairman (Sen. Larry Martin R-Pickens) was gracious enough to allow me to address the committee. Generally, testimony is not heard at the full committee level. Here’s what I said:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I want to thank you for this special meeting to consider s.1512. As I said on the floor last week, this bill was a quick reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling, causing the disenfranchisement of nearly 200 candidates Democrats and Republicans alike. I wanted to drop a bill in the hopper, generate a debate, and get first reading since the time frame is so short. I am confident the process will produce a workable solution.

These districts belong to the people. On June 12, the Democrats and Republicans across this state will decide their respective nominees, and in November the voters will decide who they want to represent them.

The fallout of the Supreme Court’s ruling has eliminated nearly 200 candidates, all challengers. We have two sets of rules. Current legislators are required to file the statement of economic interest by April 15th each year. If we are late, we simply pay a fine, a slap on the wrist.

First time candidates, however, must file the same statement with a deadline 15 days earlier than ours. If they are a second late, they are disqualified. We get a slap on the wrist, they get the death penalty. That’s just wrong.

Some are accusing the General Assembly of purposefully setting up roadblocks to protect opponents and some say it wasn’t intentional. Personally, I was unaware of the disparity until last week. I think a blame game at this point is irrelevant and should wait until next session when a permanent fix can be constructed. Let’s put that discussion on hold and fix the problem before us as time is not on our side.

I ask that the Judiciary Committee take s.1512 and amend it as you see fit. This committee’s membership and staff consists of some of our State’s sharpest legal minds and I am confident y’all can find a way to thread is needle.

If we don’t act quickly, there are nearly 200 legislative districts in which their voters will not have a choice.

We’ve got a problem, a good problem. So good, we need your help.

We’ve had several hundred good conservatives ask for a sign for their yard so they can show their support. I’ve got everything sorted out by precinct, so if you have a few minutes of time to help deliver these signs, I’d really appreciate your help. Call or text me at 864-202-8394

Thanks!

Martin to call emergency meeting for resolution to let candidates on ballot

Columbia, SC – May 4, 2012 – Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin today announced that he will call an emergency meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, May 8, and 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of discussing and passing legislation aimed at allowing candidates affected by the recent Supreme Court decision back onto primary ballots.

A joint resolution introduced by Senator Kevin Bryant and others would give candidate who filed the rest of their paperwork on time to have an additional 12 hour period to provide their Statements of Economic Interest to political party officials in order to complete their filing requirements and preserve a spot on the ballot.

Martin, who supports the Bryant measure, said he will call the meeting in order to get the resolution to the Senate floor as quickly as possible.

“I don’t fault the Supreme Court for their decision, but clearly there is a deficiency in the law if so many people were adversely affected by these requirements,” Senator Martin said. “Our democratic process should not be derailed by what amounts to a technicality. People across South Carolina deserve a chance to vote for those who made a good faith effort to comply with the law, particularly when they had every reason to believe they would appear on the ballot. The General Assembly needs to step in quickly and rectify what I believe would be a real disservice to voters if allowed to stand.”

I had the privilege of being a guest on Josh Kimbrell’s “Common Cents” show on 66am click here if you’d like to hear the audio
Constitutionally Stealing Elections in South Carolina Posted by Josh Kimbrell on May 03, 2012
One of the most critical and quintessential aspects of republican government is free and fair elections. If the integrity of the electoral process breaks down, so does the American system of self-government and representative democracy. That’s why, here in South Carolina, we’re now faced with one of the most fundamental issues in this primary election season. Do we have a system of free elections, and do our election laws meet the “equal protection” qualification of American law?

Yesterday, in a surprising verdict, the SC Supreme Court voted 5-0 to disqualify dozens of candidates for public office in our state. This was the first year in South Carolina that candidates for public office were required to electronically submit an economic interest declaration to the SC Ethics Commission concurrent with filing as a candidate. This new requirement was intended to improve our state’s ethics laws, as there have been questions about members of the General Assembly having conflicts of interest upon entering office. These conflicts of interest have included retainer contracts between legislators and businesses that contract business with the state. These retainer contracts were, essentially, state-dependent businesses buying votes on legislation critical to their cause.

While no consistent conservative would oppose such improvements in ethics and economic interests reporting, the way in which these improvements were implemented leaves something to be desired. The General Assembly, in passing these ethics reforms, continued their time-tested practice of prescribing one set of rules for them, and another set of rules for the rest of us. In keeping with this tradition, our state election laws provide different deadlines and different penalties for incumbent legislators and those who are challenging them. For example, the filing deadline to run for reelection is April 15th for a member of the General Assembly, but March 30th for those who seek to challenge them. The penalty for failing to file an economic interest report at the time of filing for a member of the General Assembly is a $100.00 fine, but for a prospective challenger it is disqualification from the state ballot. Sounds like political elites protecting their power, position and perquisites to me.

While the SC Supreme Court followed the letter of the law in their ruling yesterday, thus disqualifying dozens of candidates in Republican and Democratic primaries, they ignored the rule of law. The Court ruled on the side of sucking up to the state legislature, not standing up for the right of the people to seek public office. That’s because, under our state’s lack of separation-of-powers, the legislature, not the Governor, appoints the members of the Supreme Court. As such, the decision of the Court was more about politics than protecting equal justice under law. Two sets of election laws, one for incumbent office holders and the other for their challengers, violates the equal protection clause and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The Court must have missed that fact, or were too busy playing to their masters in the legislature.

In order to reverse this case of insider political protectionism, I support SC Senator Kevin Bryant’s (R-Anderson) common sense proposal that we reopen filing for office. In order to ensure that equal protection is provided, and that free and fair elections prevail, Senator Bryant has proposed a bill that would reopen filing for public office for 12 hours. This would provide the necessary time for candidates to comply with the ambiguous requirement for online ethics filing. This is an act of true statesmanship on the part of Senator Bryant, and I want to thank him for it; it is far too rare that we see an act of selflessness in state government. It bears mentioning that Senator Bryant himself has a primary challenger, though I’m more confident than ever in Kevin’s conservative credentials.

We must end the era of politics-as-usual in Columbia if we’re going to move South Carolina forward. The practice of politicians passing one set of laws for themselves, and another set for the folks, is repulsive and it must stop. Senator Bryant’s measure must pass, so that politics once again becomes about the business of the people not the power and possessions of the well-connected. It’s worth mentioning that this whole mess was started in the first place by an incumbent state senator who put a few supporters up to filing a lawsuit to disqualify his primary opponent. So, in the name of protecting his position, one politician was willing to sacrifice the voice of the people. We must deny him the opportunity to steal an election in our state, for South Carolina is better than this.

This bill is something that I didn’t have much time to think about it, nor am I sure what we should actually do. On Wednesday, May 2nd, the Supreme Court made a ruling that may remove nearly a 100 candidates from the June primaries and November’s general election ballots. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the the true interpretation of election statute. However, the law currently protects incumbents. Current legislators must file their statement of economic interest by April 15 every year. Candidates must file this information before filing ends on the last day of March. I think this is unfair and may have led to the misunderstanding of the law by so many candidates.

S.1512 simply says that the candidates that failed to meet the required deadline may have another opportunity. It gives them 12 hours on May 18th to file the appropriate information. There are several ways to deal with this problem and the judiciary committee may find some other way. I’m certainly open to all ideas and possible amendments. S. 1512 is a vehicle for an open debate on the pressing matter. I’m honored to have the following cosponsors from the whole political and partisan spectrum. Senators Leventis, Bright, Ryberg, Davis, Grooms, Gregory, Ford, Williams, Anderson, Fair, Coleman and Setzler

I’ve been wrangling with all sides and arguments on the technicalities, however, I must claim that when there’s an issue with worthy arguments on each side, we must always side with open and free elections.