Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
The Index-Journal
January 20
Calls for the United States to heal and unite
This was being written just 24 hours before noon today, well before the sun set on Tuesday or rose today over the United States Capitol.
A lot was done before today’s events, before the transition of power from one president to another. Security details have always been an element of that preparation, but not to the extent seen today.
The transition from President Trump’s power to President-elect Biden should be a solemn yet graceful ceremony. It would be ridiculous to believe or think that any of the men could or would be able to put differences aside entirely; after all, each represents a different party and, to a large extent, a different set of ideals and political ideology. Still, Americans and the world rightly expect grace, goodwill, decorum, decency and decorum to take precedence over personal and political differences during our presidential inaugurations.
It is this ceremonial property that can help to alleviate post-electoral wounds and restore some level of confidence in the people that we will still survive, despite our political differences, that our democratic republic will remain intact, which – as with our entire line of presidencies – America survived. That will still survive.
The Bushes and Clintons, the Obama and Trumps – are recent examples of the transition of power with grace.
As of this writing, there is tension across the country. Palpable tension. Our hopes and prayers are with those in Washington, DC, today. While we think it was nothing short of rude that the Trumps despised the Bidens during today’s transition, we hope and pray that today’s ceremonies are safe and secure.
We hope that talking about more violence and even civil war is just that – talk. America needs to heal and stand behind what unites us, not what creates a wedge. And you need to start now.
The Post and Courier
January 18
Tax money distribution reform process for legislators’ favorite projects
The South Carolina Senate was never known as a reform-oriented body. In fact, it was designed from the beginning to be conservative in the traditional sense of the word: resistant to change, any change, good or bad. And reforms are, by definition, changes. This resistance to change still prevails today – through rules that allow a single senator to prevent debate over all but the most important legislation – regardless of whether the change is good or bad, whether it meets the modern definition of “liberal” or “conservative”. “
So it is particularly encouraging that the Senate is leading the way in reforming South Carolina’s secretive process of distributing tax money to lawmakers’ favorite projects.
Even before Governor Henry McMaster could renew his request for reform of funds during his State of the State address on Wednesday, the Senate had already amended its rules with better reform designed to remove secrecy from the process. In fact, that was the first thing the Senate did after taking office at the opening of the 2021 General Assembly last week.
The new rule, drafted by Republican Senate leader Shane Massey, will not prevent the legislature from funding boondoggles or even smart programs that simply should be paid for by local taxpayers or individuals. But it will ensure that senators, and the public, finally know how the money is being spent on these special allocations and who is behind them. To that end, it prohibits the Senate from voting on the state budget until the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee provides a list of all funds, along with who requested them, how much they cost and “an explanation of the project or program”. The rule applies to any “allocation for a specific program or project that did not originate from a written request for an agency budget or that is not included in an appropriation law from the previous fiscal year”.
It also requires a written explanation of any funds included in the final version of the budget negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee, although that explanation only needs to identify which body made the request.
This points to the obvious shortcoming of the rule: it does not identify the sponsors of funds from the Chamber. House Ways and Means President Murrell Smith told the Post and Seanna Adcox of the Courier last year that he intended to lift the veil of secrecy from House duties, but we need more than a promise from the legislator. The Chamber must adopt its own version of the Senate rule.
Democratic Senator Dick Harpootlian, one of the leaders of the bipartisan anti-linking campaign, told us that while he and Massey believe the rule will eliminate all local parks, fire trucks and civic programs that may or may not be worth it, “no we’ll know until we try to use it “and see if budget makers find a way around this.
Critics of the rule predicted just that last year, when sponsors launched a similar proposal, noting that lawmakers could simply go directly to state agency directors and ask them to include their special projects in those agencies’ budgets. And that could happen, but it is doubtful, because it misinterprets the point and the process of the brands.
Agency directors would not respond to such requests from most lawmakers, even if most lawmakers had the audacity to ask. They finance the money because the money is in the state budget and instructions on how to spend it come from the budget writers in the House and Senate, or, more often, from their employees. Although budget writers certainly claim their share of funding for their own pet projects, they mainly use the funds as a tool, offering them to lawmakers who would otherwise not have the influence to get their projects funded in exchange for their vote. legislators to approve the entire state budget.
We should never have to do the government that way, but maybe we do. Still, there is no justification for the secret process South Carolina uses: there are no official budget documents to explain or even identify the funds. The public has no way of finding out what is being financed until long after the budget has been debated and approved. Most lawmakers don’t even know.
Hence the new Senate rule, which was inserted in the rewrite of the entire set of operational rules in the Senate – something that is produced every four years after a new Senate is installed. While other changes to the rules drew wide debate, no one spoke out against the reform mark.
Either it is a really encouraging sign that the senators have finally recognized that there is simply no way to defend public money spending so secretly – or else an indication that the reformers have been deceived again. We hope it will be the first.
The Times and Democrat
January 18
Reform of voter identification processes
Before there is a transfer of power after a contentious election in 2020, it is safe to say that voting and voting rights will be issues again in the effort for the mid-term elections in 2022. In South Carolina, there is no unanimity of opinion about voting laws, but there is at least one measure of stability.
South Carolina is a model for other voter identification states, as it requires a photo ID, but states that no voter will be denied the right to vote, with or without a photo.
The South Carolina voter at the ballot box must show a driver’s license, an ID card issued by the SC Department of Motor Vehicles instead of a driver’s license, a South Carolina voter card with a photo, a federal military ID card or a US passport. USA. Free photo IDs are available at the DMV or county voters’ offices.
If a voter does not have one of these identity documents, he or she can vote on a provisional ballot that will count if the person shows a photo ID to the electoral commission before the election is certified (usually Thursday or Friday after the election ).
If a person cannot obtain a photo ID in time for the election, he or she can bring a voter registration card without a photo to the polling place and vote on a provisional ballot after signing a declaration stating that he or she has a reasonable impediment to obtaining a photo ID. Reasonable impediment means any valid reason, outside the control of the person, which makes it difficult to obtain photo identification:
The ballot will be valid unless someone proves to the electoral commission that it is a matter of lying about your identity or having the impediment listed.
South Carolina is protecting the right of those who do not have a photo ID issued by the state, but at the same time it is moving towards the ideal, which is that every voter has such identification.
To promote this goal nationally, a concept presented by Andrew Young, former UN ambassador, congressman and mayor of Atlanta, and Martin Luther King III, must be given a new look. Called “No Voter Left Behind”, the idea was developed by Young and Norm Ornstein.
At the LBJ Summit celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act on April 9, 2014, they proposed that the Social Security Administration by mail or in each of its approximately 1,300 offices be authorized and equipped to issue – at the request of a citizen – a Security Card with photo of the person.
An ID card with a Social Security photo would be accepted as a voter in any state.
Young people and advocates of the program say it would greatly ease concerns that voter identification laws would otherwise deprive eligible voters simply because they have no photo identification. This would also guarantee uninterrupted voting rights if a citizen moves.
The concept makes sense, since the Social Security card is the only form of identity that every American citizen is already entitled to. SSA employees are trained to help citizens establish proof of identity, and the agency even offers a hotline.
Compared to many programs, the price would be minimal. The estimated cost of providing the equipment needed for each office is $ 2,000 to $ 2.5 million nationwide. The actual cost of producing the cards was estimated at 8 cents each.
In addition to fixed costs, a public awareness campaign would be necessary. The combined costs of these efforts, however, remain small as a matter of budget compared to the benefits conferred – not to mention the costs of litigation around voter cards.
As an added benefit, Social Security photo cards would, according to law enforcement authorities, significantly improve the integrity of the I-9 employee verification process. It would be much more difficult for workers to use someone else’s card.
In a broader social context, the lack of photo identity is a serious burden for many citizens, especially low-income Americans. This would also solve this problem.